Thank God I am not in Madras. If I were, my hands would’ve gotten dirty the moment I flipped to that bilious page of the Madras Mount Road Marxist Rag.  It is fitting indeed that this vile piece of textual masturbation was published in the Hindu. Okay. It’s technically not dirt. It’s technically a semen stain. And the said stain happens to belong to a certain bearded, sexually-frustrated, Delhi University Marxist nutjob named Sanjay Srivastava.

Okay, I suppose I’ve grossed you out enough. To confess, that was the purpose. If the preceding paragraph has grossed you out, it’s nothing compared to Sanjay Srivastava’s 1179 word-long wanking off on the pages of a mainstream Marixst newspaper. Surely, my textual description of Sanjay’s wanking off pales in comparison. You don’t believe me?

Read on.

Sanjay Srivastava calls himself a professor of Sociology but writes a de rigueur piece containing all the perversions of the Marxist “view” of things. Indeed, his piece is a near-perfect rendering of the Marxist Sociology Template. To wit, look how he gets it so thoroughly wrong bang in the first six words where he claims that “Sexual crimes derive from social attitudes.” If we take this sociology-pervert’s reasoning to its logical conclusion, this statement will mean that at some point in the history of every culture and civilization, rape was an acceptable social attitude. The more commonsense, logically tenable explanation is this: not just sexual crimes but pretty much all crime derives from basic human impulses, the selfsame Seven Deadly Sins, or the Arishadvargas (Six Enemies). Indeed, the legal system of any country is designed to punish the various behavioural manifestations of these sins. And so it goes without saying that accepting this age-old wisdom will be detrimental to Sanjay’s hitjob. Equally, this will also prove to be a huge obstacle in his poisonous attempt to castrate Indian men.

But more fundamentally, Sanjay Srivastava is just another non-entity in that long line of Marxist academic (and media) toadies whose project of destroying ancient Indian values and everything Indians hold dear and sacred went on unimpeded for over four decades. About 10 years ago, Praful Bidwai, the once-prominent Pinko had indulged in a more violent form of masturbation in Frontline, that other extreme Left and sister publication of the Hindu. There, he contended that the Sangh Parivar and Hindutva as an ideology is fascist because its members are sexually repressed. And so when Sanjay Srivastava blames the rapes occurring in India on Indian masculinity, we know instantly that he’s a watered down version of Bidwai. Where Bidwai spews his Marxist toxin against just the Sangh Parivar, Srivastava applies it to all Indian men. The whole “culture of masculinity” and other supporting balderdash is merely a cover to abuse Indian culture and the amazing men it produced. This basically is both the vile essence and intent of his poisonous piece.

And so he sets about doing this by trashing commonsense and holding theory supreme over both commonsense and logical reasoning. Apart from those Six Deadly Opening Words, here’s what he says:

Gender is always a relationship between women, men (and other genders)..

Really? Gender simply means the aspect or the distinction of being male or female. Used in the plural, it includes both the masculine and the feminine genders. But to Srivastava’s jaundiced eyes, it appears as a “relationship.” Even worse, he has more than two genders. Even granting a gender to eunuchs (what’s the politically correct, fancy term for a eunuch?), one fails to understand where the fourth gender comes from. Oh wait, it is a garden variety compost called Sanjay Srivastava. But this is how the Marxist Method works. The best way to understand the Marxist method of “discourse” is by examining specific phrases and keywords it uses. This is the reason I said Sanjay’s piece is a near-perfect illustration of the Marxist Sociology Template.

…there is more urgent need than ever to think about the cultures of masculinity in India… Now, more than ever, we require an understanding of masculine cultures that is informed by feminist methods and perspectives…unless we have a sense of how boys are socialised as men… masculinity refers to the socially produced ways of being male…. certain aggressive models of masculinity become dominant.. crucial to the study of masculine identities… the possibility of foregrounding alternative models of masculinity…. highlight certain regressive tendencies… masculinity of spaces and institutions… a direct connection between girls’ education and women’s empowerment…Inadequate measure of women’s autonomy condone gender hierarchies contexts of a great deal of jingoistic celebrations…. examination of such rituals of male-worship.

