Pseudo-Secularism

Hindu dharma is implicitly at odds with monotheistic intolerance. What is happening in India is a new historical awakening... Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening.

Monday, April 29, 2002

Proved years before that secularists are anti-Hindus

Author: Saurabh Shah
Publication: Gujarati Mid-Day

Who comprises the ‘secularist’ group? They are the ones who are malicious towards the Hindu society, who abhor the Hindu culture, and who are ashamed to call themselves Hindu. The intelligentsia which call themselves rationalists and atheists can also be included in the “secularists” group. One can also include socialists and Marxists who, without any remorse, readily enjoy the five star facilities financed by others. Last not least, NGO’s which were funded by doubtful external sources.

Hindus are disgusted with the TV channels of these secularists. The anti-Hindu stand taken by anchors of Aaj Tak, Star News and Zee News is reducing their credibility to zero. These diaper clad and immature ‘pseudo secular’ boys and girls don’t have any intellectual background. From where do they learn all their secular lessons? Of course from their seniors whose “intellectual capability” is well known. If I start listing their names, more space will be needed. Therefore I have decided to take just one example and that of the former chief secretary of Maharashtra, JB D’souza.

It has been proved beyond doubt that how the so-called secularism of these people is unnecessarily biased and spiteful of Hindus, and excessively appeasing and yielding to Muslims. The former chief secretary of Maharashtra Mr. JB D’souza and business journalist Dilip Thakur etc. had filed a petition against. They contended Bal Thackeray had written inflammatory articles in his daily ‘Samna’, igniting Hindus to attack Muslims. The petitioners alleged that Mr. Thackeray was the mastermind of the communal riots that took place in Mumbai in 1992-93. These writers repeatedly called Mr. Thackeray and the Shiv Sena ‘opportunist and communal’.

Here I am not trying to defend Mr. Thackeray or what he had said or written. But I am going to deal with two questions here. First, how clean and upright are the people who have objected to him? Secondly, do they really have equal sympathies for all religions? Let’s see.

During the Shrikrishna Commission deposition, the advocate for the Shiv Sena, Adhik Shirodkar had cross-examined Mr. D’souza. As an advocate, Shirodkar wanted to prove that D’souza was highly prejudiced against the Hindus in general and the Shiv Sena in particular.

Mr. Shirodkar asked Mr. D’souza whether he had written any articles on the burning alive of seven Hindus in Jogeshwari and the killing of two Mathadi workers during the riots in Mumbai in January 1993. D’souza replied. ‘Although the incidents were distressing, I did not write anything against it in the newspapers’. (Readers please take note).

Mr. Shirodkar reminded him of the killing of three Hindu constables in Paydhooni and Behrampara and the attacks on the police colony in Bhendi Bazaar. To this Mr. D’souza, who had worked as the chief secretary of the state, said that he was not aware of those incidents.

The advocate also reminded him of the Shah Bano case, a seminal instance of minority appeasement. D’souza said, ‘Yes, even at that time I felt it was very sad.’ ‘Did you write any letters protesting it at that time?’ queried the advocate. ‘No’, said the secular D’souza.

The advocate drew attention to an attack by Muslims on the poet and journalist Dom Moraes. Mr. Moraes was carrying his relative to a hospital in a critical condition and he found a huge mass of Muslims were offering Namaz on the road. He protested and they attacked. Mr. D’souza recollected the incident and even admitted that he knew Dom personally. “We have met formally at one or two occasions, but I neither gave a courtesy call to Mr. Moraes nor did I write an article or letter criticizing the incident.’’

Mr. D’souza even admitted during the cross examination that he had not written any article or letter criticizing the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid for opposing the Republic Day function by waving black flags in 1993. Mr. D’souza said that he did not hold high opinion about the Shiv Sena or Mr. Bal Thackeray.
Mr. D’souza also admitted that he was the chief executive of a big housing project at Dindoshi in Mumbai and people such as Mrinal Gore, PB Samant and Suresh Narvekar were its trustees. When Justice Shrikrishna objected to the question, Shirodkar replied that it was necessary to throw light on the political connections between Janata Dal leaders Mrs. Mrinal Gore and Mr. Samant at the one hand and Mr. D’souza at the other.

Mr. D’souza also admitted that he had not filed any petition or raised any voice against the provocative statements made by the Shahi Imam and other Muslim leaders as he did against Mr. Thackeray and Samna. He also said that the riots in Mumbai on March 12, 1993 by Muslims were sad but still he did not write any letter or article against it. When Mr. Shirodkar asked ‘Why?’, Mr. D’souza said, ‘I was too busy in my work.’

