From Bias You Came, And To Bias You Have Returned: The Story of Modern Feminism

The story of modern feminism is a tale of betrayal, duplicitousness, and envy. As Brutus and Cassius, envious of Caesar's command over the heart of Rome, murdered him under the pretense of being his friend, so too has modern feminism (by which I mean third and fourth generation feminism) backstabbed first- and second-generation feminism, renouncing its ideals, perverting its values, and forgetting its purpose.

Classical feminism, by which I mean first and second generation feminism, says that women must be allowed to do the things they want to do, provided there is no greater, big-picture risk generated by the admission of women. If a woman wants to play football, for example, she must be allowed to play football, to the best of her abilities, and without undue hindrances. If a woman wants to study physics, she must be allowed to study physics, to the best of her abilities and without undue hindrances. This used to be the feminist position. I would have been - and still am - a feminist by this definition.

By the 1990s, this had gradually turned into a scenario where women didn't have to adjust to the way a certain profession had always worked, but rather the other way round. If women were uncomfortable with it, it was the profession that had to change to cater to them, because after all, isn't that how the world had always worked?

When a woman requested something, was it not a chivalrous man's duty to do the task for her? If a woman had an inconvenience, was it not a manly man's duty to sort out her problem? If a woman broke down crying at something a man said, was it not the bad bad man's fault for "making her cry"?

Everyone somehow chose to forget that this was supposed to be a movement of women who were expressly trying to refute the traditions and traditional stereotypes of women, and using said stereotypes to promote the movement should have negated the point of the movement.

It was this doublethink that laid the groundwork for all that has come after. Were women to be treated as truly equal to men, which would mean granting them both the privileges and duties of men, or were they only to be termed as equal to men while de facto being treated as the fairer and weaker sex they had always been considered to be? It is this duplicity that lies at the core of present-day feminism. 

When feminism was all about allowing women everywhere they wanted to go, only the women who actually wanted to go somewhere got on the train. This benefitted them personally, this benefitted their chosen vocation in the long term, and this benefitted the whole of human society, because genuine talent and passion was no longer barred by the nature of one's genitalia, and the social and legal changes enabling the same didn't take anything away from whatever existed of the vocation before women were allowed in.

When the generation of women who had fought for equal rights, the women who had fought for the right to compete on merit in the first place, faded out, it was replaced by a generation who saw that competing purely on merit with men was not a sustainable endeavor in many cases, at least if you weren't prepared to make the kind of personal choices and sacrifices that these men regularly had to make, and if you also wanted to raise a family of your own, which still remains primarily a woman's job due to the reality of basic principles of biology.

The fact that the previous generation of women had in fact worked for a living while raising children, and done both things reasonably well, was again conveniently forgotten. The fact that they had worked harder than their male colleagues to achieve these contrasting life goals, because they wanted to achieve them, was conveniently swept under the rug.

Instead of working harder to make their own lives easier, this generation worked hard to spin the presence of female (and other minority) colleagues as a Good ThingTM in itself, and the dominance of men as a Bad ThingTM in itself.

Most women (and men, for that matter) were happy to work low- or mid-level jobs for steady money rather than sacrificing everything else in their life to advance their career. But the focus had shifted from women having equal rights and privileges as men to everyone having equal rights and privileges as the richest and the most powerful in society, most of whom happened to be men, because they were the ones who were more likely to sacrifice a family for the sake of more money and power, the ones who were more likely to have the ruthlessness to rise to the very top of highly competitive professions.

Despite the majority of women falling in the same socioeconomic bracket as the majority of men at the time, these men were equated with the richest and the most powerful men on the basis of gender, and the perverted argument was formed that it was "men" - not "a very specific subcategory of men" - who were the richest and the most powerful, that it was "men" who were unfairly holding on to their money and power, that it was "men" who were holding women back, not the choices and priorities of the women themselves.

It was not enough that women were now allowed to go anywhere and compete on equal terms with men in all matters. The generation that was happy to compete on merit was gone, and the new generation was more interested in seeing men lose than in seeing women win. The problem statement for feminism was shifting from "there aren't enough women" to "there are too many men". It is this very sentiment that grew into the tangled-up jumble of "intersectionality" that we see today.

The philosophy of first- and second-generation feminism was revolutionary at the time, but it was rooted in a constructive, positive, productive desire to work hard for oneself, to retain one's own agency and independence, and to "make something of oneself", as elderly people often put it. On the other hand, the philosophy underlying third- and fourth-generation feminism seems driven by resentment and envy of others who have it better. While first- and second-generation feminism never argued for the negation of other people's rights and freedoms, third- and fourth-generation feminism is rooted and entrenched in precisely that. While the former was constructive, the latter has consistently shown itself to be - in theory and in practice - a destructive force.

This is a fundamentally different approach to feminism that many classical feminists, men and women, have been unable to stomach.

From women demanding the right to compete with men on equal terms, feminism was now shifting towards getting women the right to compete with men on favorable terms, unequal terms. Whereas classical feminists were arguing for women's right to enter the pitch and play alongside the boys, modern feminists were now fighting for the right to have the pitch tilted in their favor, all the while proudly flying the cherished banner of gender equality and women's rights that masked their true intentions ever so well.

This moved feminism away from equality of opportunity, which had removed prejudice and bias in hiring and firing, at least in theory, on to equality of outcome, which necessitated bringing prejudice and bias back, because reality doesn't work on humanist principles and organically attaining equal outcomes for all is literally impossible.

