Mahitosh Mandal lying about Vivekananda

Mahitosh Mandal, a Professor of English in Calcutta, writes in Scroll 

 There are two keywords common to both Hindutva discourse and Vivekananda’s philosophy – “nation” and “religion.” Indeed, in a lecture entitled “My Plan of Campaign,” delivered in Madras, Vivekananda claimed that he worked all his life “for the cause of my religion and to serve our motherland”. However, the connotations of the two words, nation and religion, are completely different in the way in which they are used by Vivekananda – who was born Narendranath Datta – and Narendra Modi

 Mandal is lying. Modi was influenced by Vivekananda. The BJP conceives of nation and religion in a manner which represents an evolutionary development of Vivekananda's thought.

 When speaking to the Madrasis (who were getting split along Brahmin/Non-Brahmin lines) Vivekananda, as a non-Brahmin, was affirming that his 'motherland' was the same as that of the Madrasi. But on what basis could such a claim be made? The only thing the people he was addressing had in common with him was Religion. Vivekananda did not say that the Ceylonese or the Burmese shared the same motherland. Why not?  The Burmese and Ceylonese might consider places in India sacred but the Indians did not return the compliment. The truth is, for casteist reasons, high caste Hindus had a scruple against settling in areas where rituals supposedly lost their efficacy or where one's prospect for re-birth were adversely affected. Thankfully, this type of superstition has wholly disappeared from our Religion. But Indian territorial nationalism has developed along salutary lines. Vivekananda played a part in this. Bihari Kayasthas, like Rajendra Prasad, wanted to follow in his footsteps and cross 'the black water' to gain prestigious qualifications abroad. However, it should be noted, Vivekananda still believed in the 'spiritual', if not 'material', reality of various Hindu shibboleths- including literal, rather than metaphorical, rebirth which, I need hardly say, could justify things like Untouchability.

Thus Vivekananda famously said 

'If there is any land on this earth that can lay claim to be the blessed Punyabhumi (holy land), to be the land to which all souls on this earth must come to account for Karma, the land to which every soul that is wending its way Godward must come to attain its last home, the land where humanity has attained its highest towards gentleness , towards generosity , towards purity , towards calmness , above all, the land of introspection and of spirituality – it is India.

This type of chauvinism- unless it is a mere rhetorical flourish- is missing from Modi and the BJP's ideology. No country is spiritually or soteriologically privileged. God does not play favorites.  

Our sacred motherland is a land of religion and philosophy-the birth place of spiritual giants-the land of renunciation, where and where alone, from the most ancient to the most modern times, there has been the highest ideal of life open to man.

This is a purely religious conception of the motherland- a wholly Hindu one. Similarly, the Khilafat movement saw the Jazirat ul Arab as a purely Muslim area, sacred to Muslims, which must always be under the control of Muslims. Though Muslims were not in power in India, it was their duty to do everything they could to secure Islamic supremacy in its Holy land even if this meant striking a deal with the Hindu majority.  

No doubt, the exact borders of this motherland would be vague and contested- but that is true of all conceptions of Nations. 

Prof Mandal takes a different view-

When Modi and BJP spokespersons speak of the “nation”, they mean a “Hindu Rashtra”.

As opposed to the hereditary possession of a corrupt and incompetent dynasty.

To them, “religion” refers to “Hinduism.”

 It is a fact that India only exists because Religion trumped Regional loyalty. Vivekananda said he had the same motherland as the Madrasi for one and only one reason. He was Hindu and the vast majority of Madrasis were Hindu. Mandal may have noticed that a lot of Bengalis are not Indian. They are Bangladeshi. Why does he think this is? Is he aware that Bengali Hindus did not want to joint a Muslim Majority Bengali State? Has Prof Mandal heard of Pakistan's first Law Minister, Jogendranath Mandal? Does he really not know that Mandal, and many of the Dalits he represented, had to flee to India because of severe persecution and ethnic cleansing?  

