Between Science and Superstition: How BJP-RSS Blur the Line

 

In India, the relationship between science and spirituality has always been complex. Our civilization inherited the Vedas, Upanishads, Yoga, Tantra, Ayurveda, and a vast body of knowledge that combined inquiry with contemplation. The rishis of ancient India were not blind believers but seekers, experimenting with consciousness, health, and the natural world. Yoga is not ritual but vidya—an applied discipline of body and mind. Tantra is not occultism but a science of energy. Mantra is not magic but frequency and vibration. These treasures deserve rigorous study, open inquiry, and global research.

Yet in recent decades, particularly under the influence of BJP and RSS leadership, this balance has tilted dangerously. Instead of respecting the difference between knowledge and belief, they confuse religion with science, and mythology with technology. The result: pseudo-science dressed as heritage, and politics dressed as culture.

---

The Hanuman as Astronaut Narrative

A few days ago, Union Minister Anurag Thakur told school students that Lord Hanuman could be considered the first “space traveler.” Soon after, Shivraj Singh Chouhan claimed that India had the “Pushpak Vimaan” long before the Wright brothers invented airplanes. These statements were made not in folklore festivals but in educational contexts—where impressionable children look for guidance about history and science. The problem is not faith; the problem is the attempt to pass mythology as scientific fact. It creates confusion, erodes scientific temper, and dilutes the seriousness of genuine Indian contributions to knowledge.

---

From Ganesha to Genetic Science

This is not new. In 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi famously suggested that the story of Lord Ganesha’s elephant head was proof that India mastered plastic surgery thousands of years ago. A few months later, then Home Minister Rajnath Singh declared that “quantum mechanics” had already been explained in the Mahabharata. Another minister, Satyapal Singh, argued against Darwin’s theory of evolution, claiming that “no one saw an ape turning into a man.”

Such claims trivialize both science and scripture. The rishis wrote allegories, metaphors, and philosophical insights—not literal textbooks of genetics, aviation, or quantum mechanics. By forcing religious myths into scientific molds, leaders do a disservice to both traditions.

---

 

Ayurveda vs. Coronil

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the danger of this confusion. The promotion of “Coronil” by Baba Ramdev, supported by certain political circles, was marketed as a cure for the coronavirus. It was later clarified by the WHO and India’s own Health Ministry that no such claim was scientifically valid. Ayurveda is a sophisticated knowledge system of healing, but exaggerating its reach without clinical validation undermines its credibility. Instead of encouraging systematic research, leaders rush to make spectacular announcements for political applause.

---

Western Validation vs. Indian Misuse

Ironically, much of the world’s respect for Indian wisdom comes not from our political leaders but from Western research. Yoga has been globalized through American and European scientific studies proving its benefits for stress, heart health, and immunity. Mantra meditation has been analyzed by neuroscientists to show its effects on brain waves. Even Ayurveda finds recognition in integrative medicine when subjected to clinical trials.

Meanwhile, back home, many BJP and RSS leaders dismiss such studies when they are inconvenient, yet loudly claim cultural superiority without evidence. Their own children study in Ivy League universities abroad, learning critical thinking and research methods, while in India they encourage students to replace inquiry with blind belief.

---

The Spirit of Inquiry in Our Tradition

Swami Vivekananda had once said: “It is wrong to believe blindly. Open your eyes and see for yourself. That is the essence of our Vedas. Each must see the truth for himself, and not rely on others.” He insisted that religion in India must walk hand in hand with science, not as its enemy but as its complement.

Similarly, Jawaharlal Nehru, in The Discovery of India, wrote: “The scientific approach, the adventurous and yet critical temper, the search for truth and new knowledge, the refusal to accept anything without testing and trial, the capacity to change previous conclusions in the face of new evidence… all this is the temper of science.” He went on to declare that a scientific temper was essential for India’s progress.

These voices remind us that genuine pride in Indian heritage comes not from exaggeration but from rigorous inquiry.