The fact that humans are born organically, not manufactured synthetically, became such a problem for feminists that they resorted to their default setting of covering their eyes and screaming at the top of their lungs. True to form, everyone once again chose to forget that this was supposed to be a movement designed to open a locked door for women so that they could then do the rest on their own. True to the doublethink at the heart of modern feminism, everyone lined up to solve the problems of these empowered, emancipated, enlightened women for them.

Suddenly having women in your workplace was THE thing to do. The world's intellectuals all agreed that since the feminists had cried and screamed pretty loudly, there must have been a valid cause for their crying and screaming, and that valid cause must have been the fact that men still dominated some professions. The fact that the feminists weren't crying about the professions that women dominated over men was just further proof that it was male dominance that was the problem. If you were not a feminist, you were suddenly not cool anymore. Feminism and progressivism suddenly became universal gateways to social acceptance, political success, and even business opportunities.

And just like that, feminism was no longer about allowing individual women to do what they wanted, about allowing individual women to go where they wanted. It was now about putting women in places that made their superiors look good.

In barely more than one generation, modern feminism has somehow managed to revert society to a time where women are judged not by the content of their character, but by their gender alone. Exactly what classical feminism had fought against all those years ago.

In the world of modern feminism, women are seen not as fully fledged, upstanding human beings, but as accessories to raise your own social standing. Supporting women regardless of circumstance, clinging on to the label of "feminism" regardless of its contents, is what makes you a Good PersonTM in the world of modern feminism. All the other metrics for assessing the "goodness" of a person are discarded in favor of this singular universal parameter. If you are a feminist, you are a Good PersonTM, regardless of everything else. If you are not, you are a Bad PersonTM, regardless of everything else.

In the world of modern feminism, it is not important to promote those who have earned it, regardless of their congenital characteristics, but essential to promote based on congenital characteristics. Classical feminists had humbly thrown prejudice and bias in the trash can, where they belonged. Modern feminists dove head-first into that same trash can, cursing at the classical feminists for throwing away such a powerful weapon in the first place, and emerged clutching the bundle of biases to their chest like their own suckling baby.

In the world of modern feminism, someone who promotes a competent woman and fires an incompetent woman has to be hated because he has not promoted both of them, because the gender of the two women trumps any argument about their competence.

In the world of modern feminism, a man who promotes his female subordinates to use them as an ornament for his own social standing, as decoration for his own personal monument, as gender candy to attract the social butterflies, is a bona fide "male ally", but someone who expects his female subordinates to earn their promotion through merit, through achievement, is a toxic patriarchal abuser. 

As with all other forms of bias and prejudice, this hurts everyone and everything.

The women who get promoted to positions beyond their ability due to the rules of modern feminism often have no real interest in getting there in the first place, their bosses don't really want them there, their families don't really want them there, their colleagues don't really want them there, the profession as a whole certainly doesn't benefit from having incompetent and uninterested people at the top. Nobody is happy, and yet everybody is happy. Nobody has what they want, and yet everybody has what they want. Nobody is equal, and yet everybody is equal. It's magic! Stage magic, not real magic, but still.

The difference between something being "allowed" and something being "enforced" is not a trivial one by any means. In fact it is quite literally the difference between liberty and despotism. The non-triviality of this change is being brought to the fore more and more as the carefully isolated bubble of modern feminism inevitably clashes with the fundamentals of the reality of our world. In a way, and very much in retrospect, classical feminists will be thanking the "trans" movement for making the ridiculousness of modern feminism obvious for the whole world to see. But it goes a bit deeper than that.

How long is a thing the thing if it is continuing to evolve all the time?

In what sense is modern India "the same as" the "India" that Alexander the Greek encountered, even though it carries the same name? 

In what sense are modern football clubs "the same as" their own 19th-century avatars, when, in most cases, literally only the name has survived unchanged through the decades?

Similarly, modern feminism is feminism in name only. In other words, it is not feminism at all. It is cowardice, greed, and envy masquerading as compassion, tolerance, and inclusivity. To paraphrase Shakespeare, bullshit by any other name would smell just as disgusting. And you know what, it does.

Through the years, everything but the name of the feminist movement has changed. The name, the brand, has been carefully preserved as the only valuable part of the entire movement, and no longer means what it meant a hundred, or fifty, or even twenty years ago. It is false advertising to promote feminism under the garb of gender equality and justice and liberty for all when the product these days is actually a nasty, stinking mixture of misandry, irresponsibility, and lack of accountability.

The classic storytelling trope of an evil doppelganger, who uses his nominal similarity with someone else to wreak havoc in their name, has never been more real than with modern "feminism". 

To truly defeat the evil doppelganger in movies, though, either the loved ones of the one being impersonated need to be able to use a gun and know exactly how to distinguish the original from the copy, or the one being impersonated himself needs to finish the job and deal with the consequences later. Both options seem rather far away right now.

Classical feminism is not dead. It is alive in all of us who see character, not appearance, when judging someone. Classical feminism has been enslaved, like many other things, by the perverted monstrosity of modern feminism. But truth will eventually out, and recent political trends around the world show conclusively that modern feminism and its ideological offshoots are being rejected by more and more people, who are instead rediscovering the stable, balanced, reality-based values and principles of classical feminism when dealing with gender-related issues.