Vivekananda, like others associated with the Anushilan Samiti, underestimated the potential that existed for Islamic revival. The fact is, non-Hindus, for excellent reasons, despise the Vedas as representing merely a hodgepodge of primitive superstitions and consider the Upanishads as, at best, an anticipation of the mystical thought more fully developed by theologians of their own creed. Vivekananda thought Hindus should learn about equality from Islam- which had enslaved, or otherwise subordinated, his ilk. But Bengali Muslims thought the best way Hindus could acquire this learning was either by conversion or accepting a  second class, dhimmi, status in an Islamic Republic. It was this view which prevailed where Muslims were the majority. Thus, the Bengali Kayastha turned out to be a cretin always eager to dig his own, and his country's, grave. One Bose brother made common cause with the Japanese- who were ten times worse than the British- the other killed off his own political career by allying with Suhrawardy and advocating a united Bengal where Hindus would have been forcibly converted. Jyoti Basu, also a Kayastha, preferred China to the Soviet Union when Mao broke with the Kremlin. In other words, this comprador class was fertile only in seeking new and more cruel masters or for clamoring, like Niradh Chaudhri, for Whitey to return and rule over the Bengali 'mosquito'. 

Vivekananda and Aurobindo were remembered for their contribution to Indian Nationalism based on an assertive Hindu identity. But, being Bengali buddhijivis, both talked vacuous bollocks which nobody bothers with. They thought they were smarter than average but History has not confirmed their view. 

The BJP wants to build a nation for the Hindus, of the Hindu, and by the Hindus.

 As opposed to a nation for a dynasty or a political party which looks to a foreign master. 

The fact is, Hindus have built a nation for themselves. So have Muslims in places where they dominated. No doubt, some parts of Mandal's West Bengal may become Muslim majority. Perhaps the West Bengali Hindu may decide that they would rather amalgamate with Bangladesh. Indeed, they may wish to convert to Islam. In that case, it is likely that Mandal's native Province would wish to secede from the Indian Union. 

As opposed to this ideology of Hindu nationalism, Vivekananda advocated a Vedantic approach to the nations and religions of the world – his approach could be described as internationalism and religious pluralism.

In the same sense that the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party or that of ISIS could be described as such.

Mandal justifies his thesis (his PhD dissertation is on Vivekananda) thus-  

The rejection of chauvinism by Vivekananda can be found, for instance, in a letter to his famous disciple from Madras, Alasinga Perumal, in September 1895. 

“As for me, mind you, I stand at nobody’s dictation,” he wrote. “I know my mission in life, and no chauvinism about me; I belong as much to India as to the world, no humbug about that. I have helped you all I could. You must now help yourselves. What country has any special claim on me? Am I any nation’s slave?”

These words indicate that had Vivekananda been alive today, he would have refused to being coopted by the BJP whose politics is defined by aggressive patriotism.

as opposed to a defeatist patriotism which consists in licking the arse of an Italian lady and demanding that Hindus accept second class citizenship and surrender territory wherever possible. 

 The context of Vivekandanda's letter is that accusations had been made by a Christian Missionary that the Swamy was eating beef and living the life of Riley in America. Perumal was the Swamy's fund-raiser. Thus Vivekananda wrote to him manfully refuting the charges against him. He wrote-

I am surprised you take so seriously the missionaries' nonsense. . . . If the people in India want me to keep strictly to my Hindu diet, please tell them to send me a cook and money enough to keep him. This silly bossism without a mite of real help makes me laugh. On the other hand, if the missionaries tell you that I have ever broken the two great vows of the Sannyâsin — chastity and poverty — tell them that they are big liars. Please write to the missionary Hume asking him categorically to write you what misdemeanour he saw in me, or give you the names of his informants, and whether the information was first-hand or not; that will settle the question and expose the whole thing. . . .


As for me, mind you, I stand at nobody's dictation. I know my mission in life, and no chauvinism about me; I belong as much to India as to the world, no humbug about that. I have helped you all I could. You must now help yourselves. What country has any special claim on me? Am I any nation's slave? Don't talk any more silly nonsense, you faithless atheists.

I have worked hard and sent all the money I got to Calcutta and Madras, and then after doing all this, stand their silly dictation! Are you not ashamed? What do I owe to them? Do I care a fig for their praise or fear their blame? I am a singular man, my son, not even you can understand me yet. Do your work; if you cannot, stop; but do not try to "boss" me with your nonsense. I see a greater Power than man, or God, or devil at my back. I require nobody's help. I have been all my life helping others. . . . They cannot raise a few rupees to help the work of the greatest man their country ever produced — Ramakrishna Paramahamsa; and they talk nonsense and want to dictate to the man for whom they did nothing, find who did everything he could for them! Such is the ungrateful world!


Do you mean to say I am born to live and die one of those caste-ridden, superstitious, merciless, hypocritical, atheistic cowards that you find only amongst the educated Hindus? I hate cowardice; I will have nothing to do with cowards or political nonsense. I do not believe in any politics. God and truth are the only politics in the world, everything else is trash.