---

India’s Real Scientists vs. Pseudo-Science

If we truly wish to celebrate India, we need not invent stories of Pushpak Vimaan or plastic surgery through Ganesha. Our real scientists have already given us plenty to be proud of.

• C.V. Raman, the Nobel laureate, discovered the Raman Effect, a breakthrough in light scattering that revolutionized physics. His work was based on experimentation and mathematical precision—not mythological interpretation.
• J.C. Bose, a polymath, proved that plants have life and respond to stimuli. His experiments with crescographs showed how plants “feel,” combining biology with physics. This was Indian genius in action—bridging tradition and modern science with proof.
• A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, India’s “Missile Man” and beloved President, epitomized the fusion of spirituality and science. A practicing devotee, Kalam also lived by hard data, research, and innovation. His humility and devotion coexisted with his commitment to space technology, missiles, and education.

These figures embodied true scientific temper—open to faith but grounded in fact. They are the heirs of our rishis far more than any neta shouting about Hanuman’s space journey.

---

Why Pseudo-Science Persists

There are several reasons this confusion thrives:

1.     Political Symbolism: By claiming that “everything was already in the Vedas,” leaders tap into nationalist pride, appealing to voters who want to see India as superior to the West.

2.     Cultural Anxiety: In a globalized world, there is insecurity that Indian knowledge systems are being ignored. Instead of engaging with science, politicians weaponize tradition to assert identity.

3.     Lack of Science Education: India’s school system often teaches rote learning, not critical thinking. This makes it easy for pseudo-science to slip into classrooms and political speeches.

---

Real Contributions Overlooked

Ironically, while leaders celebrate Hanuman as the first astronaut, they ignore India’s actual contributions to science and technology. The decimal system, zero, Aryabhata’s astronomy, Sushruta’s surgical techniques, Charaka’s medical insights—these are verifiable achievements that changed the course of global knowledge. Instead of celebrating these, we turn epics into engineering manuals.

Similarly, Yoga, Tantra, and Vedanta deserve to be recognized as frameworks of mental and spiritual health, not reduced to campaign talking points. Science and spirituality can and should coexist, but only when both are respected on their own terms.

---

 

The Danger of Confusion

When politicians confuse religion with science, the danger is twofold. First, students lose the ability to separate metaphor from fact, weakening the culture of inquiry. Second, India risks becoming a global laughingstock. It is one thing to practice faith, but quite another to tell the world that ancient Indians flew jet planes or performed organ transplants without evidence.

More importantly, it stifles innovation. No society can progress if it tells its young that “everything has already been discovered.” The true spirit of the Vedas and Upanishads was to question, to seek, to experiment—not to declare prematurely that we already know it all.

---

A Better Path Forward

To truly honor our heritage, India must invest in serious research. Ayurvedic formulations should undergo clinical trials. Mantra chanting should be studied with neuroscience. Yoga must continue to be analyzed through medical science. Tantra, long misunderstood, deserves to be examined as a system of consciousness and energy.

At the same time, political leaders must practice restraint. Pride in culture should not mean exaggeration. Patriotism should not mean pseudo-science. Spirituality should not be reduced to sloganeering.

---

Conclusion

The BJP and RSS often claim to be the guardians of Indian civilization. But civilization is not protected by distortion. It is protected by truth, inquiry, and respect for both science and spirituality. If India is to be a Vishwa Guru in the 21st century, it will not be because Hanuman was the first astronaut or Ganesha proved plastic surgery. It will be because we have the courage to respect tradition while embracing scientific rigor.

That is the real legacy of our rishis. That is the wisdom India owes to the world.

---

Author’s Note:
Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India and writes on law, politics, and society. He can be reached at ssmishra33@gmail.com.

 

When Compassion Is Criminalised: The Supreme Court, Stray Dogs, and Us

 

In the hierarchy of justice, the voiceless often remain unheard. Stray dogs, who share our streets and survive on our scraps, fall squarely into that category. Yet in August 2025, the Supreme Court of India found itself at the centre of a storm when it first barred public feeding of strays (August 11, two-judge Bench) and then partially softened its stance (August 22, three-judge Bench). What emerged was not clarity but confusion, not justice but a compromise that leaves both citizens and animals vulnerable.

