One
should clearly know the history of Forty-second amendment act 1976 that made
some series of changes to the constitution of India, to understand how an alien
concept (Secular) has been systematically used to perpetuate Hinduphobia. Modern
day politicians, at least since independence used this word without explaining to
the masses the necessity to have it.
The political liberty which we have got after enduring the slavery of 1200 years from alien
occupiers is indeed a different paradigm that we should have approached with a practical outlook, instead Congress tried to straight jacket things through a regressive ideology called Socialism/Communism. Pt.Nehru in the AICC (All India Congress Committee) session that
held in Avadi (Chennai, TamilNadu) in 1955 declared that Socialistic Pattern of society
was the goal of Congress, hence the goal of India.
Few years ago in an
interview , Sadhguru Vasudev said that people who didn't have the courage to call
themselves Communists defined themselves as Socialists. He also said that Karl
Marx may have known much about Economics, but he knew nothing about Human
being. Banditry became a philosophy in the name of communism. Probably one
reason why socialists would not call themselves as Communists is because of the
mindless violence that is normally associated with Communism. Millions of
innocents perished due to Communism. In Russia alone more than 25 million people died, more than the combined death toll of World War II. Image from this link
Even if we have to disagree with Pt. Nehru on Socialism, he should be given credit for the wisdom he had; else the AICC session should have declared
that “Socialist”, “Secular” is our goal. Because Pt.Nehru knew that Hindus who
belonged to this ancient civilization are inherently secular and they never
needed an alien import which is irrelevant to the Indian society.
In the
modern parlance, if a law has to be passed first its necessity has to be
ascertained. It cannot be passed to further the agenda of a single political
party or a leader. To the least, adherence to Constitutional morality is
essential. The requirement shall arise as a demand from society or from a legitimate source. For eg: - ban
on Cow Slaughter is a direction that constitution gives to the State, hence
such laws may be passed and would stand the judicial scrutiny.
The
question one has as to why Indira Gandhi when she had no Legitimate Political Authority
would pass a Constitutional Amendment in a hurried manner? What was she trying to prove? If we have to take Congress party’s democratic credentials at its
face value, then we shall go by what it has always preached to others i.e., democracy
is incomplete if there is no opposition. Then the question is
how a constitutional amendment be called a legitimate exercise of authority when the whole
opposition was locked up in Jail during Emergency? Readers are encouraged to
read - Tom Christiano's "Authority", from the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy to understand what is authority and its
legitimacy. Image from Google.
Just
like Article 25 of Indian Constitution is used aggressively by Abrahamic faiths
for conversion activities through questionable means, the variety of Indian
Secularism in its current form, is used to perpetuate Hinduphobia or bluntly Hindu hatred successfully. All
groups that are engaged in this task have their individual goals to be met, but
there is a consensus on the method that has to be applied, i.e., institutionalizing
and legitimizing Hindu Hatred or Hinduphobia.
Hence in
the popular political culture terms such as Secular Muslim vote, Secular
Christian vote are accepted as correct. And any reference to Hindu vote is
communal. There can never be a term called “Secular Hindu Vote”, it has to be “Communal
Hindu Vote. Such ideas assisted some political parties to perpetuate their
rule. The victim is indeed a poor Hindu.
One should
know the actors that are systematically engaged in spreading Hinduphobia.
1.
Missionaries
2.
Islamists
3.
Communists
4.
Media
5.
Leaders of Dalit Politics
If you
closely analyse the relationship between these actors in isolation, they are
staunch opponents to each other; importantly the protagonists (Missionaries,
Islamists and Communists) of the story, the rest just follow them mostly
because of their ignorance or they are compromised.
Some Important Questions:
1. How successful are the actors in spreading Hinduphobia, what are
the gains so far?
2. Did Hindus themselves take part in furthering Hinduphobia because
of their rational ignorance?
3. Is Hinduphobia affecting social cohesion?
4. Are the self-proclaimed liberals and secularists winning the argument?
5. Is it correct to assume that the compulsions of electoral politics
forcing the mainstream political parties to turn a blind eye to the
destabilizing effects of Hinduphobia?
If answer
to each question listed above is a resounding yes, then we are definitely in for a
serious trouble. It is incumbent up on every Hindu to work relentlessly and
turn the situation around.
Explaining the objectives:
For
Missionaries conversion is their main focus, through hook or crook. Their
target group is Hindus. Their regular tricks would not work with Muslims as a
social group, for the reaction will be too much for the missionary agents to
bear. When it comes to Islamists their target is to increase the numbers mainly
through unrestricted child bearing. Hence any talk on family planning shall be instantly termed as something against
Secularism. No Democratic Country in the world has a separate civil code based on religion, if some one talks about Common Civil Code, then it is anti-Minority/anti-Secular even though Directive Principles of State Policy states it. The most dangerous of all the other actors are Communists; the technique employed by them is to
build narratives of Hindu Hatred under the garb of discussing reason and
rationalism through derogatory interpretations of Hindu Philosophy.
