ARTICLE

KNOWLEDGE AT WORK

This article is a propaganda article that supports the Hindus. With the use of emotionally laden and manipulating language, the writer tries to push people into supporting an extremist Hindu political party RSS. The knowledge issue of the article is to be didactic of how being unswerving and strong is better. The reason for this didactic issue is to push into the minds of common people of how the other parties are bad because they do not stand firm unlike the RSS.
The article claims that that Dr. Syama Prasaad Mookerjee, who stood steadfast in joining a united Hindu movement and who managed to convert 90% of descendant Indian Muslims into Hindus, was an ideological firm icon. He never wavered from his decisions and wanted action rather than the appeasement that Mahatma Gandhi followed to mollify the Muslims. Blaming Jinnah as the root of many troubles, the article brings into light how Jinnah was following a direct action policy against the Hindus and hence the many massacres of, rapes of and attacks on them. They claim that Jinnah was not even a proper Muslim. He was very Anglican and did not even know how to speak Urdu. This was the man that was leading the Muslims to ‘their’ home. He was never steadfast in what he wanted, neither is BJP or Congress. They are never firm which shows their inefficiency.
The article claims may be justified to a level however after a while one understands that RSS approach is comparable to common zealots. One can understand their cause however the question to be asked is whether a hatred of the Muslims is valid after nearly 60 years of the partition. A new generation has come to India that looks beyond religious boundaries thus how valid is this article. The article is very biased against the Muslims and is obviously pro-Hindus even if it comes down to using violence. The person writing the article has taken for granted that all Muslims are in ways bad and only Hindus can live in India, the sacred holy land. This is not true. The bias shows in everything the writer is writing and thus many of the reasons have not been given any solid justification. The question to why are they patronizing a man Dr. Mookerjee who was in many ways leading a crusade and doing the same thing that they despised the Muslims for, was answered by the reason that he stood firm. That is no reason but a frail attempt to mould the minds of people. With the use of emotionally laden language, a fallacy of reasoning, common people are told about the valour of Dr. Mookerjee and the evils of Muslims in order to propagandise to people the betterment of following a particular party.
These bias run to deep to be eliminated yet one can find some reason in their argument. If Muslims have taken to deep measures to kill Hindus; why should the Hindus not retaliate? Thus in case the knowledge issue is true, one needs to see History and compare the brutality of both the sides during the partition and then perhaps decide. For me however the knowledge issue can in places be reasoned but can never be true. It is true overly fanatic for that.