Response to Lakshmi Chaudhry @ Firstpost on third wave 'lipstick' feminism

                                   Read her post here(Firstpost)

1)I disagree with feminism, masculism & other such dogmatic ideologies. We can't solve the issues of both sexes by concentrating on only 1 of them at this point of time. Ofcourse I understand that, for several feminists, there are no men's issues. This would be amusing, if it weren't so tragic!
Watch the Amazing Atheist here to see him describe the same!
Humanism & embracing Enlightenment ideas like secular democratic govt, rationalism & individual liberty or even the continuing Indian concept of 'Dharma'(which does NOT mean religion or law as I explain in detail here) on which all of Indian philosophy(orthodox or heterodox) is premised, is completely consistent with the idea of equal liberty for every INDIVIDUAL, irrespective of gender or group identity in a nation state.
Everything good that feminists did - with all due respect to Germaine Greer - is completely consistent with Humanism & the enlightenment ideas or indeed "Dharma'' as well. So what is the need for the ideology in the first place? Wouldn't the abovementioned Enlightenment ideas suffice? Feminists giving credit to feminism for the good work some of them have done in the past, is similiar to religious people giving credit to their respective religious ideologies for the good work that some religious people have done in the past. It is possible for logic & sensible ideas to exist in some sections of religious literature, but there also exist evil or irrational sections & ideas that contain the potential of causing harm to humanity. If you are a collectivist feminist that imagines the 2 genders in a constant class struggle, all gender issues deriving EXCLUSIVELY & ONLY from ''The Patriarchy'' & cribs about how dirty the ''Male Gaze'' is, then I should say you open yourself up to being greeted by ill-concealed laughter. We 'scum men', or indeed many women(lipstick wearing sellouts?) too, don't dislike these type of feminist women because they are women. They are disliked and are social rejects because they are repulsive!! Like this one here.
''If you aren't a feminist, you're a bigot, there's nothing in between.'' spouting bimbos(used gender ambiguously) are repulsive because of their actions , not gender.The feminists who are for equality of human rights & human liberty, I, or indeed many other men(& non-feminist women) are happy to discuss issues/ideology with. Even though I don't think feminism is the solution(Humanism, embracing enlightenment & classical liberal values to a high extent, is!).
But the Equality of outcome, utopian notions of 'cosmic justice', 'proportional representation' & other masochistic piffle loving feminists - Bollocks! Most of us non-feminists are unwilling to even discuss issues with them.
I would much rather eat seafood and allow Iyers-Iyengars all over the world to claim they have 100% proof that I am also one of them, when they see my natural reaction to eating the abovementioned seafood - Projectile Vomit!
This is not prejudice, there is no prejudgement! I am judging these hatemongering, victim-mongering, OTT rubes on their stated agendas, actions & reactions.
Men are disposable for these hatemongers as 'girlwriteswhat' explains here.
Let's go to TJ, 'The Amazing Atheist' again for some more jyaan on these barbaric bitches(used gender ambiguously) here.



2)Even so, your points could have been made(to be refuted by humanists) without this quasi slut-shaming that radical feminists tend to indulge in. You refer to women who disagree as 'lipstick feminists'. They could very well turn around and refer to you as armpit-hair-growing, deodorant-hating(Deodorants are apparently 'male devices created for the enslavement of women, to make them conform to degrading standards of hygiene, again, created by evil men'), ball-busting, extortionist, wannabe-medieval male, blue-mohawk-sporting butch social-rejects, screaming-for-the-attention-they-have-never-got feminists. This pathetic behaviour only illustrates jealousy & reinforces stereotypes of feminists as social rejects who stopped thinking at the age of 14. They aren't 'hated' because they are women. They are hated because they are repulsive, in every way.

3)Continuation of point 2- Aren't you my good Madam, doing exactly what the president's son (Dopey Mukherjee) did with his dented/painted comment?
I shall explain!
Slut shaming is attempting to make a woman feel guilty or inferior about engaging in sexual activity or sexualized behaviour. A vague sort of this shaming is being attempted by you here, through your referring to certain women as 'lipstick feminists'.
The president's son's statement was classist & sexist. More classist than sexist, but sexist nevertheless. It was directed against a certain class of Indians & specifically women belonging to that socio-economic class(like you?). He associated these women only/exclusively or primarily with smothering their faces with make-up. The daft man didn't realise that it was/is perfectly possible for these women to smother their faces with make-up AND STILL, be smarter than him. You do pretty much the same thing here. It is perfectly possibe for these women feminists, to wear lipstick-the only or perhaps primary thing, you associate them with- AND STILL, be smarter & more rational than you.
And slut shaming apparently comes from 'the patriarchy'!! Oh the irony! Yeah, feminist theory got that wrong too.