At stake is not just the right to feed a hungry creature but the larger questions of governance, law, and compassion in a civilised society.

---

The August 11 Order: A Blanket Prohibition

On August 11, a two-judge Bench prohibited the feeding of stray dogs in any public place except in “designated community dog feeding spots.” On the surface, it appeared like an attempt at balancing public safety with animal rights. But the order ignored two crucial realities: first, that thousands of strays live in areas where no “designated spots” exist, and second, that such a blanket ban criminalises ordinary acts of kindness by citizens.

This ruling also clashed with the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 and 2023, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which expressly recognise community feeding and mandate humane treatment of strays. By sidelining these rules, the Court inadvertently created a vacuum where compassion could be punished.

---

The August 22 Modification: A Softer but Still Troubled Stand

Realising the backlash, a three-judge Bench modified the earlier ruling on August 22. It allowed feeding of stray dogs but restricted it to specific locations “identified and earmarked by municipal authorities.” While this was a step away from total prohibition, the devil lay in the details.

What happens when municipalities fail to earmark spaces? What if those spaces are far removed from the dogs’ natural habitats? The Court’s attempt at middle ground leaves caregivers in a legal grey zone and dogs at the mercy of bureaucratic inertia. The shift from prohibition to regulation may sound progressive, but it still reflects a governance failure outsourced to citizens.

---

Law, Loopholes, and Lapses in Governance

The problem is not merely judicial. India’s stray dog policy has long been marred by loopholes:

1.    Failure of ABC implementation – The Animal Birth Control Rules mandate sterilisation and vaccination as the only long-term solution. Yet most municipalities treat this as optional, not mandatory. The result: rising populations, unvaccinated dogs, and avoidable human-dog conflicts.

2.    Selective reading of law – Courts invoke public nuisance and safety but often ignore the statutory framework that prioritises sterilisation and compassion over culling or criminalisation.

3.    Governance by neglect – Municipal budgets rarely prioritise ABC programs, and monitoring mechanisms are weak. Instead, litigation becomes the default forum for policymaking, with the judiciary stepping in to fill executive voids.

---

The Humanitarian Angle: People and Dogs as Victims

It is tempting to frame the issue as “humans versus dogs.” But the truth is that both are victims—of poor planning and policy paralysis.

• Citizens face rising incidents of dog bites, largely because unsterilised, hungry dogs become territorial. Parents live in fear for their children, and urban colonies are left to fend for themselves.
• Caregivers who feed strays out of compassion face harassment, stigma, and now the threat of contempt if they disobey court orders.
• Dogs themselves are left hungry, unvaccinated, and often brutalised in the name of public safety.

This triangular conflict is not natural; it is manufactured by years of governance failure.

---

Compassion as Constitutional Duty

The Supreme Court itself has, in earlier judgments, recognised the duty of compassion. In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014), the Court affirmed that Article 51A(g) of the Constitution makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen to show compassion to living creatures. By criminalising or restricting feeding, the August orders appear to dilute that constitutional principle.

Moreover, Article 21—the right to life—extends not just to humans but to all living beings, as affirmed in multiple rulings. A blanket ban or unreasonable restriction undermines this jurisprudence.

---

The Way Forward: Law with Love

Instead of criminalising compassion, the solution lies in aligning law with practicality and humanity:

1.    Strict enforcement of ABC Rules – Sterilisation and vaccination, carried out scientifically, reduce stray populations and rabies risk. Cities like Jaipur and Chennai have shown success stories.

2.    Community–municipal partnerships – Local feeders and NGOs can be formally recognised as partners, rather than treated as offenders.

3.    Earmarked but realistic feeding zones – Feeding spots must be near natural dog habitats, not arbitrarily distant. Otherwise, they become meaningless.

4.    Awareness campaigns – Citizens must understand that aggression in dogs is directly linked to hunger and lack of vaccination.