Vivekananda's meaning is 'Don't try to boss me. I will do as I please'. Mandal, however, pretends that the Swamy was saying 'I am not a nationalist. I don't think Hinduism is special.'

Mandal writes-

 These words indicate that had Vivekananda been alive today, he would have refused to being coopted by the BJP whose politics is defined by aggressive patriotism.

Vivekananda was Bengali, it is true, but there were muscular Bengalis- like Bagha Jatin- back then. Like it or not, there was a virile and aggressive element to the Swamy. Furthermore, he had matchless charisma. Mandal can only think of Bengalis as being supine creatures 'coopted' by Hindi or Marathi speakers. But in Vivekananda's time the Bengali buddhijivi was not derided as a worthless pile of shite earning a meagre living by talking illiterate nonsense about Lacan or Derrida or some other such obsolete Continental availability cascade. Vivekananda, if alive today, would have a leadership role- though perhaps not in Bengal.  

In this context, it is worth remembering that the ideology of the Mission, mentioned on its website, is based on Vivekananda’s international focus. Its universalism is embedded in the organisation’s motto: atmano mokshartham jagat hitaya cha – for the salvation of our individual self and for the well-being of all on earth.

Yet the Ramakrishna Mission has no importance or prestige outside India. ISKCON does. But ISKCON does not promote Advaita. It is more Dualist than Perumal's own Iyengar sect. 

Any cretin can have an ideology. Vivekandanda understood that you actually have to do stuff to have an impact. If the Ramakrishna Mission won't promote Hinduism, nobody will promote that Mission. It will simply wither and die. 

This verse derived from the Rig Veda

which is sacred to which Religion? Judaism? The Mormon Faith? 

refers to the fact that the Ramakrishna Mission is meant to be an international organisation,

but isn't because Jews and Muslims and Christians don't find the teachings of their own Scriptures reflected in it. Also, India is poor and backward.  

dedicated to the liberation of the individual and the welfare of the world at large and not just India. The BJP’s seeming attempt to appropriate the Mission as a nationalist organisation stands against the tenets on which the organisation has been founded.

Like the Arya Samaj, the Ramakrishna Mission has salience because of its contribution to the Freedom Struggle. Neither was concerned with converting Europeans or Americans and so forth.  

Vivekananda’s notion of religious pluralism is another point of contrast with Hindutva politics. A verse that reverberates through the works of Vivekananda is “ekam sat, vipra bahudha vadanti” – “that which exists is One, sages call it by different names”. This shloka from the Upanishads seems to have become the cornerstone of his thought.

Mandal thinks it remarkable that a Bengali was aware that the English and the Chinese and so on have different names for things. 

It promotes the idea of Advaita, and implies that although individuals (atmans) are different externally, the presence of a shared universal consciousness (brahman) in each of them accounts for their sameness.

So Mandal shares some type of consciousness with me. But its nature is stupidity or nescience. 

This is why differences among individuals are to be accepted and respected – because this difference alone is what defines their distinctness. But otherwise, all of them are identical, being part of the same brahman.

This is not the view of any school of Advaita. Either differences are 'Maya', or they are otherwise sublatable. There is no point 'accepting and respecting' differences save for utilitarian 'artha' reasons.  

This rather metaphysical notion was expanded by Vivekananda to an altogether different level. 

He promoted not only an acceptance of diversity of individuals but also of religions and nations. Indeed, Vivekananda and his dream project, the Ramakrishna Mission, promote diversity and consider all religions, nations, and communities to be equally valuable – both because, metaphysically, they are all in search of the absolute truth of existence and because, socially, they are, in their own ways, serving the world.

Sadly some ignorant people forced the British to leave India. Worse still, some bigots objected to Islamic rule over Hindu majorities. Yet the British were in search of absolute truth of existence and were serving world their own way, innit? So are Chinese Communists. Why can't BJP just surrender territory in a nice Bengali manner? Vivekananda would not be happy unless all Hindus offer their backsides for buggery by militant sodomites.  

Surely, Vivekananda would not have approved of the Hindu supremacy and Islamophobia promoted by BJP.

In which case, Hindus would not have approved of him.  

In fact, Vivekananda repeatedly discarded the term “Hindu.” The people who lived by the river Sindhu had only one creed which is why all of them, according to him, could be brought under the umbrella term “Hindu.” But they eventually increased in number and embraced various creeds, he said. Given the plurality of faiths in today’s India, the term “Hindu,” Vivekananda claimed, is outdated and misleading. He wanted to replace it with “Vedanta.”