Top-down impositions of ideology have never lasted for very long throughout human history, not anywhere, not in any period. It is bottom-up revolutions that have always produced the best and most durable outcomes, and bottom-up revolutions, like everything that is meaningful and worth preserving in any society, begin with individuals standing up for what they believe in. 

That is all that I can ask of anyone, really, regardless of which side of this debate you come down on. Regardless of whether you come down more on the side of classical feminism (as I have defined it in this piece) or modern feminism (likewise), I can only ask you to remain honest with yourself, and truly examine your beliefs, so that if you are ever forced to stand up for your beliefs as an individual, without the comfort and security of group concordance, you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that what you are fighting for is what you actually believe in.

The question of what freedom really means is intrinsically related to the entire history of feminism, but on the personal scale, representing what we actually believe in, rather than representing what we have been instructed to represent, is really the full extent of freedom that we are capable of. 

As for me, I will always come down on the side of competence, hard work, and personal accountability, not groupthink, identity politics, and jealousy. But what I can assure you is that I will live out these values just the same in my own personal life, when no one else is watching, as I would represent them in front of other people, regardless of whether they agree with me or not. If you come down on the opposite side of this debate as me, I seriously hope you can say the same.

Fin.

Tanmay Viraj Tikekar

08/03/2025

गांधी, सावरकर, आणि Tyler Durden

लहानपणापासून उजव्या विचारसरणीत, हिंदूनिष्ठ वातावरणात वाढल्यामुळे मला सावरकर नेहमीच जवळचे वाटत आलेले आहेत. म्हणवून घ्यायचंच तर मी स्वतःला "सावरकरवादी" म्हणवून घेईन. पण उजव्या विचारसरणीत जी गांधीविरोधी मानसिकता साधारणतः असते, ती मला कधीच पटलेली नाही. 

"केवळ गांधींनी आणि गांधीवादानी भारताला स्वातंत्र्य मिळवून दिलं" हे किती अंशी खोटं आहे, हे गांधीवादी म्हणवून घेणाऱ्यांना कळणार नाही. पण याउलट, गांधी या राजकीय व्यक्तिमत्त्वापलीकडच्या मोहनदास गांधी या माणसाचा द्वेष पण माझ्याकडून कधी झाला नाही.

आपल्या डाव्या - उजव्या मतभेदांमधे आपण गांधी, गांधीवाद, सावरकर, आणि सावरकरवाद, यांचा इतका गोंधळ करून ठेवलेला आहे, की त्यातून नीर आणि क्षीर वेगळं करणं अवघड होऊन बसलेलं आहे.

गांधीवाद पटत नाही म्हणून उजव्या विचारसरणीचे पुराणमतवादी हिंदू बरेचदा मोहनदास गांधींमधला शुद्ध भारतीय (Indic) परंपरेतला ऋषी पाहायचेच नाकारतात, आणि सावरकरवाद सोयीचा आहे म्हणून सावरकरांच्या बुद्धीची पूर्ण धग अंगावर न घेता, जाणतेपणी कच्च्या घड्यासारखे राहून "हिंदुत्व, हिंदुत्व" करत बसतात.

गांधीवाद आवडला नाही म्हणून गांधीच नाकारायचे, किंवा सावरकरवाद सोयीचा आहे म्हणून अर्धवट, निवडकच सावरकर बघायचे, हे दोन्ही उत्तमतेच्या नियमांत बसत नाही. 'उत्कट भव्य ते ते घ्यावे, मिळमिळीत अवघेचि फेकावे', असा साधा नियम या बाबतीत रामदासांनी घालून दिलेला आहे. कुणाचे आहे ते महत्त्वाचे नाही, काय आहे हे महत्त्वाचे, असा साधा सिद्धांत आहे.

गांधीवाद नाकारायचा तर जरूर नाकारा, पण आधी गांधी आणि गांधीवाद दोन्ही समजून घ्या, मग नाकारा. सावरकर पत्करायचे असतील तर जरूर पत्करा, पण आधी सावरकर आणि सावरकरवाद दोन्ही समजून घ्या, मग पत्करा.

डाव्या विचारसरणीच्या किंवा गांधीवादाच्या सद्यपरिस्थितीतल्या अनुयायांना सुद्धा हे लागू आहेच. जसा उजव्यांनी गांधी समजून न घेता गांधीवाद नाकारला आहे, आणि अर्धवट सावरकर समजून घेऊन त्यांना आपलं म्हटलेलं आहे, तसाच काहीसा प्रकार डाव्यांनी "vice versa" केलेला आहे. सावरकर नाकारायचे असतील त्यांनी जरूर नाकारावे. पण समजून उमजून नाकारावे. नकळता नव्हे.

गांधींनी भगवद्गीता वाचून त्यातून "गांधीवादी" अहिंसेचा, भौतिक अहिंसेचा अर्थ कसा काय काढला हे मला तरी अजून कळलेलं नाही. पण गांधींना पाठीशी घेऊन लढणाऱ्यांनी गांधी भगवद्गीतेला पाठीशी घेऊन लढत होते, हे विसरू नये. भगवद्गीता, एकूणात सनातन परंपरेची शिकवण म्हणजे मुळातच काहीतरी जुनाट, बुरसटलेली, निरुपयोगी वस्तू हीच ठाम समजूत घेऊन बसलेल्यांनी गांधीवादाचा टिळा लावू नये.

अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी यांच्या एका प्रसिद्ध भाषणात त्यांनी म्हटलेलं आहे, "सावरकर माने त्याग. तितीक्षा. तिलमिलाहट." आता यातलं कुठलं विशेषण मोहनदास गांधी या माणसाला लागू होत नाही, हे मला तरी कळलेलं नाही.

रूमीने त्याच्या एका कवितेत म्हटलंय, की बरे आणि वाईट यांपलीकडे एक उघडे माळरान आहे; तिथे मी तुझी वाट बघतो आहे. तसेच गांधीवाद आणि सावरकरवादांच्या पलीकडेही एक मोकाट माळरान आहे. हे माळरान आहे Fight Club मधल्या ओसाड, उदास Tyler Durden चे.

ज्यांनी Fight Club हा चित्रपट पाहिलेला नाही, त्यांना मी तो बघून यायला १३९ मिनिटांचा ब्रेक देतो. ज्यांना पिक्चर माहिती आहे, त्यांनी पुढील वाचावे.

Tyler Durden, गांधी, आणि सावरकर या तिघांचेही उद्दिष्ट, इप्सित, इष्टदैवत एकच होते - स्वातंत्र्य. त्यांच्या भोवतीची समाजस्थिती मोडून काढायला, बदलायलाच हे तिघेही उभे ठाकले होते. Tyler ला materialism ची गुलामी जाचत होती, तर गांधी-सावरकरांना ब्रिटिशांची. Tyler ची गुलामी पूर्णपणे मानसिक होती, तर गांधी-सावरकरांची (प्रामुख्याने) भौतिक, हा एकच महत्त्वाचा फरक. येनकेन प्रकारे "स्वराज्य" मिळवण्यासाठीच हे तिघेही लढत होते.

गांधीवाद आणि सावरकरवाद जर खरेच परस्परविरोधी असतील, तर स्वतंत्रतादेवीच्या या पाश्चात्त्य उपासकाला, म्हणजेच Tyler Durden ला, त्यांपैकी एका गटात टाकणे सोपे झाले पाहिजे, नाही का? 

Fight Club मधला Tyler Durden तुम्हाला गांधीवादी वाटतो की सावरकरवादी वाटतो?

Fight Club साठीची जागा जपण्यासाठी हॉटेल मालकावर चुकूनही हात न उगारता त्याचा मार खाऊन त्याला दमवून, शरमिंदा करून नमवणारा Tyler गांधीवादी, की सावरकरवादी?

स्वतःच्या वरिष्ठासमोर स्वतःला रक्तबंबाळ करून घेऊन वरिष्ठाला त्याबद्दल गोत्यात आणणारा Tyler गांधीवादी की सावरकरवादी?

स्वतःची सिद्धता तपासून पाहण्यासाठी साबण बनवण्याच्या रसायनांनी स्वतःचा हात स्वतःच भाजून घेणारा Tyler गांधीवादी की सावरकरवादी?

नव्या recruits ना दिवसेंदिवस घराबाहेर, ऊनपावसात, खायला अन्न व प्यायला पाणी न देता उभं करून त्यांची सत्त्वपरीक्षा बघणारा, आपली तत्त्वं त्यांना अंगवळणी पडली आहेत की नाही, याची पुरेपूर पडताळणी करून मगच नव्या recruits ना Project Mayhem मध्ये भरती करणारा Tyler गांधीवादी की सावरकरवादी?

नव्या recruits नी पहिल्या दिवशी fight club मध्ये भाग घेतलाच पाहिजे, मार खाल्लाच पाहिजे, म्हणणारा Tyler गांधीवादी की सावरकरवादी? लढून हरणारा नव्हे, तर लढायला घाबरणारा खरा निरुपयोगी, मागे हटणारा खरा निरुपयोगी, असे सांगणारा Tyler गांधीवादी की सावरकरवादी?

नव्या recruits नी मार खाऊन खचून न जाता त्यातून स्वतःला घट्ट बनवलं पाहिजे अशी अपेक्षा धरणारा Tyler गांधीवादी की सावरकरवादी?

नव्या recruits ना समाजावर त्रयस्थपक्षाकडून (third party) लादले गेलेले नियम मोडता आलेच पाहिजेत, पण fight club चे नियम मोडता उपयोगी नाही, असे सांगणारा Tyler गांधीवादी की सावरकरवादी?

स्वतःमधल्याच अशक्तपणाशी स्वतःच भांडणारा, आणि त्या भांडणातून इतरांना तेच भांडण करण्याची प्रेरणा देणारा Tyler गांधीवादी की सावरकरवादी?

या प्रश्नांची उत्तरं मला तरी (असंदिग्धपणे) स्वतःची स्वतःला देता आलेली नाहीत. तुमच्यापैकी कुणाला निःसंशय एका गटात Tyler Durden ला टाकता आलं असेल तर मला तुमच्याशी बोलायला नक्कीच आवडेल.

Tyler ला materialism पासून मुळातच स्वातंत्र्य हवं होतं, तर गांधी आणि सावरकर दोघांनीही materialism मधल्या "materials" चे symbolic महत्त्व ओळखून स्वदेशी वस्तू वापरण्यावर आणि विदेशी वस्तू नाकारण्यावर भर दिला होता, हा या तिघांमधला समान धागासुद्धा मला मजेशीर वाटतो.

मग गांधीवाद आणि सावरकरवाद जर खरेच परस्परविरुद्ध असतील, तर Tyler Durden ला दोनातल्या एका गटात टाकणं इतकं अवघड का व्हावं?