5.    Legislative clarity – Parliament must amend the PCA Act to explicitly protect responsible stray feeding, so that compassion is not left vulnerable to judicial oscillations.

---

Conclusion: The Moral Test of a Nation

The way a society treats its weakest—whether poor, voiceless, or non-human—is the true test of its morality. By first banning and then restricting stray feeding, the Supreme Court’s August rulings risk sending a dangerous message: that compassion is negotiable.

India does not need laws that pit people against dogs. It needs laws—and governance—that recognise their shared vulnerability. Stray dogs are not the enemy; neglect is. And unless the State shoulders its responsibility, both citizens and animals will remain caught in an endless cycle of fear, anger, and litigation.

If compassion becomes a crime, then justice itself stands diminished.

---

✍️ Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. He writes on law, politics, and society, with a focus on governance failures and constitutional values.

Collective Punishment is Barbarism — Whether Against Men or Dogs

 

Punishing all men for the crime of one rapist is absurd. It defies reason law and morality. No civilised society operates on the presumption that everyone must pay for the sins of one. Yet when it comes to stray dogs our system suddenly abandons this principle. For a single rabid dog the entire stray population is rounded up confined and treated as if they were criminals. This is not justice it is collective punishment and it reeks of barbaric governance.

At the heart of our Constitution lies Article 14 the guarantee of equality before law and equal protection of laws. Collective punishment destroys this principle. You punish the guilty party not an entire category of beings. This is why even the most draconian laws in India from UAPA to MCOCA still require individual culpability to be established before detention. Mass impounding of stray dogs for a single rabies incident is a naked violation of this principle. It is not reasonable classification under Article 14 it is arbitrary action and arbitrariness is the sworn enemy of constitutional governance.

Our courts have repeatedly held that presumption of guilt based solely on association is unconstitutional. Whether in State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 or Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 1978 the Supreme Court has struck down measures that sacrifice fairness for administrative convenience. Yet in August 2025 the Court itself authorised precisely such an approach instructing Delhi’s civic authorities to pick up all stray dogs rather than focus on identifying and treating infected animals. It is jurisprudential hypocrisy applying constitutional precision for human rights cases but adopting medieval blanket measures for animals.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 criminalises the unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering. Section 11 explicitly prohibits cruel confinement. The Animal Birth Control Dogs Rules 2001 now replaced by the 2023 Rules mandate catch neuter vaccinate release as the sole method of stray dog population and disease control. Nowhere do they authorise indiscriminate long term detention of healthy vaccinated dogs. Further Article 51A g of the Constitution casts a fundamental duty on every citizen to have compassion for living creatures. This is not ornamental the Supreme Court in Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja 2014 held that compassion for animals is a constitutional ethos and cruelty cannot be justified by administrative ease. By ordering blanket capture the authorities and by extension the Court are in clear violation of statutory law constitutional duties and judicial precedent.

In State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi 2005 the Supreme Court held that animals have intrinsic value beyond human utility. If that is true then their liberty like ours cannot be taken away except in accordance with law and certainly not on the basis of fear mongering or administrative convenience. Public health and safety are legitimate concerns but they must be pursued by scientific proportionate measures not collective incarceration. The World Health Organization itself endorses CNVR and mass vaccination not indiscriminate capture as the only effective long term rabies control method.

This is not just a lapse of legal reasoning it is a reflection of a political culture that thrives on scapegoating. The RSS BJP playbook is to find an enemy whether a community a dissenting voice or even animals and showcase state power through their subjugation. Just as bulldozers are used not for justice but for televised intimidation mass dog captures are less about rabies control and more about displaying control. It is politics masquerading as public health with legality as collateral damage.

Law requires that administrative action be non arbitrary E P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu 1974 and proportionate to its objective Modern Dental College v State of Madhya Pradesh 2016. Blanket capture fails both tests. If governance were serious it would maintain updated vaccination records for street dogs conduct area specific rabies testing quarantine only suspected or infected animals and launch public awareness drives to reduce panic and misinformation. Instead what we see is the round them all up approach quick visible and legally indefensible.

