Self Promotion

Rajeev Malhotra

I find two kinds of apologetics. The first kind, while defending their ideology, principle, or faith, also attempts to promote it. The second kind, while defending their beliefs, inadvertently promotes themselves. Several times, this self-promotion is unintentional. When I read certain apologetics, such as Rajeev Malhotra, I often feel that he promotes himself more than his views. One reason for this could be that he lives in America, where personal promotion is highly valued due to the emphasis on individualism, which promotes personal success over the promotion of a policy or principle. This observation comes from my limited knowledge of America and the West.

In my view, when one defends their ideology, they should help people grapple with their points rather than with their personality. Not to promote myself, but when I advocate for my principle of personal bhakti I aim to inspire other bhaktas to engage with their faith in the Lord, regardless of their birth identity—be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc. People should focus on the principle rather than on me. I do not consider myself an apologist and prefer to remain an anonymous bhakta of the Lord. Thus, when anyone reads my poems or writings, they should engage with their faith in relation to their cultural and social identity rather than being overwhelmed by my personality. I emphasize this because I am aware of my limitations and imperfections, and I should not let them become obstacles for others while reading my poems or thoughts.

Of course, no writer, particularly an apologist, can completely separate themselves from their principles. It is challenging to separate a person from their principles. However, ultimately, one must leave the body behind. It would be beneficial if one could leave their personality behind as well, allowing their principles to endure for others to follow. Present Hindu apologists like Malhotra (and Vamsee Juluri1) who come from the West may not be as helpful for those of us living in India, as their writings might not resonate with us, though they might benefit us negatively by not promoting themselves.

I did not watch the video of Malhotra’s interview with an ex-Christian, as I had already seen another interview. In that interview, Malhotra spoke with an ex-Brahmin Christian from Andhra. She had converted to Christianity after being impressed by the ‘loving actions’ of Christian pastors, followed by her parents, and later, her siblings. She then moved to the USA, married a Christian (I am unsure if he is Indian or non-Indian), and pursued higher studies at a reputed Christian university, specializing in the history of Christianity. After in-depth study, particularly of the Old Testament, she abandoned her Christian faith. Although she continued attending church due to her husband and daughter, she managed to convince her husband to stop going to church. I am unsure if she also abandoned her bhakti in the Lord.

As someone who is not an academician and lacks theological study, I believe that understanding the history of any religion based on their scriptures or missionary endeavors does not always lead to a comprehensive understanding. Modern educational tools are often used to interpret scriptures that were written or composed in times when such tools were not available. Similarly, analyzing a religion’s history based on missionary work also has limitations, as each generation of missionary work faces unique challenges that modern understandings of history and mission cannot fully address. Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History, New York, Orbis Books, [1996], Tenth Printing 2005, is a best example for this, though well written.

After watching that interview, I was struck by how Malhotra managed to impress (or manipulate) the interviewee into endorsing his views, making them agree to most of his statements with ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ He skillfully placed words in their mouths and made them confess in a way that suited his agenda. He frequently summarized their views rather than allowing them to provide lengthy answers to his questions. This technique is effective in interviews. A genuine interview should involve asking short and precise questions, allowing the interviewee to respond in their own words, even if their answers are lengthy. Allowing someone to speak too much can lead to contradictions, which can then be highlighted. However, Malhotra, with his clear agenda to promote himself, managed to manipulate the interviewee. If criticized, Malhotra would likely deny any manipulation and successfully counter such criticism, given his extensive experience.