विदेशी वस्तूंची होळी करणारे सावरकर आणि स्वदेशी वस्तूंचा पुरस्कार करणारे गांधी जर Tyler Durden च्या जगात जन्माला आले असते, तर कोणी काय केलं असतं? Tyler जर भारतात १९व्या शतकाच्या उत्तरार्धात जन्माला आला असता, तर गांधी झाला असता, की सावरकर?

Tyler Durden "गांधींचा" की "सावरकरांचा"?

_______________________________

०२/१०/२०२४ ला सुचलेला आराखडा आज कुणाचीही जन्म/पुण्यतिथी नसताना संकलन-संपादन करून प्रकाशित करत आहे. यामध्ये गांधी वा सावरकर कुणालाच कमी लेखण्याचा हेतू नाही, हे मजकूर वाचला तर लक्षात येईलच. याउलट भारतीय मनातल्या स्वातंत्र्याच्या संकल्पनेच्या या गंगा-जमुना ज्या एकाच पर्वतधारेतून उगम पावतात, त्या पर्वतधारेतून सिंहावलोकन करायचा हेतू आहे. तो त्याच दृष्टीने वाचावा.

- तन्मय विराज टिकेकर, १२/०२/२०२५

गुरू शमा भाटे दिग्दर्शित 'परंपरा के पदचिह्न' - एक अनुभव व अभिप्राय

मला माझ्या दहावीत घडलेली एक घटना अजूनही तशीच आठवते. नॅशनल डिफेन्स अकॅडमी, अर्थात NDA ची पासिंग आऊट परेड पाहायला आम्हाला शाळेतली मोठी मुले म्हणून घेऊन गेले होते. परेड आमच्या समोर आडव्या लाईनीत उभी होऊ लागली. आत्तापर्यंत प्रबोधिनीत संचलन केलं होतं, पण इथल्या संचलनाची शिस्त वेगळीच आहे, हे कळत होतं. 

एक एक करत सारे जवान आमच्या समोर लाईनीत येत गेले, आणि त्यांच्या त्यांच्या जागेवर सगळे आल्यावर त्यांनी एकदाच शेवटचं लेफ्ट - राईट वाजवलं, आणि जागच्या जागी उभे राहिले. त्या शेवटच्या एकसंध लेफ्ट-राईटच्या आवाजाच्या शिस्तीखाली आमची, आमच्या आसपासच्या बाकीच्या प्रेक्षकांची, अगदी लहान - लहान मुलांची देखील, बडबड एका झटक्यात थांबली. खाणारी तोंडेही क्षणभर चमकली आणि गप्प झाली. वामनाने जसे दोन पावलात तिन्ही लोक व्यापून टाकले होते, तसेच इथे या नव्या राष्ट्रसंरक्षकांनी दोनच पावलात आम्हा सर्वांच्या मनाचा ठाव घेतला होता. तिसऱ्या पावलासाठी मस्तक झुकवण्यापलीकडे काही उरलेच नव्हते. उत्तमता इथे सशस्त्र दुर्गेच्या रूपात असुरांचा वध करायला तयार झाली होती.

काल (०९/०२) गानसरस्वती महोत्सवातील शमा भाटे दिग्दर्शित 'परंपरा के पदचिह्न' नृत्यप्रयोग पाहताना पुन्हा पुन्हा मला जवळ जवळ अठरा वर्षांपूर्वी पाहिलेल्या त्या एका लयीत पडलेल्या जवानांच्या टापा ऐकू येत होत्या. त्या टापा जशा दुर्गेच्या, रणचंडीच्या होत्या, तशा या टापा होत्या शारदेच्या, सरस्वतीच्या. शिस्त तशीच होती, पण इथे युद्ध होते ते केवळ अमंगलाशी, असुंदराशी, अनुत्तमाशी. इथे झेंडा नव्हता. आपले लोक ओळखायला गायन - वादन - नृत्य कलांना झेंडा लागतच नाही. दाद जायची ती जातेच.

नृत्यप्रवण तबला मी फारसा ऐकलेला नाही, म्हणूनही असेल कदाचित, पण काल चारुदत्त फडक्यांनी वाजवलेला तबला मला तरी वर्षानुवर्षे आठवत राहील. इतक्या सफाईने ते तालाचे वजन पलटीत होते, इतक्या विविध मार्गांनी समेला शोधत होते, की नवनवोन्मेषशालीनी शारदेच्या या पदन्यासावर जणू शंकराचा डमरूच साथ करतो आहे, असे वाटावे. 

शमाताईंच्या रचनांची मूर्ती सशस्त्र युद्धसज्ज दुर्गेसारखी न दिसता शिवप्रिया पार्वतीसारखी मंगलमय दिसत होती, प्रशांत भासत होती. शत्रूच्या रक्ताने माखलेली नाही, तर एका आंतरिक प्रकाशाने उजळलेली वाटत होती. तिचे तेज प्रकाशदायी होते, चटके देणारे नव्हे. तिचा आवेश सुंदर होता, भीतीदायक नव्हे. तिच्या सौंदर्याला तिच्या तपाने कमी केले नव्हतेच, तर अनावश्यक, असुंदर, अनाठायी ते सारे जळून गेल्याने तिच्यात एका तप:पूत तेजस्विनीची मूर्ती लकाकत होती. तिची एकेका मात्रेने - नव्हे, एकेका मात्रेच्या अंशा-अंशाने भरत जाणारी मूर्ती मनात आत्ता सुद्धा रुंजी घालते आहे. 