When the law authorises cruelty against the innocent it legitimises cruelty as a governance tool. This corrodes not just legal norms but moral ones. Gandhi famously said The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. By that standard our legal system is regressing. Sai Baba fed stray dogs. In Hindu mythology Bhairav is accompanied by a dog. In Buddhism compassion for all beings is the first precept. By sanctioning mass detention the state is not just breaking man made law it is violating civilisational values.

Once you legitimise collective punishment in one sphere you pave the way for its expansion. Today it is stray dogs. Tomorrow it could be protestors journalists or minority communities. The legal precedent we can punish all for the fault of one is dangerous in any democratic society. The same Article 14 that protects a citizen from arbitrary arrest should protect a stray dog from arbitrary confinement. The same due process that prevents mass incarceration of men must apply to voiceless animals. Justice without equality is no justice at all.

Animal rights activists lawyers and ordinary citizens must challenge this in every available forum from filing writ petitions to running public campaigns. The state must be compelled to follow statutory compliance constitutional mandates judicial precedent and scientific standards. This is not just about animals it is about whether India will uphold law over laziness compassion over cruelty and precision over prejudice.

Punishing all men for one rapist is absurd. Locking up every dog for one rabies case is barbaric. Justice targets the guilty. Tyranny punishes the innocent. Blanket crackdowns are the refuge of the lazy not the law.

#JusticeNotTyranny #StopCollectivePunishment #AnimalRights #RuleOfLaw #CompassionIsStrength #Article14 #PCAAct

---

About the Author: Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India known for his sharp legal commentary blending constitutional law with public conscience. His writings often challenge judicial complacency and political hypocrisy while defending the rights of the voiceless both human and animal.

 

RSS: Appropriators, Not Protectors, of Hinduism

 

I. The Foundational Myth: RSS and the Invention of a Hindu Rashtra

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was founded in 1925 by Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, not as a spiritual movement but as a socio-political response to what it perceived as the “weakness” of Hindus in the face of Muslim and colonial assertiveness. From the outset, its project was not religious renaissance but cultural consolidation—to forge a monolithic Hindu identity under the banner of Hindutva, a term coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

Savarkar, an atheist by conviction, redefined "Hindu" not in terms of faith, but in terms of race, land, and culture:

“A Hindu means a person who regards this land of Bharat as his Fatherland (Pitrubhumi) and as his Holyland (Punyabhumi).” – V.D. Savarkar, Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? (1923)

This definition excluded Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others whose holy lands lay outside India, regardless of how long they had lived in the subcontinent. It was the RSS that took this exclusionary idea and built an organization dedicated to it—modelled not after any Hindu religious institution, but more akin to paramilitary groups.

Swami Vivekananda once warned against such distortion:

“Religion is not in doctrines, in dogmas, nor in intellectual argumentation. It is being and becoming.”

– Swami Vivekananda

---

II. RSS vs Hindu Spiritual Traditions: A Philosophical Betrayal

Traditional Hinduism is deeply pluralistic—accommodating atheism (as in the Carvaka school), materialism, non-dualism (Advaita), dualism (Dvaita), and the path of devotion (Bhakti) side by side. Its saints—from Kabir and Basava to Mirabai and Ramanuja—challenged caste, ritualism, and orthodoxy in the name of a more humane and just divine order.

By contrast, the RSS’s interpretation of Hinduism is rigid, caste-endorsing, and obsessed with external markers—language, dress, dietary habits, and militarism—rather than inner transformation. It has no scriptural base, nor does it emerge from Vedic or Upanishadic traditions.

“The essence of Hinduism is not cow protection or temple construction. It is truth, non-violence, and renunciation.”

– Mahatma Gandhi

Gandhi was never accepted by the RSS. In fact, they hated his inclusive vision and blamed him for being too accommodating to Muslims—a view that culminated in his assassination by Nathuram Godse, a former RSS worker.