If a man had written what you have, he would have been called a sexist pig. You obviously get away with it, since sows can't be sexist.

4)Any job that can be done in your PJs(stay at home mom), while eating or watching TV, or cooking, cleaning isn't the MOST difficult job in the world!!
I would think the lead miner(Always male), farmer in India who commits suicide(again always male), roofer, construction worker, upholsterer, plumber, slaughterhouse worker, carpenter, mechanic, economist, scientist, salesperson, etc. irrespective of gender, are all doing jobs that are a lot more important & difficult.
Some of you feminists might dislocate your elbow in the process of patting yourself on the back so hard & so many times!!

5)Individual identity is much more important than group identities(based on Gender, Race,Religion, Ethnicity etc). An individual could be male and be 100 other things.

6)Continuing from point 5, However, it is true that group identity is often important enough to warrant an acknowledgment of 'general' differences. All religions are not the same, neither are all sports, all kinds of music, all kinds of physical races or most definitely all genders. I am obviously here mentioning group identities that are choices AND those that aren't!!
The differences go beyond the obvious physical differences. Men are genetic Groupies. Women are genetic celebrities. Men feel the need to improve themselves to impress women a lot more than the reverse case.

Testosterone is directly proportional to risk taking ability. This is an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantages of risk taking and doing something unconventional which 'society' frowns upon, are obvious from, for example, Galileo's adventures. The disadvantage would be illustrated through the Nazis or the Communists in Russia. I'd go onto suggest that women are 'generally' better judges of character than men, but the inbuilt tendency to take lesser risks also explains why most of Hitler's & Stalin's supporters esp the die-hards,were men.

Generally, it is felt(though only some rather brave men have come out of their closets and openly admitted this) that men have a better sense of humour than women.
I would agree with Christopher Hitchens here when he says that the evolutionary need for women to be funny is not nearly as great as that of the male of the species. To not understand this and claim men are scared of/repulsed by, funny women, doesn't help!!
Not understanding or acknowledging, these 'general' differences based on evolutionary biology & nature which lead to 'general' differences in behaviour between the sexes, can cause irrational reactions and a tendency to resort to emotionalism!!



Dr.Sowell make a similiar point here. Understanding the consequences of one's actions and taking responsibilities for one's life, is imperative. If a woman(or a man) chooses, to graduate in psychology, she(or he) must understand that 'generally' these graduates have significantly lower incomes than their economics graduate counterparts. Women choosing to quit their jobs & be, after having children, full time 'stay-at-home-moms' understand the disadvantages AND the advantages that come with the same. If they take a break from work & raise their children full-time, they get off the tax grid. Advantage! But if they decide to come back & start working again for whichever industry or economic sector they were part of before having children, they must understand the experience disadvantage they have relative to their male counterparts who surged ahead in their careers while these women were at home raising children. This is not to say that raising children full-time is not an important job. Though definitely not the MOST important or difficult job in the world, it is still a very important job. Both married individuals must contribute to their home whichever way they can. And being a stay at home mom(or dad, for that matter) is one way of doing the same. As long as there is significant contribution to the married couple's home through both individuals, I, most certainly don't have a problem with free individuals making these 'choices'. That is, as long as they understand the consequences of these choices!!

Not understanding these 'general' differences in consequences due to 'general' differences in actions or choices, can lead to imagined victimhood wrt 'inequality of income for equal work'(while ignoring inequality in taxes paid) and victim-mongering!


Stop eating junk with those fat woman lattes & chocolates, start eating healthy, work out a lot more, increase testosterone production & then obviously, you'll get more rational.
:-)
Now that last testosterone production line, was Sexist!! I didn't mean that & I apologise, but I think I've made a point!

P.S. Would you be OK with this?
 