Next time you read any piece, do keep a lookout for these and similar terminology and phrasing. At the very least, they violate logic, obfuscate even the lexical meanings, and rebel against commonsense.

But Sanjay Srivastava is indeed a little too late in the day. His tripe about “masculinity” is at least 50 years old. His entire piece reads like a pretty good submission of the homework he was assigned to by the present-day bosses of the wretched Frankfurt School. Indeed, it is Adorno, Benjamin, Marcuse and Horkheimer all rolled into one and applied to the Indian context. And needless, it is as vile, and as perverted as the original, which was applied in the Western context. And indeed, one of the foundational aims of the Frankfurt School was to rob Man of his Masculinity, a project which became successful beyond its wildest dreams. The breakup and destruction of the Family, aggressive Feminism, the various victimhood narratives, the ever-new and ever-expanding categories of Oppressed units, sub-units, and sub-sub-units is the singular gift of the noxious theories propounded by the Frankfurt School. Needless, this noxiousness was wholesale imported by the Indian Marxist slaves of the more powerful Western Marxists.

While the poisonous “research” emanating from Frankfurt School is pretty polished, moronic tools like Sanjay Srivastava can’t even approach a semblance of reasonableness let alone polish. Here’s a ridiculous assertion with absolutely no context, and no premises whatsoever:

A great deal of neglect of masculinity as an object of study lies in the celebratory ways in which we have tended to understand Indian nationalism which — in its reactions to colonial rule — produced a deeply masculine culture of modernity.

Again a textbook rendition of the Frankfurt School’s castration theories. The violent success of Communism in Russia in early 20th Century met a dark failure when the workers of the world fought for their own motherlands instead of rallying for the Communist Cause during both World Wars. This was the first and the biggest failure of the global Jihad the Communists had envisaged. Thus was born the Frankfurt School which traced the cause for this failure to the Family as a near-indivisible unit with the Man of the House at its head. Which is what led to their project of destroying the Family by chopping off the Man’s balls, by painting him as aggressive, barbaric, and the primordial oppressor of women. As we see in our own times, we can’t even use the word “he” in a generic sense without feeling guilty or scared of being accused of being misogynists. And so there’s nothing original or terribly insightful in Srivastava’s pathetic attempt at trying to link masculinity with nationalism and colonialism in the Indian context. Hell, I doubt if even Sanjay Srivastava’s puke isn’t borrowed puke. However, if this were a standalone assertion, it’d have lacked the arsenal for provocation. And so in the tried-and-failed Marxist method, he abuses one of the most revered figures in this country, Swami Vivekananda.

Colonialism did not, of course, invent Indian masculinities, but it did help to cement and highlight certain regressive tendencies within it. Swami Vivekananda’s masculine photographic-pose was only one aspect of the cult of masculinity encouraged and tolerated by nationalism.

Look what Srivastava accomplishes in this extraordinarily sly line: (i) he “concludes” that Indian “masculinities” (sic) has “regressive tendencies” without bothering to show what those tendencies are and why and how they are regressive (ii) based on this non-proof, he also “concludes” that Swami Vivekananda is a mascot of those regressive tendencies and (iii) and Indian nationalism is similarly regressive because it encourages people like Swami Vivekananda.

Classic spit and run. This is the only mention of Swami Vivekananda in the entire putrid piece. There was no necessity for Srivastava to bring him in in the first place but now that he’s taken Swami’s name, he doesn’t dwell any further on him. The reason isn’t far to seek.