---

III. Political Exploitation: RSS and the Rise of BJP

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was formed in 1980 as the political arm of the RSS after the collapse of the Janata Party. Though the RSS formally claims to be “cultural,” it exerts vast control over the BJP’s leadership, electoral strategy, and policy agenda. No BJP Prime Minister—whether Vajpayee or Modi—has ever openly defied the RSS.

The Ram Janmabhoomi movement of the late 1980s and early 1990s, led by the VHP and the BJP under the watchful eye of the RSS, was the defining moment of this transformation. The demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 was not a religious act but a carefully orchestrated political campaign that catapulted the BJP into national relevance.

“The destruction of the Babri Masjid is the biggest blot on Indian secularism and was no spontaneous act of the mob but a planned conspiracy.”

– Liberhan Commission Report, 2009

This act triggered widespread riots, thousands of deaths, and communal polarization that has continued to define Indian politics.

---

IV. The Cult of Majoritarianism: Manufacturing the “Other”

The RSS-BJP ideology depends on constructing a permanent “other” to rally Hindu identity. Muslims have been the primary target, framed as invaders, anti-nationals, or "appeased minorities." Christians have also been demonized, especially in tribal areas.

The cow becomes more important than human life. Love Jihad replaces employment as a priority issue. The Tablighi Jamaat becomes a scapegoat during a pandemic, while lynch mobs become vigilantes in service of gau raksha (cow protection).

“Hindutva is not Hinduism. Hindutva wants uniformity; Hinduism is plural. Hindutva wants loyalty to one language, one nation, one leader; Hinduism speaks hundreds of languages and bows to hundreds of gods.”
– Arundhati Roy

---

V. Social Hypocrisy: Brahmanism in the Guise of Hindu Unity

The RSS pays lip service to Dalits, but its ideological core is deeply Brahmanical. It has opposed inter-caste marriages, never demanded temple entry for all Hindus, and its leadership has historically come from the upper-caste male elite.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution, sharply criticized the RSS. He did not see it as a force for Hindu unity but as a reactionary organization seeking to maintain caste hierarchies:

“Hindu society is a myth; the caste is the real social unit.”

– Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste

It is no accident that Ambedkar rejected Hinduism and embraced Buddhism.

---

VI. Conclusion: From Dharma to Dogma

The RSS has not protected Hinduism—it has politicized, militarized, and distorted it. Hinduism’s spiritual strength lies in its diversity, its questions, its self-doubt, its non-violence. The RSS’s project replaces this with certainty, aggression, and cultural supremacy.

In doing so, it has not defended Hindu civilization—it has betrayed its soul.

---

Author’s Note:

Siddhartha Shankar  Mishra is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India and a political commentator. He writes on issues at the intersection of law, democracy, and cultural identity. He can be reached at ssmishra33@gmail.com.

They Invoke Vivekananda, But Fear His Clarity

 

Where English becomes elitist, Sanskrit becomes a stunt, and truth becomes the casualty.

When Swami Vivekananda stood before the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893 and opened with “Sisters and Brothers of America,” he didn’t just greet an audience—he stunned a civilization. He didn’t chant mantras or wave flags; he simply spoke, in precise and dignified English, about India’s spiritual depth and universal tolerance. For him, English was not a colonial yoke—it was a chisel with which he carved out India’s identity on the global stage.

Over a century later, the same Swami is remembered more for memes and mantras than for the mind he was. The regime that never misses a photo-op on National Youth Day invokes his name with robotic reverence, but fears the clarity of thought that defined him. For all their saffron speeches and Sanskritized slogans, today's rulers have neither his intellectual courage nor his inclusive vision.

This is a government that uses tradition as camouflage and modernity as a marketing campaign. It tells the poor to study in regional languages, but ensures their own children are fluent in the best English-medium schools. It shouts about decolonization from podiums while signing trade deals in Oxford-accented diplomacy. In this doublethink dystopia, English is treason for the masses but strategy for ministers.

