Sita Ram Goel’s “Perversion of India’s Political Parlance” (1984) is a profound critique of the language used in Indian political discourse and its distortion to serve specific ideological agendas. With sharp wit and a deep understanding of history and politics, Goel dissects how certain terms have been manipulated to erode Hindu cultural identity while amplifying narratives favorable to leftist and Islamic ideologies. The book remains a compelling and timely examination of the enduring impact of linguistic and ideological perversion on India’s socio-political fabric.

Secularism: A Twisted Narrative

At the heart of Goel’s argument lies the misuse of the term “secularism.” As defined in dictionaries, secularism implies a separation between state and religion, ensuring neutrality. However, in India, it has acquired a selective and skewed meaning: “eschewing everything Hindu and espousing everything Islamic” (p. 15). This manipulation, Goel argues, has served as a tool to marginalize Hindu voices while accommodating and even glorifying Islamic and leftist ideologies.

Through this lens, Goel critiques the introduction of the word “secular” into Indian politics, particularly its usage post-independence under Jawaharlal Nehru’s leadership. Nehru’s influence, Goel asserts, transformed “secularism” into a weapon for suppressing Hindu cultural nationalism, creating an imbalance in the socio-political narrative.

The Title’s Essence: A Linguistic Perversion

The book’s title, Perversion of India’s Political Parlance, encapsulates its core message. “Perversion” signifies an intentional alteration of meaning, while “parlance” refers to the language or terminology specific to a group. According to Goel, political terminology in India has been deliberately twisted to frame leftist ideologies as “progressive” and Hindu nationalism as “communal.” This dichotomy, he contends, perpetuates a divisive narrative and alienates Hindus from their cultural roots.

A Story of Misconceptions: J.P. Narayan and the RSS

In the opening chapter, “Something Was Seriously Wrong Somewhere”, Goel recounts an anecdote involving J.P. Narayan, a prominent political leader. In 1959, as secretary of an organization led by Narayan, Goel invited him to visit an RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) camp. Aware of Narayan’s biases against the RSS, Goel challenged his perception, accusing him of ideological “untouchability” by avoiding engagement with the organization. Reluctantly, Narayan agreed to visit.

During his two-hour visit, Narayan refrained from speaking publicly but left with a changed perspective, realizing that his earlier misconceptions about the RSS were unfounded. Goel uses this story to highlight how political narratives create entrenched biases, and how these biases persist despite evidence to the contrary.

Dividing the Political Spectrum: Left, Right, and the Missing Center

Goel critiques the arbitrary bracketing of ideologies into “left,” “right,” and “center.” The “left” is celebrated as progressive, modern, and secular, while the “right” is vilified as reactionary, conservative, and communal. The “center,” often associated with the Congress Party, is ambiguously defined, further muddying the political waters.

This ideological framing, according to Goel, is a calculated effort to portray leftist ideologies as virtuous while dismissing Hindu cultural nationalism as regressive. By controlling the language, leftists manipulate public opinion and dominate the political narrative.

Origins of the Leftist Language

Goel examines the roots of leftist political rhetoric in India. Leftist professors and publicists claim that their language was formulated in the course of India’s fight for freedom from British rule. But nothing could be farther from truth. The annals of India’s freedom struggle provide no evidence that this language was used in India’s politics till the late thirties of this century (1930s).  Contrary to such claims, Goel asserts that the language gained prominence only in the 1930s, influenced by global communist movements. Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru adopted terms like “bourgeois” and “proletariat,” aligning themselves with communist ideologies and marginalizing traditional Indian perspectives.

The Imperial Characteristics of Ideologies

In the book, Goel draws parallels between leftist, Islamic, and Christian ideologies, highlighting their imperialistic tendencies. These ideologies, he argues, divide history into binary opposites—such as “darkness” before Christ or “reactionary” forces opposing communism. They elevate certain figures, such as Jesus or Marx, to infallible status, demanding unquestioning faith. Goel contrasts this dogmatism with Hinduism’s pluralistic and rational approach, which he believes has been unjustly maligned by leftist propaganda.
Goel delves into the role of M.N. Roy, a prominent communist leader, who introduced leftist terminology in India after being influenced by Lenin and Marxist ideology during his time in the Soviet Union. Roy’s book India in Transition (1922) laid the groundwork for much of the leftist rhetoric that would dominate Indian politics in subsequent decades.

The Role of Language in Splitting the National Movement

The chapter “The Role of Leftist Language” examines how leftist rhetoric fractured India’s national movement. Although Nehru officially distanced himself from the communist-socialist bloc, he covertly used leftist language to undermine leaders like Sardar Patel and Subhas Chandra Bose. This rhetoric, Goel argues, not only divided the nationalist camp but also perpetuated anti-Hindu sentiments by emphasizing isolated incidents, such as Gandhi’s assassination by a Hindu, while ignoring the larger contributions of Hindus to the freedom movement.

Goel likens this selective vilification to the Catholic Church’s portrayal of Jews as the killers of Jesus, a narrative that overshadowed their broader contributions to history.

Mahatma Gandhi: Flawed but Revered

Towards the end, Goel presents a nuanced critique of Gandhi. While acknowledging Gandhi’s contributions to the freedom movement, Goel criticizes his failure to confront Islamic imperialism effectively. Gandhi’s idealization of Islam as a religion and his appeasement of Muslim separatist demands, Goel argues, were strategic errors that weakened Hindu nationalism. Despite these flaws, Goel defends Gandhi’s legacy, emphasizing his role in uniting the masses during critical junctures of India’s struggle for independence.

Towards a Language of Indian Nationalism

The book concludes on a hopeful note with Towards a Language of Indian Nationalism. Goel advocates for reclaiming a nationalist vocabulary rooted in India’s civilizational ethos. He highlights historical figures like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, whose song Vande Mataram embodies this spirit of nationalism, and calls for a rejection of divisive narratives imposed by leftist and Islamic ideologies.

Goel argues that Indian nationalism must reaffirm the indivisibility of Bharatavarsha, challenging the artificial divisions created by Islamic imperialism. He envisions a unified nation that transcends the boundaries of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Hindustan, and Bangladesh—restoring the cultural and spiritual unity that predates colonial and imperial disruptions.

A Call for Reflection

Goel’s Perversion of India’s Political Parlance is not merely a critique of political language but a call to examine the origins and implications of the words we use. By exposing the manipulations of leftist ideologues, he urges readers to reclaim a narrative that aligns with India’s cultural and civilizational heritage. The book remains a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the complexities of Indian politics and the enduring impact of linguistic distortion on national identity.