BABRI, IDEA OF INDIA, IT'S DEATH, NATIONALISM

THE IDEA OF INDIA & SECULARISM:

I intend to write a longer, research based article on the Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi/Disputed Structure conflict & controversy, some time in the not too distant future.
I apologise in advance for the language used in the following sentence, Pardon my language!
However, for those daft, dopey peddler's of horseshit that actually believe THIS was the death of 'The idea of India', I would point ask: Is there any 1 idea of India? Is there 1 definition?
 Secularism, is integral to the idea of India, you say?
Define it & explain when we have ever had it in independent India.
We have a different brand of secularism, you say? Yes we do!
A distorted, contrived version of secularism that has nothing to do with that inherently noble idea. Indian secularist's secularism consists of branding others communal while conveniently ignoring their own various communal acts.
 The word secular was added to the preamble to our constitution, by that epitome of morality-Indira 'borderline fascist' Gandhi under the Emergency rule in 1976, through the 42nd Amendment. She also added the word socialist!
We have failed to provide secularism but succeeded tremendously at providing socialism of the hardline kind.
Would have been good if the reverse happened!!
Pantha Nirpekshata(Non-Sectarianism) is our brand of secularism.

Also because it was explained as the state treating all religions with equal respect & not preferring one over the other. Is this enough? This is not really Secularism, is it? Definitely not in the classical sense, it's not! Secularism, atleast in the classical sense would refer to an irreligious approach, where there is absolutely(or even largely) NO mixing of the state with religion. The separation of the church & state, religion & government. As mentioned above, we have never had this in India!

To quote Harsh Gupta from a debate @Centre Right India which you can find Here -"A genuinely secular polity should not indulge in any positive or negative discrimination based on any citizen’s religious faith, or lack thereof. The state should not even know or ask the faiths of their citizens – it is not the state’s business, and this just ends up congealing identities. Examples of non-secular policies in India would be religion-based quotas, religion-based tax benefits, religion-based educational autonomy, religion-based diet restrictions and of course more ambiguously religion-based law enforcement. While our state is secular insofar as it has not established itself in service of any religion and people are largely free to follow their religions, nonetheless it does not treat Indians of all religions equally. More worrying is the trend of moral surrender by the Indian state when it comes to dealing directly with individuals, especially with those who happen to be from the minority communities. We have different laws for different communities in education, civil codes, taxes, religious trusts etc (read my earlier article against the government controlling Hindu temples) – these aspects simply cannot be considered secular according to my interpretation ".
Nationalising of temples, is by definition, anti-secularism. The existence of All India Muslim Personal Law Board(AIMPLB) & the All India Shia Personal Law Board(AISPLB) are by definition, anti-secularism. The lack of a common civil code is by definition, Anti-Secularism!! Watch Ex PM AB Vajpayee make this point Here.

Also, the concept of minority in India needs to be examined. Who is a minority?
India officially and unofficially consists of multiple thousand castes, belonging to all different religions. This would lead us to believe that we are all minorities ethnically in India. And looked at from a religious pov, it is still correct to say that we are all minorities in India. India consists of monotheists, monists, dualists, attributive monists, agnostics, atheists, polytheists, henotheists, pantheists & panentheists.
Around the world when welfare schemes are created and implemented for ethnic groups, this is generally done on the basis of historical disadvantage. For example, the Blacks in America were enslaved and hugely exploited. The segregation of certain castes happened in India & these groups get state benefits & are entitled to them. Around the world, when subsidies and entitlements aren't given on the basis of an ethnic or racial identity, they are provided primarily if not exclusively, on economic criteria.
So how does religion come into the issue here? The mixing of religion with politics in even basic welfare schemes, is not secularism. To bind people in perennial identities based on religion, is not secularism.
Differences in the state's attitudes towards the various religions in India as explained by Harsh Gupta in his posts - the links of which are provided above - is a failure at the kind of secularism the Indian state has set out to achieve.
Hence, it is safe to conclude that the Indian state fails at not just classical secularism but also, at it's contrived definition of secularism ie. Giving Equal respect to all religions/sects.