As if aboriginal
ideologue Karl Marx advised Communists that “Hinduism is Opium of Masses” not “Religion
is Opium of all Masses”, Communists perform the ritual of spreading venom against Hindus at regular intervals. They do it by wearing a gloves of rationalists but wouldn't raise their finger against superstition in Christianity and Islam, because it
is against their goal of spreading Hinduphobia.
The Christian
Missionary Psyche is best explained by a letter Francis Xavier wrote to Jesus
Society, Rome in 1543. Here is what he says about Hindus.
“… the
great majority of their idols are as black as black can be, and moreover are
generally so rubbed over with oil as to smell detestably, and seem to be as
dirty as they are ugly and horrible to look at … “
In
Abrahamic faiths there is a Doctrinal sanction to abuse other faiths and ways
of life.
In a lecture
I have recently attended, the speaker quoting Professor Rummel said that more than one Billion people are killed mercilessly because of arguments
such as “Your God is not better than mine” , “Your god is no god”, “There is
only one god, that is my God”, “ Only those who believe in my God will go to
heaven, others are packed to hell” , “believers are good, non-believers are bad” etc.,
But look
at the fundamental philosophy of Hindu which says "Your God is good for your
and my God is good for mine and we shall co-exist peacefully". Now who is
bombarded with lectures on secularism? Who gets to lecture whom?
Since
time immemorial, long before the west re-discovered Democracy, state apparatus
and other things which they call modern, in India there was a perfect harmony
between State and Religion. Both did not trample on each other’s foot. The
sphere was clearly defined. Contrast
this with the clash between Christianity and State power. Or for that matter how
Islam is used a political tool to control and gag people since its origin.
People
could not bear the atrocities of Roman Catholic Church in the name of religion;
hence they revolted against it to fight for their basic Human dignity and liberty.
Often the ill-informed who is getting converted in India because of some allurements or indoctrination
has no clue about the bloody history of the Abrahamic faiths.
The very
fact that the time frame in which people risen up against the organized church and won is
called as “Age of Reason” is proof enough that Christianity had no reason then and no reason now.
After the
ordeals a common man had to endure through two centuries of struggle between
him and the church, there was compromise that from now on Church will mind its
own business and it will not impose its writ on individuals and shall not interfere in their private affairs, either on its own or
through state. Such a phenomenon understandably is called Secularism, separation of state and religion.
Such a
demarcation was there in India since ages with the exception of King Ashoka the Great
who embraced Buddhism as a state religion in addition to some minor skirmishes
in South between Vaishnavas & Shaivaites. But Ashoka never killed a man because some one did not agree with Buddhism.
An
individual always had the basic freedom to decide about his life subject to some community ethics. For example one can be an Atheist and still
can call himself as Hindu. Such a liberty is not available in Abrahamic faiths.
If you don’t believe Allah or Christ, you are either Kuffar or Pagan (simply
heathens, a derogatory reference used to describe people who did not believe
these gods of Middle East).
Such is
the bloody history behind the origin of concept called Secularism in Europe. Hence,
it was purely an alien and is definitely not necessary in India. All injustices are
committed to an average Hindu in the name of this alien import called secularism. Swami
Dayananda Saraswati would always say that Secularism means “State should stay
aloof from all religions”. On the contrary it is used to appease certain religious sections because they represent a particular vote bank.
Additionally in the name of Secularism Hinduphobia is legitimized to
facilitate Missionaries of alien cultures to meet their sectarian goals. Hence
sending Muslims on Hajj pilgrimage using the tax money paid by Hindu is Secularism
and if a Hindu asks others to respect his cultural sensitivities and stop the cow
slaughter is termed anti-Secularism and Communal. Hence Yoga becomes Communal
because of its Hindu Origins and terrorism inspired by Islam should not be called as Islamic Terrorism.
The
successful propagation of Hinduphobia in a land where Hindus live in majority
defies logic. Can we imagine Islamophobia in a Muslim majority country? Impossible.
But how Hinduphobia in a Hindu majority country is working? It is here the
systematic coalition between Missionaries, Islamists & Communists works.
The communists have successfully worked on Dalit fault lines to further divide
the Hindu society. This is simply to prohibit a political mobilization of
Hindus.
Be it current
day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan or some extreme north - western parts of China,
significant amount of territory of Hindu civilization has been lost to alien
cultures and ideologies because of the lack of social & political mobilization of Hindus.
To save
what is left out is only possible through a two pronged approach one is legal
and the other is social, the latter is more important. If Hindus become
socially and politically vigilant and throw their artificial barriers/differences
like caste, creed, language, regionalism etc., in the Indian Ocean that separate
them at the moment and proclaim to the world that “I am Hindu, I belong to
Bharathvarsha (i.e., India) “, that alone will solve 90% of the problems.
At the earliest the government should initiate a process to remove statutory and legal obfuscation that is used to legitimize
Hinduphobia. Start with removing the word “Secular” from the preamble of the
constitution. It was inserted without giving any regard to constitutional or legal morality, removing it only means restoring the respect to constitution. We
should know that all that is western is not modern.
Good thought.. ��
ReplyDelete