People who are wholly oblivious of the word ‘Cultural Marxism’ may perceive it as an intellectual one; however those who are acquainted with this term, also have the sense to identify it as a formidable challenge that is hard to vanquish. Before delving into the world of cultural marxism, let’s get a brief overview of ‘Marxism’.

Marxism lays down three salient features:

1. It bifurcates the world into the parts, namely the oppressor and the oppressed.
2. It vehemently follows the three R’s — Rebel, Reject, Resist.
3. Revolution can only be brought on the grounds of economy.

As widely acknowledged, Marxism stands as a failed ideology, marked by the collapse of the USSR — where it flourished once upon a time — and is also a significant contributor to the ideological erosion in America. Subsequently, Western intellectuals have recognized the inadequacy of Marxist tenets in fomenting a mass revolution. Perceiving the impermanence of class struggles, these thinkers opted for the RRR formula through cultural avenues to vehemently reject, resist, and rebel against societal norms such as culture, family, traditions, festivals, morality, and Dharma (one’s own duties), thereby leading the society towards a profound hollowness. The application of Marxist core principles —RRR — and the establishment of new systems through cultural means is termed as Cultural Marxism.

The ideology of Cultural marxism emerged in 1924 in Germany under the institute of social research  — popularly known as the Frankfurt School — established under the guidance of Horkhiemer.
The Frankfurt School presents an 11-point plan, the on-ground execution of which is discernible in the contemporary scenario of Bharat, mentioned as follows:

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. Teaching sex and homosexuality to children.
4. Undermining of the authority of schools and teachers.
5. Immigration en-masse to destroy identity.
6. Promotion of excessive drinking.
7. Emptying of churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.

From the aforementioned points we can observe that Cultural Marxism works on three dimensions:

• Creating an other/alternative/option
• Making a narrative
• Implementing its own narratives through its agents

The concept of “creating other” is evident in many instances such as the discourse surrounding sexuality. Societies all over the world, and the Hindu Dharma Shastras solely acknowledge two genders. The seed of discontent, the question about recognition of additional gender identities; the insinuation that the absence of such recognition is injustice at a fundamental level – is cultural marxism. Since the early 2000s, the LGBTQ community has actively advocated for their rights, often staging repetitive protests on university campuses and streets. These demonstrations sometimes involve inflammatory posters with derogatory language against Hinduism. The current situation has escalated to the point where the apex court is discussing and issuing verdicts on the matter, being coerced by influential forces to give judgements in their favour.

Another example pertains to the uniform code in schools – challenging the rationale behind exclusive adherence to a standard attire for all students. The Kerala hijab controversy is a significant instance of dissent against established norms. Furthermore, a distinct perspective emerges when examining the portrayal of characters from epics, highly deviating from their original characterization. For instance, presenting Ravana as a hero, by citing his profound knowledge and scholarly expertise in the Vedas, stands in stark contrast to the historical reality – this is how they reshape the images of pauranic and aitihasika characters in the minds of the masses. This notion of “otherness” extends to dress categorization, which further goes on to question why sarees are exclusively designated for women. Following this absurd otherness (wokeness), male students across universities, especially under the humanities tab, have started to wear saree in a misguided attempt at futile progressiveness.

Lastly, there’s a trend of assigning alternative meanings to Bhartiya festivals. For instance, labeling Holi as a festival associated with sexual abuse and molestation or Deepawali as a celebration contributing to pollution offers an unconventional perspective, challenging the joyous meaning associated with the festivities.

Now they move further in this direction by systematically constructing a narrative out of this ‘otherness’ and subsequently operationalising it via their agents. Cultural Marxism, also known as Critical Theory, has four prominent agents:

• Academics
• Mass Media
• Bollywood
• Formal Institutions

Let’s delve into each sphere individually:

• Academics – One can observe the impact of this ideology in academics in chronological manner. It has some phases which Prasanna Deshpande has named in his book ‘Disindianising Indians’ which are as follows:

1. The Colonial Phase: Post Independence Academics in India
2. The Pseudo Secularist Phase
3. The Critical Theory Phase.
4. Postmodernism.
5. Poststructuralism
6. The New Left: The Last Straw of Marxism
7. The Academic Mismatch
8. The New Left via Academics.
9. Cultural Studies.
10. Identity Politics Controlled by Academics.

The prominent ones are Poststructuralism, New Left, and Academic Mismatch.
According to Prasanna Deshpande Ji:

“Poststructuralism has produced deconstruction as its interpretative engagement with a written text or cultural values. Deconstruction functions as a deterrent force against the central idea expressed or conveyed into a literary or informative text and culture. It resists the centrality of a particular meaning or interpretation of a literary, cultural or historical texts and ‘deconstructs’ them by using their indefinite (perceptively though) points or features against the commonly recognisable meaning. This being achieved, deconstructive approach to the understanding of the real nature of something requires us to substitute the primary meaning with the alternative understanding and foreground it radically as the subversive meaning of that text.”