Life is never this simple though!!
Should all religions actually be treated equally? Should the state never interfere in any religious practises? Is there & should there be, absolute religious freedom?
From the point of an individual, or even the State, it is practically impossible to treat every single religion with equal respect. Very much like it is impossible to treat every single verse in any religious scripture with equal respect. If religion were to be compared to sport like Sam Harris does often, it would be easy to understand this idea. Badminton & MMA are significantly different sports. Suffering an injury in combat sport is almost inevitable. Suffering one while playing Badminton or Table Tennis is just, you know, Embarassing!!
Similiarly, Jainism & Islam are completely different religions. It is practically impossible for a Jain to kill, in the name of his/her religion. A fanatic Jain walks looking down at the ground to make sure he/she doesn't trample a bug.
It becomes slightly easier as a Buddhist or a Hindu to kill in the name of religion. It becomes a lot easier as a Muslim.
Beliefs, matter! They always have, they always will! Societal oppression and humiliation, may play a role in creating violent movements. Politics and marginalisation can & does play a role in the same. However, religions & their core beliefs matter! Harris explains this over Here!


Moving on, could it be possible for the state to treat every religion with equal respect?
It is argued, by some that the state can & should indeed, do this.
But since the levels of sophistication differ even within a religion or a life philosophy- and most definitely when compared with other religions- should the state go along with the 'equal respect' idea?
There are some strange religious practises that exist all over the world as they do in India. There exist people who believe in animal sacrifice, there are those who think beating up women & children would relieve them of evil spirits & there are even self-flagellation rituals where minors are forced to do the same by unreasonable adults.
Even though I am largely for individual liberties, I believe there must be a line drawn at coercion of any kind & esp if it comes in the form of a religious practise. The primary role of the government is to protect individuals from coercion of any kind. Religious ideologies and sects that lend themselves to the creation of violent cults or death cults around them, can't be respected. Violent interpretations of certain core religious ideas, can't be tolerated. The Indian Mujahideen is a violent organisation that claims to do what it is doing, in the name of Islam. That violence, is an interpretation of 'Jihad' that they are happy to agree with. They seem to believe they are perfectly Islamic since 'Jihad' is a core Islamic belief. 'Jihad', for muslim intellectuals refers to 'Internal struggle', however critics claim in practise it is 97% of the time violence legitimised by the faith directed at the unbelievers.
There needs to be a sustained, open discussion on the various religious ideologies that exist in India & outside, in the near future by the govt. representatives of secular countries around the world. The french govt actually went ahead & banned the Burqa, which is considered integral to the Islamic faith by some. There are sections of the US of A, where the theory of Biological Evolution is not being allowed to be taught to children in schools since it conflicts with Abrahamic, Adam & Eve Creationism. Can the state afford to be secular here & allow children to be brainwashed by the dogma supporters?
Essentially, it comes down to coercion & particularly, of children. If an idea or aspect of a religion is found guilty of encouraging the enforcement of a set of dogmatic beliefs onto an individual(esp. a child), the state must step in to STOP COERCION !! This is, after all, the primary role of the state.
Even though I believe open discussions and debates on religions, their concepts & their contribution is the primary solution to reduction of dogma associated with them(religions), Military intervention can indeed - & in some cases must- exist on a global level too.
As someone who is largely libertarian, warfare(offence/intervention) is an idea that I generally oppose. Indeed, my default position is anti-warfare. However, I am not bound by any political ideology & have been convinced to take anti-libertarian positions on some issues.
If we were to look at the world as one large, distinct human nation consisting of various different citizens(nation-states), we would find that this is clearly Anarchy!!
The United Nations & global treaties are not taken seriously by a number of states around the world. There isn't any world government that eliminates this anarchy.

Now, picture an abusive man in any 1, republican nation state. Let us say he refuses to allow his wife to work or step out of the home. He feels that women should not be educated & beats up his daughter for wanting to get an education. He thinks music is evil. This is a psychotic individual prone to sudden outbursts of rage who makes open death threats to his immediate neighbours(esp the jewish family in the same neighbourhood) & to people in specific towns/cities in a different state.  Imagine if this man in your neighbourhood, who still isn't jailed, wanted firearms & wished to apply for the same. Would/should he be allowed to purchase firearms? Wouldn't state intervention in this situation to protect the liberty of this girl & her mother, the neighbours & eventually the overall well being of humans in the neighbourhood, this town & those in the other threatened cities/towns, be valid?  Why not on a global level then? This above mentioned man, on a global level, is the Taliban/Islamists/Arab Nationalists/Fascists! Wouldn't military intervenion wrt the abovementioned groups be valid then?
So, it has to be fair to conclude that the idea of 'each to his own' wrt religion, may not be as wonderful as we would like to think!!