- तन्मय विराज टिकेकर, १० फेब्रुवारी २०२५

The Insidious Spectrumization of Autism and the Long-Awaited Flowering of Bihemispherical Excellence

The "spectrumization" of autism has been an insidious, worthless, harmful movement from the start. I always identify with "signs of undiagnosed autism" mentioned in posts / videos about the topic, but I categorically refuse to call myself autistic, because I have seen someone with severe autism, and I consider it an insult to them to call myself autistic for being slightly noncomformist.

That's all most of these new-age "autists" are - noncomformist. You can become comfortable with that. You can become your own person. But don't invent nonsensical labels that are insulting to people who actually suffer because of autism. I would probably rank fairly high on the "spectrum" of autism, but that doesn't mean anything to me, because this "spectrum" doesn't mean anything to me.

Usually, these "signs of undiagnosed autism" are essentially signs of self-awareness. I don't wanna go into conspiracy theory territory, but this may or may not be why autism in particular has been targeted for "spectrumization", rather than depression, anxiety, gender dysphoria, suicidality, or other equally prevalent mental conditions - locking up self-awareness behind labels is more useful to the system than with the other conditions.

There's nothing stopping us from inventing an artificial "injury spectrum" that runs from stubbing your toe / getting a paper cut all the way to quadriplegia / losing limbs. We could come up with this spectrum right now, and the DSM could include it in their next edition, because it would be supported by ScienceTM in the same way that the autism spectrum is. But that wouldn't change the fact that someone with a paper cut is not "injured" in the same way as someone who has lost both legs is "injured", regardless of the fact that they both fall on the same artificial, imaginary "spectrum" of injury.

Just like it is usually the same people who cling to ScienceTM that believe women must be portrayed as perfect little angels who can do no wrong, the same people who shout the loudest about the autism "spectrum" and make "awareness videos" about the same are usually the ones who also shout the loudest about economic disparity among social classes. "Eat the Rich" and "Autism Awareness" are more often than not found on the same social media pages or clusters.

Why, then, do these people not think of poverty and wealth as a "spectrum"? Why is a jobless, homeless person fundamentally different from billionaires, when they both fall on the same "wealth spectrum"?

Why are "hateful divisive populists" and "helpless endangered minorities" not perceived as falling on the same "power spectrum"?

Why are politically powerful male billionaires and downtrodden, blameless female victims of domestic abuse not on the same "agency spectrum"?

(Keep in mind that I am not the one saying that these two are fundamentally different; it is the same people who claim that being slightly awkward around people is the same "autism" that renders others incapable of communication with another human being altogether. It is the same people who build up a social media presence and socioeconomic clout on the back of their "autism" and "AuDHD" labels that claim that the two poles in the above examples are fundamentally different and must be treated as such.)

Could it be because it is not politically convenient to think of other parameters in terms of a spectrum, but it is profitable to spectrumize autism?

This is why, despite mocking and criticizing the modern Left all day long, I firmly remain an apolitical. It would be easy to criticize "The Left" for this "selective spectrumization", if you will, but it goes deeper than that. This is not about which banner is being flown by who. This is more about the fundamental structures of order and chaos that govern human behavior.

I don't "hate the left wing", in the same way that I don't "love the right wing".

To irrevocably identify with one side of a necessarily binary proposition is akin to cutting off your arm and leg on one side because having both would somehow be a betrayal to "your side". If you eat with your right hand, you better be using your left hand for washing the last traces of that same food off your butthole. It is not advisable to use the same hand when eating and when shitting.

The important thing is to trust the bihemispherical activity in our very human brain. In many ways, the activities of the two hemispheres of the human brain (broadly) correspond to the values and ideals of the political left and right. The logical, analytical, factual left hemisphere corresponds broadly to the right wing, while the creative, intuitive, emotional, imaginative right hemisphere roughly corresponds to the left wing. I cannot emphasize enough that this is a broad, generic comparison, and I make no claim that it will hold up in every particular.

In the past, we have had brainless jocks rule the world, and we have had spineless nerds rule the world. Perhaps it's now time for the flowering of the bihemispherical man - the jock who can read, and the nerd who can bench press; the poet who can fight, and the warrior who fights for love, not hate.

Hanuman and Ganapati are examples of this selfsame bihemispherical excellence from the Hindu faith. In fact it is probable that Hanuman and Ganapati were conceptualized as they were precisely in order to emphasize the importance of bihemispherical excellence for future generations.

We tend to know about the bodybuilder Hanuman, but Hanuman is so much more than the ubiquitous photo frame in gymnasiums. In addition to being frighteningly strong, Hanuman is also said to be the highest among the intelligent (बुद्धिमतां वरिष्ठम्), as per Hindu scriptures. In addition to being smart and capable, he is also the exemplar of devotion, the ideal devotee. Even more than being Lord Ram's military general, he is his humble servant. He is not only well-trained in the martial arts, but is also a singer and poet par excellence. He is not drunk on his magnificent power, but perfectly in control of his physical body (जितेंद्रिय). He is eager not just to lay enemies to waste for Ram, but also to praise and glorify Ram through emotive, evocative, devotion-filled keertan (religious singing). He is not just a destroyer of evil, but also an able upholder of the good. He has not only placed Ram on his shoulders, but installed Him in his heart of hearts. Ram, for Hanuman, is not a mere worldly concern; He is the core of his very being.