Therefore, I would not invest my time responding to Malhotra’s apologetics, despite having learned a lot from his books and videos. I did not watch the video you sent of an ex-BJP or RSS person who converted to Christianity and later denied it. I believe it is unnecessary to watch it, as Malhotra’s interviews often follow a similar agenda. Regarding RSS and BJP, it is clear that RSS has an open agenda: MAKING INDIA HINDU. They are transparent about their goal of establishing a Hindu nation in India, which they term cultural nationalism. They use ‘religious Hinduism’ to achieve this, even though some founding members of RSS did not practice religious Hinduism seriously. [For a better understanding, see Christophe Jaffrelot (ed.), Hindu Nationalism, Permanent Black, Ranikhet, 2009.] Similarly, they created the BJP as their political arm. The Sangh Parivar’s overall purpose is evident: to homogenize Hindus, even if it means abolishing the caste system2. They now integrate many so-called backward-class intellectuals into local and regional leadership roles, alongside many high-caste individuals. Ultimately, they will run the show from behind the scenes, in no hurry and avoiding publicity. Though the RSS is not a Brahmin organization, it has undergone a complete Brahmanization. Since Brahmins seek authority rather than power, the RSS, while maintaining authority, is willing to delegate power to anyone—be it the BJP or other factions within or outside its network—as long as it serves their agenda.

The only antidote to counter their agenda is sincere SECULARISM. Unfortunately, Indian secularism has become pseudo-secularism, with political secularists using it for minority appeasement to gain temporary political power. They act hastily, which undermines genuine secularism. Dynastic politics at both central and regional levels further impedes efforts to counter the Sangh Parivar. As long as dynastic politics controls regional politics, genuine secularism remains elusive. Even many sincere and talented leaders in opposing camps, as well as the families involved in dynastic politics, are aware of this. However, they are trapped in a cycle of pseudo-secularism, which they used in the past to gain temporary political power, ultimately paying a permanent price.

Many Indians, like us, understand the problem but lack a solution. Our only hope is to wait for the demise of dynastic politics, so genuine secularism can address all forms of extremism. Until then, we must either lament or spend our time writing and reading like this.

Notes

1 Vamsee Juluri is a professor of media studies at the University of San Francisco. He is the author of several books, including “Rearming Hinduism: Nature, Hinduphobia, and the Return of Indian Intelligence” (Westland Ltd, New Delhi, 2015).

…Moreover, this reflective insight revealed to me that the so-called caste institution must gain equal strength; that the so-called caste-elimination movement was a slogan of the ideologues of Hinduism; that the Hindu concept was no more than disguised Christianity and was indeed the real enemy of the oppressed castes.— Rani Siva Sankara Sarma, The Last Brahmin: Life and Reflections of a Modern-day Sanskrit Pandit..  Translated y D. Venkat Rao. Ranikhet. Permanent Black. (2007) First paperback 2012. . Originally published in Telugu, edited by Aruna and Sauda (Hyderabad: New Syllabus, 2002). p. 28

         I have moved and worked with peoples’ councils, with Ambedkar’s credo of caste eradication.  Only now, after perceiving how dreadful this slogan of caste elimination is, what a deeply Hindu upper-caste discourse it is, have I realized that writing this book is my ethical responsibility and duty.—ibid. p. 28

         Now, the lowly path that preaches Hinduism is trickery and charlatanism.  It has instant results.  Feelings of abjectness, cowardice, and slavery are its raw material.  Snanskritizing caste names and individual (p.172) names or contaminating names are its set conventions.  Its method is to marry upper-caste women and contaminate varna.  If the untouchable castes exist in different places, with different names, that’s fine, there’s no need for a collective name unifying all of them, they will all have access to exemplary Brahminic conventions. By becoming vegetarian they can be exemplary, they can conceal their defeated caste under the common name Hindu.  They can gain access to the Veda.  This programme is known as the movement for the eradication of caste.  Caste eradication means journeying up to the distinguished Hindu Brahmin state. Therefore it entails acceptance of Hindu Brahmin leadership. Since the space of the defeated castes is concealed, leadership by the defeated castes is impossible. People who walk this path are of two kinds: one, Hindu Brahmins who seek domination over the defeated castes; two, those who crave high position under Brahmin leadership.