It’s self-evident that Marxists hate everything that’s decent and do everything in their power to discredit it at first and then try and uproot it completely. And so it is with Swami Vivekananda, the figure whose popularity and inspiration has endured for 150 years. He’s the only leader, saint, spiritualist, philosopher, and nationalist whose appeal cuts across all social strata. His speeches, writings, travels, indeed, his entire life provided inspiration for the Indian freedom struggle. Unapologetic, uncompromising, and unafraid, he taught Hindus to be proud of their heritage at a time when they were weary and diffident thanks to hundreds of years of relentless all-round attacks. He made entire generations of men and women who fashioned their lives after him. His so-called “masculinity” has a simpler word: courage. Courage born out of an indomitable will to call a spade a spade, to lead decent, fulfilling lives, to sacrifice one’s all in the service of noble ideals, and to show no mercy in opposing injustice. Since our Marxists are naturally, severely allergic to all of these, Swami Vivekananda becomes their prime target for muckraking. However, while they succeeded in throwing crap at lesser folks, they’ve continued to fare miserably where the Swami is concerned. Like fire, everybody and everything who dared invoke his name in vain were turned to ashes. The best example of this is the story of what happened to our poisonous Pinkos when they tried to say less than flattering things about him in forums other than their in-house pamphlets. And so it is now. The enormous ball of outrage that exploded on Twitter and elsewhere online is just the latest manifestation of said turning to ashes. Indeed, a group of well-meaning and nationalistic folks are taking out a protest march against the Hindu on January 7, 2013. But poor Sanjay Srivastava is no match for the foul-mouthed scholar, the rabid Meera Nanda who had similarly tried to abuse Swami Vivekananda and couldn’t get away with it. And so too shall be the fate of Sanjay Srivastava. He’s already gotten one solid dose right here on CRI.

He then turns next to abuse festivals like Karva Chauth. His deviant brain naturally views it only as a “ritual of male-worship,” which needs a “significant public examination,” meaning the destruction of Karva Chauth. Of course, if you go out looking for shit, you will find it everywhere. Including inside your own head. Like most other Indian festivals, Karva Chauth works at several levels, the family being the primary level in this case. What Sanjay cleverly hides is the fact that there’s no imposition on the wife to observe a fast on Karva Chauth. What Sanjay also doesn’t mention is the fact that thousands of husbands also fast to show solidarity, and respect for the wife who observes it. What message does this send to the children about how they should treat their own husbands and wives after they get married?  What kind of “masculinity” do such husbands exhibit, Mr. Sanjay? Besides, why do depraved folks like Sanjay Srivastava get all riled up because some women choose to show love and respect for their partners in this manner? Why do you froth at the mouth because some people choose to preserve their traditions? Who gave you the Divine Right to command an “examination” of these traditions? Who gave you the Absolute Authority to proclaim that such festivals are evil? And what makes you the arbiter of what is the Ideal masculine or feminine?

And therein lies the crux: this whole assumption by the Marxists of the role of an Agent of Change and the Sole Judge of good and evil in society. You take any Marxist trash, and you’ll invariably find this mindset dictating said trash.

Sanjay Srivastava’s rabid rant about “aggressive masculinity” and related nonsense is just a front. His real target is nationalism and deep-rooted Indian values. It’s pretty clear that he blames Indian culture—a culture that actually encourages the worship of feminity—for the incidents of rape that have occurred in the nation including the ghastly one on December 23, 2012.

The so-called “masculinity” that Srivastava disparages, doesn’t even exist in the Indian conception. Indians have celebrated Kshatra or the righteous warrior spirit in a man as a value that needs to be both upheld and celebrated. One aspect of Kshatra also happens to be the protection and preservation of the honour and dignity of women. It is regarded as a sacred duty in the performance of which the man should give up his life if necessary. And it’s not just the man. Indian history is replete with examples of women who embodied this spirit. What does that tell us about women’s empowerment? What’s more empowering than fighting for and living a life in the service of an ideal? The fact that Sanjay Srivastava abuses this value by couching it in clever-by-half terms like “aggressive masculinity” is a great testimony to how twisted his mind is.

Oh! There’s a reason I mentioned semen in the beginning. This selfsame Sanjay Srivastava’s CV is a torrent of academic pornography. Here’s the complete list of his books and research papers. One essay is entitled “Introduction: Semen, History, Desire, and Theory.” I kid you not. Another is worse: Semen Anxiety. Pardon my English but what the fuck is a Semen Anxiety? Wait! We know what it is: Semen Anxiety is the Hindu piece he wrote. Semen Anxiety is the textual spilling of Sanjay Srivastava’s perpetual, existential anxiety, the kind of anxiety that makes him take matters into his own hands at all times. It is the result of his anxiety, the result of the doubt that torments him every waking moment: am I a Man?

The following two tabs change content below.

Sandeep Balakrishna

Writer, blogger and lapsed IT professional.