Exactly the opposite fate has befallen Ganapati. While the famous elephant-headed god is, in actuality, the commander of Shiva's diverse and fierce forces and son of the war-goddess Chandi (a manifestation of Parvati) herself, we are loath to look past his pleasing, erudite, sophisticated persona as the god of the arts and sciences. He is not just the remover of peril (विघ्नहर्ता), but the knower and master of peril (विघ्नेश्वर). He doesn't just keep his devotees safe from danger, but enables them to see the peril for what it is, to understand its nature, and to derive useful lessons for future progress from it. In this way, he is a willing and able safeguard against chaos and peril, not the idle, languid, almost Bohemian dreamer and artist that we have made him out to be.

Along with the modak, Ganapati also holds his battle axe in his hands. While one of his hands is raised in the abhay mudra (the stance of fearlessness), granting courage to his devotees, another holds the ankusha, which stops the errant mind from wandering off into the inutile, unwholesome reaches of human consciousness.

Similarly, the mighty, all-powerful arms of Hanuman are forever prostrated before the majesty of Lord Rama. The tumult of Ram's righteous war and the melody of the soulful praise of Ram are equally pleasing to this great lord of simians.

The creative, intuitive right brain and the logical, analytical left brain may prove to be incapable of handling real-life adversities on their own, but together, they are unstoppable. Stories from Hindu scriptures show a clear trend that whenever the logical, analytical left brain has divorced itself from the devotion / faith of the right brain, disaster has ensued. Perhaps this is why the Hindu tradition exalts Ganesh and Hanuman above all else, as a symbol of what happens when the right and left halves of the brain, physically and metaphorically, work together towards a common objective. Perhaps this is why the future belongs to the complete, bihemispherical Hanuman and Ganesha, who are not "one of the two", but both, and more.

Tanmay Viraj Tikekar

25/01/2015

Aligning Freedom with Growth: An Apolitical's Case for the Right Wing

Over the last several months, I have noticed with increasing clarity that many Indians, particularly those of the urban, affluent, politically left-leaning kind, simply do not have the eyes of an Indian. Instead, they have the eyes of the "global citizen", where you belong to nowhere and nothing but yourself, and your ability to take what you want is not limited by pesky inconveniences like nationality, indigeneity, and culture.

These people do not seem to care about the historical fact of several millennia of sustained Hindu thriving in the Indian Subcontinent, nor about the present-day fact that Hindus are by far the biggest demographic in India, so every party should be begging for Hindu votes just on the basis of basic rules of democracy. For them, the BJP is by default the "bad party" in India because it is pro-Hindu, and the INC by default the "good party" because it is nominally secular.

In fact, they seem set on rejecting the historical tradition of Hinduism in the Indian Subcontinent. This makes India's constitution a mightily convenient document for these classes.

The tradition of Hinduism is intangible. The constitution, on the other hand, is a "real" book; it can be seen, heard, smelled, touched, even tasted, if you're particularly freaky about it.

The tradition of Hinduism has its own ideals to aspire to, its own prescribed goals to pursue. Not only are certain goals and ideals prescribed, but historically, people who have aspired for them have repeatedly, consistently illustrated their utility in living life well.

Rights and freedoms in Hindu tradition, just like in all other comparably old religious traditions, are enmeshed with duties and responsibilities. The constitution, on the other hand, gives individuals rights and freedoms, but no ideals to aspire to. The only "goals", listed in the preamble, are collectivist in nature and have no practical utility for the individual.

Incidentally, this breeds a unique class of people who, determined to replace intangible tradition and conscience with the tangible constitution, pursue the goals set out in the preamble - solemnly resolving to secure to citizens justice, liberty, equality, fraternity, etc. - as if they do have practical utility in themselves, as if they themselves are productive targets for day to day life. But that's a deviation of topic I am not willing to take right now. These are usually not very nice people to be around, let's just leave it there for now.

This leaves people with the "freedom" to make up their own ideals. Naturally, this all descends pretty quickly to the basest level that humans will go to. 

We have the freedom to do what we want to do, but we do not have the freedom to want what we want to want. In other words, we have no control over what we want. Our idea of "freedom" usually ends at the first half of that sentence, but we need to remember the more important second half for the first half to have any meaning at all. Unless we can want what we want to want, doing what we want to do can be not only useless, but harmful. 

The ideals in religions set out a pacesetter, a benchmark, by which to measure yourself. A modern liberal democratic secular world sets out exactly nothing in this regard.

In contrast to the studiously constructed, manmade origins of the Left's (ironically) intangible ideals, the tangible biological origins of religious ideals are revealed in the rampant rates of mental disorders like depression, anxiety, and the likes all over the developed world, which are, more than anything else, a lack of identification with a suitable ideal for personal development.

The scalar, unchanging "human" of "human being" has had its time in the sun. Perhaps now it's time for the vector, dynamic "being" to shine through.

Any ideal that demands sacrifice, hard work, or inconvenience instantly becomes public enemy number one in a system with rights and freedoms but no prescribed goals and ideals to aspire to, and the convenient becomes king. Any identity that demands some sacrifice of personal freedom is seen as [insert feminist buzzword here], because after all, are we not free individuals?

"Individualism" may be an important cornerstone of today's global society, but individualism doesn't end at being able to do what we want to do. This modern interpretation of the word is the greed-driven, ego-driven perversion of a path that must, of logical necessity, end in spiritual enlightenment, nowhere else.

