Words Which Defy Dictionaries

Shri. Sita Ram Goel ji was a religious and political activist, writer and publisher in the late 20^th Century. He is considered to be one of the two Sages of Modern Hindu Renaissance.

He wrote extensively on the damage to Indian culture and heritage wrought by expansionist Islam and missionary activities of Christianity.

As one surveys India’s political parlance the first feature one notices is that while certain people and parties are described as Leftist, certain others are designated as Rightist. Once in a while, political scientists and journalists add nuances to this broad bracketing when they pronounce some splinter group as Left or Right of Centre. But one is left guessing about the location of the Centre itself. It is sometimes suggested that the Centre is constituted by the ruling Congress Party. The Congress Party however, repudiates this description.

The second feature which invites attention is that these contradistinctive labels – Leftist and Rightist – have never been apportioned among people and parties concerned by an impartial tribunal like, say, the Election Commission. What has happened is that certain people and parties have appropriated one label – Leftist – for themselves and reserved the other label – Rightist – for their opponent, without permission from or prior consultation with the latter.

The third feature which one discovers very soon is that people and parties who call themselves Leftist also claim to be progressive, revolutionary, socialist, secularist and democratic. At the same time they accuse the ‘Rightists’ of being reactionary, revivalist, capitalist and fascist. At this stage, the labels cease to be merely descriptive. They become laudatory and denunciatory  instead. Labels like progressive and revolutionary, etc., acquire an aura of virtue and holiness. On the other hand, labels like reactionary and revivalist, etc., start smelling of vice and sin.

The fourth feature of the Indian political scene needs a somewhat deeper look because it goes beyond the merely political and borders on the philosophical. The Leftists claim that they are committed to a scientific interpretation of the world-process including economic, social, political and cultural developments and that, therefore, their plans and programmes are not only pertinent but also profitable for the modern age. Simultaneously, they accuse that the ‘Rightists’ are addicted to an obscurantist view of the same world-process and, therefore, to such outmoded forms of economy, polity and culture as should find no place at this stage of human history.

Lastly one finds that the Leftists in general are pretty self-righteous as if some supreme power which presides over the world-process has not only entrusted them with the destiny of the Indian people but also assured them of ultimate and inevitable victory. At the same time the Leftists expect the ‘Rightists’ to feel sorry for themselves as if the latter have committed or are out to commit some heinous crimes against humanity and, therefore, should not have any future except the dustbin of history.

It would be an interesting investigation to look up the dictionary meanings of these words which are being bandied around by the Leftists as political labels, and see if they really stick where they have been made to stick. Human history has known many instances in which the wolf has prowled and preyed in sheep’s clothing while the poor sheep has been presented as a wolf by sheer trick of language. The secular version of medieval India under Muslim rule, as taught in our schools and colleges at present, is a case in point. Foreign invaders and mass murderers are being portrayed as illustrious emperors while patriots and freedom fighters are being pilloried as petty upstarts.

On 13^th August 1934 Pandit Nehru had written to Mahatma Gandhi that socialism had ‘a clearly defined meaning in the English language’. The Mahatma had written back : ‘I have looked up the dictionary meaning of socialism. It takes me no further than where I was before I read the definition. What will you have me to read to know its full contents ?’ (Sankar Ghosh, ‘Socialism and Communism in India’, Bombay 1971, p. 183).

The various words which the Leftists now employ in order to applaud themselves and denigrate those who differ from them can be found in any standard dictionary of the English language. But the dictionaries do not vouchsafe for the values with which the Leftists load these words. In most cases, the dictionaries assume prior definitions derived from different universes of discourse.

Leftist Versus Rightist

Dictionaries define a Leftist as ‘the more progressive or actively innovating party or wing (from its sitting in some legislature to the President’s left)’. The same dictionaries define a Rightist as ‘an adherent of the political right (conservative)’. Neither of these definitions is very illuminating unless we have prior notions of progressive and conservative. Nor are the values attached to these words evident in these definitions.

We shall discuss the word ‘progressive’ when we come to it at a slightly later stage. Right here we can take up the word ‘conservative’. The dictionaries define it as ‘tending or having power to keep entire, to retain, to preserve’ and also as ‘averse of change’. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with keeping entire, retaining and preserving unless it has been proved first that what is being kept entire, retained and preserved is undesirable. Nor need an aversion to change be bad in itself unless the change that is being sought to be brought about has already been proved as desirable.

Socialist Versus Capitalist

This fourth pair of labels arouses intense emotions. Socialism, too, is a magic word which paralyses all thinking processes in a majority of our politically conscious intelligentsia. It calls for no questions and stands self-proved. There is no political party in India which does not swear by socialism. Ever since the ruling party has espoused socialism, the socialist ranks have become swollen by a large number of self-seekers who cannot even spell the word. Seeing these people, one cannot help observing that while all socialists are not scoundrels, all scoundrels are socialists.