Back to 'the idea of India' then! Hyderabad 1948 riots or the 1984 state-ignored or orchestrated anti-sikh pogrom, the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pundits, political failures leading to the Indo-China war, the totalitarianism of the emergency are not our darkest hours and days? The murder of industry & perpetuation of poverty by communists[which forces poor malayalee labourers to work in hellholes like the gulf, (pronounced gelf) where International labour/migrant workers treaties don't apply, that treat them like caged animals] & to a lesser extent by socialism of the nehruvian kind, the corruption/bullying/license raj that came with it, were not our darkest hours/days/months/years??

I wouldn't mind the setting up of a cagefight b/w the 2 groups of people who believe that - The Babri Masjid's demolition was the death of idea of india & those who supported the demolition. Both groups don't have a clue of what constitutes logically consistent behaviour. Even though I am no Babur fan(No person that has read the Baburnama could be one), the symbolism of the mosque breaking was terrible. Also, it indicates tremendous mental laziness to believe(And scream about any & every given opportunity) that THIS event, was the death of the idea of India.
I Would pay good money to watch this match. Standard MMA rules would apply!!





NATIONALISM:
Nationalism is not an idea set in stone!! There are several interpretations of it. Just like there are different kinds of 'hindus' or muslims.
There is something which needs to be made explicitly clear at the outset. Nationalism is collectivist in nature. Nationalism sacrifices individual liberties for the collective good of the nation ie. in the name of 'national interest'. As someone who is largely(not completely) against Collectivism in all it's forms, I am also largely against the idea of Nationalism. If Nationalism has to exist, it must do so, at a bare minimum level!

An Indian civilisational nationalist would define our nation by our millenia old civilisation. Ours, is a continuing, evolving, civilisation. When I mention the evolution of our civilisation, an example would be the acceptance of the English language as important & almost indispensable for a modern day Indian urban professional. So, these nationalists are not opposed to change. They would believe in a nationalism that goes beyond the 'nation' as such to glorify and celebrate what is inspiring, noble & makes 21'st century sense ie. is intellectually relevant in the 21st century, from our civilisational heritage. This can be done through education, which would help enhance awareness of indigenous history and philosophy. We fail miserably at this right now. A moderate amount of Statism wrt education is not undesirable. This nationalism goes beyond the creation of our nation state in 1947. For this it is important for children to be shown the similiarity that exists among people from different parts of India. Our cultural continuity! Nations can't afford to be ahistorical. We must learn from the past & look to preserve the best from the past. The ignorant, are offended by the idea that we, living in the 21st century could be influenced or learn from ancient bronze age texts.
John Locke, considered the father of classical liberalism, was influenced by Aristotle. Aristotle died in the BC era almost 2000 years before Locke lived. If Locke would have sniffed in disdain & thought of these texts authored by Aristotle as irrelevant & ancient, hence useless, Classical Liberal(And 20th/21st century Liberal) history would have been rather different!!

Language, is a wonderful tool in promoting relevant native culture!
 Here I would support even the Nationalists. I am for all Indians speaking atleast one indigenous Indian language. Any one!
English is now, very much an Indian Language. But it didn't originate in India. It will never be an indigenous Indian language. Every Indian citizen should speak at least one indigenous indian language.
Why or why not?
Well, nation states are created for obviously apparent reasons. Can we oppose the idea of a nation-state? Human beings have evolved to live in groups that they identify with. It is merely 'natural selection' as explained by Darwin being illustrated. It is advantageous because co-operation becomes more intense. Humans unconsciously believe that co-operating with other individuals within a group (that one may identify with for a variety of reasons), will create a win-win situation for them. It is in the 'individual of the society's' interest to co-operate with others who claim to represent, even slightly, a similar value system.

