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.

The Indian Youth: Between Inheritance and Choice

The morning sun does not discriminate. It rests just as gently on the ancient stone steps of a river ghat as it does on the glass façade of a technology park. One carries centuries of memory, the other is busy inventing tomorrow. Both stand within the same landscape, often only a few kilometres apart. Modern India feels much like this quiet contrast. It is a civilisation old enough to have forgotten parts of its own story, and a nation young enough to believe its most important chapters are still ahead.


Somewhere in between stands the Indian youth. Much is said about them. Governments analyse them, companies pursue them, institutions compete for them. Yet the young themselves are often too occupied with exams, careers, ambitions and expectations to pause and reflect on the deeper questions forming within. Every generation inherits more than wealth or opportunity. It inherits ideas about success, happiness and what gives life meaning. At some point, each generation must ask whether it wishes to accept these ideas as they are, or examine them anew.


The restlessness seen among young Indians is often misunderstood. It is not always dissatisfaction. Sometimes it is the natural outcome of seeing a larger world. A young person in a small town today has access to more information than entire generations before them could gather in a lifetime.


The world is no longer distant. It is immediate and constant. When possibilities become visible, aspirations change. Today’s youth do not only seek jobs. They seek identity. They do not only look for stability. They look for purpose. There is something deeply admirable in this, but it is not without cost. Freedom brings with it a certain weight. Earlier generations walked on clearer paths.


The direction was known, even if the destination was imperfect. Today, the choices are many, sometimes too many. One may try different careers, shift paths, experiment with ideas, yet still feel uncertain. This is why ambition often walks alongside anxiety. The question is no longer only whether success can be achieved. It is whether the traditional idea of success is enough.


What is striking is that many of these questions are not new. Indian thought has long engaged with ideas of fulfilment, contentment and purpose. Yet many young people encounter these ideas through modern global voices rather than their own intellectual traditions. This is not a flaw, but a sign of the times. We live in an age where information is abundant, but reflection is limited.


The mind is constantly engaged, but rarely still. Without stillness, understanding remains shallow. Much has been said about young people moving away from tradition. Perhaps this is not entirely accurate. What appears as rejection may actually be questioning. For earlier generations, tradition was something received. For the present generation, it is something that must be understood and chosen. This shift can feel uncomfortable, especially to those who see questioning as resistance. But inquiry has always been a part of India’s intellectual life. Its thinkers debated, disagreed and searched. A belief that is examined and then accepted becomes stronger, not weaker.


The real choice before the Indian youth is not between modernity and heritage. That is a misleading way of looking at it. One can look outward and still remain connected inward. One can build something new without discarding what came before. Every generation receives a flame. Some protect it so carefully that it loses its light. Others let it fade away. The wiser path lies in carrying it forward with awareness.


The uncertainty of today’s youth is often noticed, but their curiosity deserves equal attention. In the end, the future of Indian civilisation will depend not only on what is passed down, but on what is consciously carried forward. In that quiet act of choosing lies both continuity and change.


(The writer is a bilingual author with five published titles to his credit. Views personal.)


Comments

bottom of page