They call English “Macaulay’s curse” in Parliament, only to use it on stage at Davos and G20 summits. They erase colonial names of roads and cities, yet run their digital infrastructure on American algorithms, their economy on Chinese imports, and their narrative on British parliamentary theatrics. Even the “Make in India” lion was designed in Switzerland.

At a time when the world is moving towards multilingual competence, India’s cultural politics is pushing a false binary—English versus Indian languages. But real empowerment isn’t in exclusion; it’s in access. Swami Vivekananda understood this. He embraced English as a means, not an end—as a language to reach out, not to bow down. He wanted Indians to speak with confidence and compete with the best, without shame or servility. Today's leaders, however, weaponize language as a tool of division, turning cultural pride into political prejudice.

Vivekananda, who urged Indians to master English and Western science so they could engage the world, is now reduced to a cultural mascot—wheeled out during speeches, ignored in policy. “Education is the manifestation of the perfection already in man,” he said. But what education is left when school curriculums are rewritten to glorify myth over method, ideology over inquiry?

The New Education Policy promotes Sanskrit as a core language. Fine. But where are the scholarships, research labs, and serious global collaborations to elevate it from tokenism to scholarship? Instead, we see Sanskritised AI bots, mythological WhatsApp forwards, and ministers pontificating about plastic surgery in ancient India—all while millions of schoolchildren drop out for lack of teachers and toilets.

In Vivekananda's view, true education was not about rote memorization or blind obedience. It was about critical thinking, strength of character, and self-realization. He envisioned an India where education would ignite courage—not conformity. But today, that flame is dimmed by institutional mediocrity and political interference. Our universities are starved of funds, our research stifled by red tape, and our brightest minds pushed to seek opportunities abroad.

Vivekananda wanted Indian youth to be physically strong, mentally alert, spiritually fearless. What we have today is a government more interested in grooming troll armies than thinking citizens. The young are not inspired to question or create; they are trained to amplify hashtags, chant slogans, and defend mediocrity. Instead of encouraging curiosity, the system incentivizes conformity. Instead of nurturing debate, it breeds dogma.

This same regime builds bullet trains for headlines but lets ordinary trains derail in silence. It spends crores on beautifying temples, but cuts funding for scientific research. It sends spacecraft to the moon while children in tribal belts study under leaking roofs. The contradiction isn’t just staggering—it’s systemic. Development is curated for photo-ops, not designed for equal access.

They say India is rising. But rising for whom? For those who speak English on TV debates and Sanskrit in political rallies? For those whose nationalism is measured in decibels? For those who rewrite history not to learn from it, but to erase its inconvenient chapters? The idea of India as a knowledge society is slowly being replaced by India as a controlled society—one that prefers silence over speech, obedience over originality.

Swami Vivekananda said, “We are what our thoughts have made us; so take care what you think.” But this government would rather control what we are allowed to think. Criticism is treason. Dissent is sedition. And debate is reduced to shouting matches between anchors and party puppets. The space for intellectual disagreement is shrinking; the price for speaking truth is rising.

At the heart of it, the government’s appropriation of Vivekananda is not homage—it’s hijack. They love his image, not his intellect. They exalt his robe, not his reason. His idea of a spiritually awakened, intellectually empowered, globally engaged India is too nuanced for their narrow nationalism. His universalism jars against their sectarianism; his modernism clashes with their medievalism.

So what would he say to a regime that uses Sanskrit for spectacle, bans English for the masses, and rewrites history to serve ideology?

Perhaps he would say nothing.

Perhaps he would just walk away from the noise of TV anchors and the chants of hired mobs. Perhaps, like in Chicago, he would just speak—in clear, firm, elegant English—and leave the demagogues exposed.

Because real nationalism doesn't scream. It educates. And real spirituality doesn't market itself—it enlightens.

---

About the Author:

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. He writes on law, politics, and culture, with a focus on constitutional values, governance, and the distortions of public discourse. His work reflects a commitment to intellectual clarity and democratic integrity in times of rising majoritarianism.

 

.