He further says:

“The most fundamental premise of such a reading of cultural practices or cultural narratives is reading against the grain. We can see that Deconstruction treats culture as text.”

Here are a few examples of this:

1. Ekalavya is a victim as the upper caste Dronacharya refused to train him in archery.
2. Socialist renderings of Shivaji Maharaja – Shivaji was secular ( in the Western sense) and his image as a Hindu icon is a political manoeuvre of the mainstream Hindu population.
3. Aurangzeb was a secular leader.
4. Mahishasur was a tribal aboriginal victim of the machinations of invading Aryans who called themselves Devas.
5. Maharaja Bali was a victim.
6. Ravana was a hero.
7. Sita was a victim.
8. Karna was a victim.
9. The Indian concept of the HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) is a Power Structure with the father or paterfamilias as the dominant and oppressive power centre. Women are suppressed within this system.
10. Religious minorities are the perpetual victims of the cultural dominion of majority population.
11. Women, Dalits, and minorities of all types (sexual, religious, ethnic, and linguistic) are permanent victims. Their distinctive cultural identity is suppressed.
12. Resistance of National Anthem (under the pretext of religious rights).
13. Resistance of National Song (under the pretext of minority).

Today, unfortunately, the aforementioned are encountered very frequently; especially among the intellectually developed  students of the humanities across universities in the country.

• Media – When the Mewat violence erupted a couple of months ago, the left-wing web media companies vehemently laid the blame at the feet of the Bajrang Dal.  Numerous shreds of evidence emerged asserting the fact that violence was orchestrated, pointing fingers at a specific community aiming to obstruct Bajrang Dal’s procession. The Indian media, using the ‘Deconstruction’ formula, created an alternative narrative of the scenario.
  The Ujjain rape case showcases the same hypocrisy of the media, as news portals shrewdly concealed the name of the pandit (Rahul Sharma, who aided the little girl by giving her food, clothes and medical attention).  Instead, they deliberately linked the crime to Shakti worship, employing the concept of ‘Deconstruction’ once more to craft a narrative that associates with followers of Devi, a perverse mentality.
  Amidst the Manipur violence, a woman belonging to the Kuki tribe was being paraded naked, the heinous and punishable crime was given coverage by almost every media house. In contrast, a similar incident in West Bengal of a BJP candidate paraded naked was hushed up by the ecosystem of media and the party in power.
• Bollywood – Bollywood has depicted a direct connection of all inappropriate actions with Hinduism. For instance, in a web series ‘City of Dreams’ heinous crimes like rape are portrayed in association with a Hindu, showing that the perpetrator has a sacred mark (Tika) on the forehead and wears a ‘Rudraksha Mala’. It is true that crime has no religion, but bollywood’s mindset seems to be applicable only to Hinduism. This audacity could lead bollywood to undeniable intolerance if it continues to depict hindu community as a potential offender. Also, one can also observe Mughals glorification in one of the scenes of the then hit movie bemisaal. Along with that, pure hindi speaking character is always shown as weak and a subject to be mocked. The list is too long!
• Formal Institutions – Rendering a verdict without due consideration of evidence from both perspectives contravenes the procedural norms of the legal system — a principle widely acknowledged. Application of diplomacy can be seen in Karnataka Hijab row and the same sex marriage verdict.
  For instance, Justice Gupta upheld the Karnataka High Court order of March 15, 2022, which had directed that the ban on the hijab in State-run pre-university institutions be continued in the interests of unity, equality, and public order. On one hand, where Justice Gupta upheld Karnataka High Court’s view that the hijab was not an essential religious practice; while on the other, Justice Dhulia felt that neither the petitioners nor the court should have even entered this debate. Why such diplomacy? Why should there be an alternative for school uniforms at all? Remember  ‘creating an alternative’. On one side judiciary claims to rely on thorough legal analysis and constitutional principles to make decisions, emphasizing a commitment to impartiality and legal integrity rather than on specific, predetermined references;  while on other, when it comes to Hindu sentiments, these parameters have always been kept aside. Analysing potential bias in the judiciary requires nuanced examination.

Sometimes applying the tactics of the other side on themselves can prove beneficial. As a precursor to that, there needs to be meticulous identification of the problem. In the Mahabharata’s Shālya Pārvā, there is a sequence of a gada fight between Duryodhana and Bheema. When the gada fight reached a stalemate, Bhagwan Shri Krishna signaled Bheema to attack on Duryodhana’s thigh, as per his oath taken at the time of the game of dice. Although it was against the rules of yuddha, Shri Krishna Himself commanded Bheema to do so. Yudhishthir — who is standing beside Shri Krishna —  looked inquisitively at Shri Krishna who then replied to Yuddhisthira:
“Mayavi Mayaya Vaddhyaha”.
Deceit can only be defeated by deceit. And therefore, when it comes to a solution to defeat this ideology; this lesson taught by Shri Krishna must always be remembered!