Some anarchists might point out that the Individual should be trusted with these choices since he/she is at the centre of the society. This is true at most times. Statism, Socialism, Collectivism and Nationalism are necessary evils & consequently, must be limited to a bare minimum level.
There has to be encouragement for some BASIC agreements based on culture or values in a nation. If a culturally diverse family, with members who speak different languages, live in the same home, they still follow certain basic guidelines on how to live in that home. There has to be some sort of identity concept. It is very difficult for a family to live together if there aren't even some basic cultural similarities that are promoted in a small way.
No nation can survive without a binding identity concept/concepts.
Germany re-uniting kept aside, Yugoslavia's disintegration, is also an example of the absence/presence of a kind of nationalism determining the 'fate' of a nation state. They(The successor states) didn't feel the required kinship & felt insecure about how much help they would get from groups different to theirs within Yugoslavia.
Let's be honest, the states that came from the erstwhile Yugoslavia weren't that different. How different are Bosnia and Croatia or Slovenia and Macedonia? Karnataka and Tamizh Nadu have more differences. Scary thought!
Kashmir, Nagaland, ULFA(United Liberation Front Of Assam), Maoists etc. have or are, separatist forces that want out of the Indian union or want the state to change the rules for them. There is obviously an identity issue. There is no binding identity concept!!
Nationalism, it's importance & existence can be illustrated easily. Do Indians believe in the importance of Indian independence from British Rule? Most, would say yes! Why, I would ask! Why shouldn't we have continued with british rule? Or the Turco-Mongol(mughal) rule?
Because they weren't very good to the natives? Well, then why were these rulers, by & large, so careless & unconcerned about the natives & their well being?
Maybe because both the english & mughals were culturally speaking, aliens in India & our civilisation? They didn't consider themselves culturally or civilisationally, native. They generally, didn't identify in too many ways, with the natives. I use the term 'native' here in a cultural sense. Which leads me back to the importance of some sort of identity concept. What this is, in the Indian context, is another question & an important one which is not answered in this post. But the fact that we are distinct as a civilisation, is obvious!
Do you know what a Kebab is? Sure you do.
Now then, do you know what indirect Blasphemy is? A hara bhara(vegetarian) Kebab! Do you know what direct blasphemy is? Pork, Kebab!!
Look what we did to the Kebab in India! Only Indians could come up with this. There is no doubt that ours is a unique civilisation.
To accept, embrace & promote what is the best, from our past -philosophically, culturally, linguistically- to create national identity concepts, is necessary.

A SHORT NOTE ON THE SHIVA SENA

FEVICOL KA JOD??
Kiddies, let Unca Adi share a few secrets with you. Grab a pen & some healthy snacks(Do not abuse your body through high cholesterol junk) and take notes.

This might sound angry & very much like a rant. In a way, it is a rant. But trust me kiddies, Unca Adi typed this with a poker face & no anger. I have made my peace with the existence of large numbers of people that disagree with every one of my points of view. I just keep calm & carry on. It comes naturally to me.
I have many weaknesses. But this ability to stay largely emotionally stable is one of my few strengths.

On to the problem at hand then!!

No discussion on the Shiv Sena can happen in a vacuum. Political parties don't operate in a vacuum. They are influenced by each other and when they pursue self-interest through competition, the influence is clearly illustrated.
Which brings me to communism, specifically in India. Anyone that has lived under communist
rule in India[I was born in communist West Bengal in a filthy govt hospital(no other options) where the doctors almost killed my mother] is quite familiar with the Hartaal loving, communist cadres and their goondas beating up dissenters who dared question them. They are as good(or as bad) as the Sainiks when it comes to goondagiri. This opinion of mine comes from my interactions with people who suffered under Keralite & Bengali communism. And this categorisation, is excluding the Maoists, who are by all accounts, terrorists!
Moreover, they(Communists) also have the blood of lakhs of the poor on their hands due to their murder of industry and perpetuating of poverty.


Now, mine is not a 'But these dirtbags stole gold, my boys only stole silver' argument. I
am not necessarily a fan of Thackeray's. I believe he is one of two major political
personalities in India who were borderline Totalitarian at different times of their
political careers.
The second, is that epitome of plurality and morality-Indira 'Emergency' Gandhi. I do not feel the need to elaborate on her. Thackeray, quite liked her too, didn't he? She out-
dictatored Thackeray & did it on a National level unlike him.
 Moving on, one of Swaminathan Aiyar's columns in TOI(Read Here), mentions the fact that the biggest riot(religion based or otherwise) in India happened in 1948 UNDER NEHRU, in Hyderabad, where 50,000 to 200,000 people were killed as per the Sunderlal committee.
This was 'sanitised', & brushed under the carpet by state chamchas. Which is why very few people now, are even remotely aware of this. Shameful? I would think so!
 'Sanitisation', is par for the course in India. For example, in 1989 West Bengal, medieval indian history was similiarly sanitised through hardline statism that crushes all dissent wherein the truth was termed 'Ashuddho' and deliberate lies 'Shuddho'(Taken from Here  )