         The logic of such caste annihilation is as follows:

Some of you may say that in order to run the caste eradication movement, Brahmins are irrelevant.  My opinion is that those who claim this have not grasped the role that the intellectual class can play in a society. Whether you accept the theory that one grand personality can create history or not—this one truth you cannot but recognize: in every country even if the intellectual class is not the ruling class, it is the most persuasive and compelling class; it can predict the future and advise; the intellectual class alone can play the leadership role.  Nowhere can common people think subtly and function with intelligence and clarity.  Common people always substantially follow and imitate the intellectual class: it is no exaggeration to say that its future is entirely dependent on its intellectual class.  If such a thinking group has integrity and is independent and lacks selfish motives, its leadership can be relied upon in moments of crisis.  Intellect alone is not sufficient for virtue.  Intellect is like an implement.  The benefit of that implement is in accordance with the goals that the intellectual who uses it wishes to accomplish.  An intellectual may be a good person; he could also be an accomplished betrayer.  Similarly the class: it could save humans from a deviant and dishonest path and with noble ideas prepare them to improve their lot. On the contrary the intellectual class can also be a scheming gang of conspirators.  Or they can also be, for their own selfish benefits, counsels for the dogmatic gang of conspirators who support them.

         In India, the intellectual class is just another name for the Brahmin caste.  That the intellectual class should be limited only to the Brahmin caste and that that class should concern itself only with the well being of (p.173) other Brahmins is unfortunate. The intellectual class that ought to bear the responsibility for the entire nation’s welfare seems to desire the welfare only of the Brahmin caste: a most pitiable situation.  Despite this it is an absolute truth that, among the Hindus, Brahmins alone are the intellectual class.

         Not just that.  This is the intellectual class which enjoys veneration among all remaining Hindus.  All Hindus now understand that Brahmins are the gods of the earth.  All Hindus are told that only Brahmins can be their gurus:

‘Varnaanaam brahmanoh guruh’

(the Brahmin is the guru of all varnas)

         Manu says this: ‘When there is any ambiguity regarding the normative formulae specifically mentioned above—such as what should be done and how to know them—whatever the exceptional Brahmins say should be received as the legitimate norm or the norm bound by law.’

         Such an intellectual class—the intellectual class that has held the rest of society in its fist—is opposed to caste reforms; the possibilities of success for movements to eradicate caste are very meagre, I think. (From the book titled Eradication of Caste, by B.R. Ambedkar.)

Thus the ideologue of caste annihilation depended on the Hindu Brahmin.  The Hindu Brahmin has depended on Christianity. Both the ideology of caste annihilation and Hinduism lack any original formulations for sustenance.  Their feet have never been on firm ground.

         The ideologues of caste eradication argue for the elimination of all castes.  But when asked” ‘Which caste will actually undertake this caste elimination’?, there is no answer. If asked whether people of one caste will annihilate those of another caste or whether members of each caste will eliminate their own caste, there is no answer. Or when asked: ‘All right, will all castes collectively annihilate their own caste?  If this is so, which caste will eliminate itself first?’—there is no answer.  Finally, when asked: ‘What exactly does caste eradication mean?  Does it mean the elimination of a caste collective?’—there is no answer.

         Actually, this so-called caste elimination is a doctrine of illusionism, an illusionist movement. Its path is a delusion and its destination an illusion. Its ultimate consequence can only be to fall down before the Hindu Brahmin—this is indeed a slogan of the Hindu Brahmin. The Hindu Brahmin bought and got that slogan from Christianity….(p.174) This idea of elimination of castes is nothing but the Hindu Brahmin’s explication of the transcendent state of Christianity.  Only through the annihilation of caste can he bestow Hindutva upon everyone. This Hinduism is based not on caste by on the idea of a jati, a nation.  If this notion of the nation has to spread, the sentiment of caste must disappear.  Even Christianity is dependent on nation/race, not on caste. Therefore the ideologue of caste annihilation is surely a racialist/nationalist. He proclaims most cordially that the Hindu nation cannot be created on the foundations of caste.—ibid. pp. 172-75