The truth is Vivekananda was a blathershite. It is a Bengali trait. He talked vacuous nonsense much of the time. But he died young. Thus no great harm is done by showing reverence to a very effective propagandist for an ecumenical Hinduism- or 'Hindutva'.  

In a lecture on “Vedantism,” he stated, “I… would not use the word Hindu. … The other words which alone we can use are either the Vaidikas, followers of the Vedas, or better still, the Vedantists, followers of the Vedanta.” In fact, he carefully avoided including the name of his country or the term “Hindu” in the names of organisations he had set up. Only a blind follower of the BJP would believe that Vivekananda would have promoted Hindutva politics.

What is the context of this remark of Vivekananda's? He is addressing the Hindus of Jaffna, Ceylon. He says 'The word (Hindu) therefore, covers not only Hindus proper, but Mohammedans, Christians, Jains, and other people who live in India. I therefore, would not use the word Hindu. What word should we use then? The other words which alone we can use are either the Vaidikas, followers of the Vedas, or better still, the Vedantists, followers of the Vedanta.'

In other words, Ceylonese followers of Vivekananda's Religion were not 'Hindus' because they did not reside in India. To prevent confusion, they could call themselves Vedantists same as American converts to Vivekananda's creed. In other words, Vivekananda identified Hinduism with a geographical conception of India. This is pure 'Hindutva' nationalism. If you live in India, regardless of your religion or lack of any such thing, you should embrace Hindutva or, at the least, allow yourself to be embraced by it.  

Hindutva politics is completely opposed to the ideals of Swami Vivekananda and the ideology of Ramakrishna Math and Mission.

According to a cretin. 

Instead of serving humanity as a whole and accepting diversity that Vivekananda had stood for, Hindutva ideologues are strongly bent on promoting Hindu supremacy, militant nationalism, and suppressing the plurality of voices.

Just as this cretin is strongly bent on impotently condemning the BJP. 

The Vivekananda I admire would never have recommended a Hindutva force that, in the name of protection of the cow, murders Dalits, Muslims and intellectuals.

Would he have accepted laws against cow slaughter or the Directive Principle re. cow protection in the Constitution? Who cares? The Hindu Bengali could not defend himself from either Famine or Ethnic Cleansing or continuous relative Economic decline under more and more thuggish and incompetent political masters. Niradh Chaudhri, gained fame after Independence by writing an 'Autobiography' in which he ended up begging Whitey to come back. Like Ranajit Guha, he emigrated to the UK. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, it will be remembered, begged the British Parliament to lift restrictions on White settlement in India so that Hindus could feel more secure from Muslim domination. Vivekananda represented a brief flash of assertiveness on the part of the Hindu Bengali. But Tagore knew his country better. He knew that his class would lose its estates in the East if the Brits relaxed their grip. 

He would never have agreed to be the face of a political party that proves its patriotism by demolishing the Babri mosque or rioting in Gujarat and Delhi.

In which case, he would be irrelevant- or a sleazy loser like Agnivesh.  

If the Ramakrishna Mission ever collaborates with the BJP, it would be turning the ideals of Vivekananda and the ideology of his organisation upside down. Vivekananda would never have approved.

We don't believe Mandal because his quotations from Vivekananda, when taken in context, prove the opposite of this cretin's thesis. Telling stupid lies, in the age of the internet- when we can easily check the facts- brands you a stupid liar. 

How would Vivekananda have reacted to ethnic cleansing of Hindus and the growth of Jihadist terrorism? Judging by his actions, it would have been in a virile manner. Mandal represents the supine aspect of the Bengali Hindu. Calcutta would have been lost- either to Pakistan or a Muslim majority Bengal under Suhrawardy- had non Bengali Hindus not beaten the 'Direct Action Day' thugs at their own game.

I do not say that Mandal is not doing what is in his own rational self-interest. Why stick your neck out in Mamta's Bengal? Still, long run, he would be well advised to emigrate. It is safer being an internationalist advocating pluralism in countries where Muslims are as yet a small minority. 

Of course, I must admit, Bangladesh may overtake India economically and in terms of Human Development. Perhaps, Bengali Islam has enabled the 'low castes' to come up more rapidly. Communism, it appears, was a cover for high caste domination. Mamta has not been able to reverse this outcome. Bengali Hinduism- for all I know- may be of the bad old casteist, ritualist, type. If so, followers of Vivekananda in that beautiful land, blighted by but 'buddhijivis' who are anything but, must look, not just for comradeship, but leadership, to those classes whose hard work once rendered Bengal golden and who alone can do so again.