This proves two things-
 1)The willingness to deliberately distort history, both medieval & modern, for the promotion of a particular agenda based on hate, by Marx lovers[Hate for the rich, for the hindus in general because hindus accept heirarchy in society & think of it as natural unlike some bearded(What is it with Marxists & Beards?), bitter, rabid, feral cowards]
 2)Bengali, is just BADLY PRONOUNCED SANSKRIT! Try speaking Sanskrit like a drunk Japanese man would. Lo and behold, you have Bengali!!

 This distortion hasn't gone unchallenged!
Arun Shourie in his book 'Eminent Historians'(Buy it Here) exposes - in typically dry fashion - a select small privileged bunch of Marxist Quacks who promoted a certain distorted version of Indian history.

Back to the core issue of this post, remember Nehru & Rajiv's wars with China and in Lanka resp. that resulted in the loss of so many lives and the creation of long time enemies?
Why does this not get the same intense disdain that the sainik's thugs do?

This shameless whitewashing & 'sanitisation' of our history by the marxist school of quackery for the promotion of a prejudiced rigid agenda, their influence in the media & their visceral hatred directed towards anyone who dared to differ with them, are some of the important reasons for the Shiva Sena being given a hard bum rap(quite right too). These are also some of the reasons why the SP(have any number of goonda MP's & illustrate this innate goondagiri every other day), INC(crush dissent of any kind and use their special power ie. Chamchas existing on every level of bureaucracy and outside politics as well, to whitewash their records. Are guilty of unleashing the most violence, directly or indirectly on the good people of india by any political party), TMC(Just watch the news at any given time) & esp the Communist goondaraj & their overall negative influence on society in general, gets selectively UNDERPLAYED!!
 This, is partly why the proportion of coverage given to Sena's thuggish antics, is far
greater than the wonderfully 'moral' parties on the left!
 And I repeat, for the perpetuation of poverty & their greater area of influence, the
communists and hardline socialists have more blood on their hands than anyone else in this country.

"But what about the other reasons, Unca Adi?", you ask!
The other reason(one), kiddies, why the Sena is looked at as the worst of our various
parties by sections of the english language media, is because their crimes are committed in the Urban parts of India and those Urban Behemoths with their Khaandaani assets and wealth, in their Ivory towers and the parallel universe that they had/have created for themselves, were/are also affected by these Sainiks!
When riots happen every other day in UP under that pure Gandhian's(Akhilesh Yadav) rule & normal,hard working people & in some cases, even the same TV crews and camerapersons- who cry like scolded children after they get harassed by the Sena- get thrashed by loons of the regional parties in the heartland, the same outrage is never quite there, is it?
Who cares about some lower middle class 'Bhaiyyas' who got thrashed in UP?
These same self proclaimed 'progressives'( Progressive? Really??) however-who I believe are completely and utterly incapable of urinating
standing up- cry like the Occupy Sesame Street loons did/do on being asked to explain what was it they were fighting against, when the SAME 'BHAIYYAS' get thrashed in Mumbai!! Intolerance? Only when it's convenient! Only when it hurts them!
Or EVEN IF it were the thrashers and not the thrashees from UP/Bihar who got the same treatment they like to dish out to the weak at home!! In both cases, there is suddenly a need to talk about the 'Sena's hate'. This disavowal of all non-urban goondagiri, is puerile!
The Sena have only brought what was & still continues to go on, in most parts of India, to the Urban Indian environment.
Thackeray or the Sena, didn't start this kind of politics & he certainly wasn't the only
one to ever indulge in it. To selectively give them a bum rap while ignoring everyone else, is expected only from successfully lobotomised individuals.

And kiddies, remember, Unca Adi would love to have a beautiful closing argument, but I am still recovering from the sight of Mamta Bannerjee(Pronounced Maw-Maw-Thaa Bawn-Dho-Paad-Yaikes) on TV 10 minutes ago!!
 Regards