Individualism without the desire to understand the things that the ego doesn't control (trivial things, such as sleep, hunger, heart rate, digestion, thoughts, and desires) is not "individualism" at all. 

Individualism that is limited to the limits of the ego is just the ego - nothing more.

This ego-centric individualism is merely conformity masquerading in the skin of individualism. What's more, it is the worst kind of conformity - a conformity of individuals agreeing to succumb to base desires, agreeing to be weak, agreeing to be amoral, even deliberately immoral. 

On the social scale, this ego-driven individualism is seen in the opposition to nativism, to tradition, to preestablished rules, in order to create a Homo novus who cares about nothing but convenient pleasure, and demands for himself nothing but the resources to achieve the same.

Tradition is seen from the lens of convenience, and thus usually discarded.

ScienceTM helps these 'folx' remain in their own echo chamber, because after all, what sane person would value intangible things over tangible things, right? 

Even the change over time in the meaning of the word "sane" or "sanity" reveals this rot. The word "sane" originally meant "healthy", as seen in the famous Roman maxim 'mens sana in corpore sano' (a healthy mind in a healthy body). It is not for no reason that the Roman Empire lives on in the heads of young men all over the world rent-free. Nowadays, however, "sanity" has acquired a distinct smell of conformity and harmlessness rather than of health, per se. The Romans, of course, were big on intangible things such as glory, honor, and virtue, notions that are not only unfamiliar but "toxic" to the modern leftist.

On the personal scale, ego-driven individualism manifests in the fucked up dating world of today, where the gradual smoothening of individuals that makes marriage tenable over years, even decades, is seen as Toxic TraditionTM prima facie, and rejected out of hand.

If you remove the process of gradual fine-tuning that typifies all good marriages, from the equations of love, what are you left with? Just the naughty bits, basically - exactly what the modern dating scene seems to be all about.

I am not such a traditionalist that I will say "marriage is giving, giving, giving", but I will say that it's no wonder the institution cannot survive in a world based entirely on "taking, taking, taking".

For "global citizens" with eyes that see the world like this, it is the person striving for something bigger than himself that is the biggest enemy. By simply rising above what he used to be, this "Homo antiquus", if you will, shows the Homo novus a black mirror that the latter cannot face. He reminds them that they have turned their backs on what is good for the sake of what is convenient, and they cannot stand him for it.

Thus, Narendra Modi, the BJP, and the RSS become "divisive populists" in a country with 80% Hindus. 

Elon Musk becomes a "toxic promoter of misinformation" for having the resources to purchase one of the Left's best mouthpieces and the courage and conviction to destroy its heavily and pretty openly biased censorship mechanism.

Donald Trump becomes [insert feminist buzzword here] for his terrible crime of ... wait for it ... Prioritising the country of which he is the democratically elected president!! Oh, the horror!! Oh, the horror!!

Globally, the great weakness of the right wing has always been its inevitable fragmentation. Unlike the left wing, which is based on a common intellectual framework which can be superimposed on any and all local traditions and ways of life, the right wing has no common framework to protect, apart from in the most abstract sense. The system the right wing protects is necessarily organic, native to each individual culture that comes up with its own, based on regional particularities. There cannot be a "Global Right" in the same way that there can be a "Global Left". Any lasting global alliance of the right wing can be based only on ability and a mutual pursuit of "the good", in whose admiration it so starkly contrasts with the left wing.

This is why local wins for right wingers can and should be celebrated by right wingers everywhere, because every right wing victory is also a dent in the Global Left's ability to control the narrative, which is essential to its success. 

Due to its inherently artificial nature, leftist ideology needs to cut off dialog some way off from the fundamentals of human experience, whose origin it by its own nature cannot decipher.

This leaves a gap where right wingers can freely fly, but where leftists find no footing, because it goes deeper than their manufactured worldview. Hence, leftist rule, even in theory (unlike rightist rule), depends upon silencing those who go deeper than the party line permits.

In whatever election is upcoming where and when you read this, feel free to vote for whomever you want, but remember that, all other conditions being equal, only the right wing will allow you to vote for whomever you want. The reason minorities have always been able to live relatively trouble-free in India, right since prehistoric times, is the religious, right-wing mold of Hinduism, which saw a person for what they did, not for who they were. The reason job seekers from all over the world traveled to the USA and the UK during the 20th century was the religiously based, right-wing structure of these countries, which, again, respected the dignity of the working individual who could contribute to the bigger picture in some way. As far as I know, people weren't exactly lining up to move to the USSR or its allies during the Cold War, but the US, the UK, and Canada saw a constant stream of immigrants - this was no coincidence.

The Left may keep you fed and watered, but the Right will expect you to be able to put food on the table yourself. It takes some time and maturing to see the privilege afforded to you in the latter case and the disabusal of rights that comes with the former. Regardless of the unpopularity of this creed among children and adults with the brains of children, it is important to remember that teaching a man how to fish is more important than giving a man a fish. After a decade of what seemed like children gaining power everywhere, the adults are coming back, and I'm all here for it.

Disclaimer:

Beyond the stuff that seems to apply to real-life left-wing and right-wing political parties, I am more trying to get to the ideological foundations of the two sides, which are really the two faces of humanity, rather than their actual real-life political manifestations.

I am trying to judge the left wing and the right wing by their own rules. I may be biased, but I am trying to be fair.

Tanmay Viraj Tikekar

20/01/2025