The dictionaries define socialism as ‘as a scheme of social organisation which places means of production in the hands of the community’. The same dictionaries define capitalism as ‘the economic system which generates and gives power to capitalists’. Here the choice is clear for all those who place public wealth above private profit. They would always vote for socialism. The problem arises when the community is equated with the state and the state with a monolithic party machine which chokes out all individual freedom. And that is exactly what the Leftists have done. They hail as socialist only those countries where totalitarian states have reduced the communities to conglomerations of dumb-driven slaves. In India, the Leftists describe the public sector as a signpost of socialism, self-satisfied bureaucrats and swollen-headed babus who are bribed and/or bamboozled by another cartel of freebooters known as the private sector. The two cartels fatten together with utter disregard for the suffering and privation they inflict on the community.

On the other hand, the Leftists denounce as capitalist precisely those countries where powerful labour unions, free press, parliamentary institutions and vigilant public opinion have combined to make private enterprise accountable to the community. The rising standards of wages and consumption, the social security measures and other welfare schemes speak volumes about how public good is gaining ground over private greed. The meaning of Socialism as well as Capitalism would have been crystal clear but for the conceptual swindle practised by the Leftists. They have succeeded eminently in painting the black as white and vice versa.

Secular Versus Communal

This fifth pair of labels has attained the widest currency of all political words. We face a peculiar problem here. The meanings which these words have acquired in India’s political parlance are not even remotely related to the meanings which the dictionaries assign to them. It would not be an exaggeration to say that although these two words belong to the English language, their meanings in India have become exclusively Indian.

The word secular is defined in the dictionaries as ‘the belief that the state, morals, education, etc. should be independent of religion’. But in India it means only one thing – eschewing everything Hindu and espousing everything Islamic.

Every one who wants to qualify as secular should subscribe to the following  articles of faith :

•    the Muslims in India after Independence have become a poor and persecuted minority;

•    they are being deprived of their fair share in the fruits of development;

•    their religion and culture are not getting legitimate expression in public life and media;

•    they are not being given employment in public and private sectors in proportion to their population; and

•    the preponderance of Hindus in the security forces puts in grave peril the lives, honour and properties of Muslims.

Every Hindu politician or pen-pusher who aspires to pass the test has to :

•    proclaim that Islam stands for equality and human  brotherhood;

•    celebrate the Prophet’s birthday with fanfare and throw an iftar dinner at the end of Ramzan;

•    attend Urs of Sufis and Urdu mushairas;

•    support the claim of Urdu to be the second state language in all states where Muslims are in a minority;

•    admire whatever passes for Islamic art and architecture;

•    relish Muslim cooking and appreciate Muslim dress and demeanour;

•    abuse Israel and applaud Arab countries.

He should also keep quiet or look the other way when Muslims :

•    breed like rats;

•    refuse to give modern education to their children;

•    push their women into purdah;

•    practise polygamy;

•    start street-riots at the slightest pretext;

•   rejoice over every Pakistan victory and every Indian defeat in sports; and

•    Invite and protect infiltrators from across the borders. And he should not whisper a word when Arab Governments pour petro-dollars and professional preachers of Islam into this country in order to convert the weaker sections of Hindu society.

Even these positive services rendered to Islam are not sufficient for a Hindu politician or pen-pusher out to earn the secular certificate. One is not secular unless one harbours and expresses a pronounced anti-Hindu animus. One should lodge an immediate protest against the least little expression of Hindu religion or culture in public media and at Government functions. One should frown upon every Government dignitary performing a pooja in a Hindu temple or going to a Hindu place of pilgrimage. One should accuse all educational, cultural and research institutions of hiding Hindu communalists.

One should put the blame squarely on the RSS for every communal riot and so on. The list of one’s grievances against Hindu society should be as long as one’s love for Islam and Muslims.

The definition of communal is a logical corollary of the above definition of secular. The dictionaries define the word communal as ‘pertaining to community, owned in common, shared’. But Hindus in India have only to say that they belong to a community and that they share a culture in common. They immediately provoke secularists of all hues to come down upon them. In fact, the word Hindu itself has become a dirty word, almost an obscenity in India’s political parlance.

Woe betide the Hindu who dares say that India is his ancestral homeland and that his religion and culture also have a case. He will be immediately denounced as a Hindu chauvinist.

A Hindu who blunders into reading Indian history with his own eyes, who finds that his society has suffered immeasurably at the hands of Islamic imperialism, and who cries out that this aggression should now stop, makes the Leftists mad with fury. They brand him as an enemy of public peace and national integration. They find in him a fiend who is plotting a genocide of the ‘poor Muslim minority’.

(Courtesy : Excerpts from ‘Perversion of India’s Political Parlance’ by Sita Ram Goel ji posted on voibooks.bitbucket.io)

 The ‘Leftists’ expect the ‘Rightists’ to feel sorry for themselves as if the latter have committed some crimes against humanity !