top of page

By:

Correspondent

21 August 2024 at 3:50:16 pm

Real Fascism

The systematic attempt by sections of the so-called ‘left liberal’ elite in the Western, in alliance with Islamic outfits, to suppress RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s address at Madison Square Garden exposes the performative nature of Western ‘free speech’ discourse. For decades, Western institutions have preached pluralism, yet the moment when the head of a major Hindu civilisational organisation seeks to engage with its diaspora, the entire apparatus of Western left-liberal and activist networks...

Real Fascism

The systematic attempt by sections of the so-called ‘left liberal’ elite in the Western, in alliance with Islamic outfits, to suppress RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s address at Madison Square Garden exposes the performative nature of Western ‘free speech’ discourse. For decades, Western institutions have preached pluralism, yet the moment when the head of a major Hindu civilisational organisation seeks to engage with its diaspora, the entire apparatus of Western left-liberal and activist networks mobilizes to enforce ideological censorship while working itself to a frenzy in conjuring the bogey of ‘saffron terror.’ Western democracies have positioned themselves ad nauseam as the ultimate guardians of open dialogue and pluralism, championing free speech as a non-negotiable cornerstone of human rights. This commitment routinely falters when applied to perspectives that challenge Western liberal orthodoxy or the interests of established political blocs. The coordinated opposition against Bhagwat’s international engagements by coalitions of left-liberal political groups and Islamist organizations exposes a selective framework where democratic rights are treated as privileges reserved exclusively for specific ideologies The coordinate suppression of American Hindus for Engagement and Dialogue (AHEAD), whose X account was targeted and temporarily taken down via automated abuse, is a case study in such censorship. The political manoeuvres around Bhagwat’s event highlight the stark double standards of figures like New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who has consistently targeted democratic Hindu institutions with labels like “fascist” and “exclusionary” while maintaining a notable silence when radical or anti-Hindu rhetoric emerges from political allies or interfaith gatherings. When figures like Mamdani and various Western activist coalitions mobilize to delegitimize Hindu gatherings, they demonstrate that their allegiance is not to universal free expression, but to an ideological gatekeeping that brooks no genuine pluralism. The same Western activist networks and academic institutions frequently platform, tolerate or explicitly defend radical Islamist movements, framing their rhetoric under the umbrella of “anti-imperialism” or protecting “minority expression.” Bodies such as the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), led by figures like the Pakistani Asif Mahmood, routinely weaponize human rights reporting against India and Hindu organizations, operating with an institutional bias and a complete lack of credibility. While Western cities regularly host extremist ideologues, controversial political dissidents and radical preachers under the banner of broad constitutional protections, Hindu civil society groups are met with security threats, algorithmic botting and open political hostility. This convergence of Western left-liberal political networks and Islamist advocacy groups functions as a cartel of speech control. They embrace free expression only when it serves as a vehicle for their own ideological hegemony. It seems the real fascism of our era does not march in uniform but speaks in the language of Western liberalism, operates through algorithmic suppression and brooks absolutely no dissent.

Selective Outrage

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page