Advocate Mr. Shirodkar proved before the Shrikrishna Commission that Mr. D’souza had only written letters and articles during the communal riots blaming the Shiv Sena and its leaders. (All his articles and letters were anti-Hindu)

Lastly, it also became evident during the course of the cross-examination by Mr. Shirodkar that Mr. D’souza was managing the administration of Jaslok hospital in Mumbai as the chief executive of the hospital and the Shiv Sena leader Sudhir Joshi (who was present in the court at that time) used to see him occasionally to represent workers, to settle labour issues with the management.

After detailing the cross-examination, there is hardly a need to comment on the credibility of Mr. D’souza. The secularists and rationalists criticizing the Ayodhya issue should learn from the D’souza episode that they can also be cross-examined in the same way and exposed. The people, who kept mum about killings of 40,000 Hindus in Kashmir and burning alive of 58 Hindus in Godhra, should be cross-examined like this. Then it will be clear how poor is their understanding of culture and sentiments of people, and they are ones who create furor over the deaths of 900 people in Gujarat, on the issues of Hindutva and nationalism.

Labels: ,

Saturday, April 20, 2002

Prime Minister’s speech at a public meeting in Goa

Publication: Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee on the Communal Violence in Gujarat, DAVP, April 2002

At the outset, my New Year greetings to all of you. May the New Year turn out to be auspicious for all of you. Gudi Padwa is being celebrated wherever India lives, in whatever form, and wherever Indians live.

I was in Cambodia just recently. It is the Kamboj state of the past, where magnificent temples that kissed the sky were built in the 10th and the 11th centuries. It had Hindu states ruled by Hindu kings. There were others too among the citizens, but there was justice towards all. Sometimes the kings also used to fight among themselves. The wheel of victory and defeat rolled on. But during their centuries’ long history there isn’t a single instance of a Hindu king destroying temples or breaking idols when he attacked another Hindu king. The kings who were victorious used to build a new temple. If Vishnu was being worshipped there earlier, later Shiva began to be worshipped. If Shiva was being worshipped at one time, then other deities began to be worshipped later. Nevertheless, no king destroyed a temple or damaged the deities’ idols at the time of attacking another king.

This is our culture. This is our outlook, which treats all faiths equally. Yet, accusations are being hurled today that secularism is under threat. Who are these people accusing us? What is the meaning of secularism for these people? India was secular even when Muslims hadn’t come here and Christians hadn’t set foot on this soil. It is not as if India became secular after they came. They came with their own modes of worship and they too were given a place of honour and respect. They had the freedom to worship God as per their wish and inclination. No one thought of converting them with force, because this is not practised in our religion and in our culture, there is no use for it.

Today the 100 crore people of India are engaged in creating their future on the basis of their own culture. Sometimes, minor incidents do take place here and there; sometimes these take the form of major incidents. But if you go to the root of these incidents, you will find intolerance, you’ll find them to be a manifestation of growing intolerance.

What happened in Gujarat? If a conspiracy had not been hatched to burn alive the innocent passengers of the Sabarmati Express, then the subsequent tragedy in Gujarat could have been averted. But this did not happen. People were torched alive. Who were those culprits? The Government is investigating into this. Intelligence agencies are collecting all the information. But we should not forget how the tragedy of Gujarat started. The subsequent developments were no doubt condemnable, but who lit the fire? How did the fire spread?

Ours is a multi-religious country, a multi-lingual country, we have many different modes of worship. We believe in peaceful and harmonious coexistence. We believe in equal respect for all faiths. Let no one challenge India’s secularism.

I have read somewhere in the newspapers that the Congress Party has decided not to try to topple my Government. Shall I thank them for this? Or shall I say that the “Grapes are sour”? How will the Government fall? Once they did topple it, but they couldn’t form one themselves. Then a fresh mandate from the people was called for, and the people once again gave us an opportunity to serve them.

For us, the soil of India from Goa to Guwahati is the same, all the people living on this land are the same. We do not believe in religious extremism. Today the threat to our nation comes from terrorism. Wherever I went around the world, the heads of state or of elected Governments complained to me that militant Islam is sowing thorns along their paths.

Islam has two facets. One is that which tolerates others, which teaches its adherents to follow the path of Truth, which preaches compassion and sensitivity. But these days, militancy in the name of Islam leaves no room for tolerance. It has raised the slogan of jehad. It is dreaming of recasting the entire world in its mold.

You will be surprised to hear this - indeed, I too was surprised - that some terrorists belonging to Al-Qaeda were arrested in Singapore. The rulers of Singapore couldn’t even have imagined that Al-Qaeda would be active in their country, too; that Al- Qaeda would hatch a conspiracy in Singapore too. Some fifteen or sixteen persons were arrested; an investigation is underway, which will reveal the truth. The same is happening in Indonesia. The same is happening in Malaysia. Wherever such Muslims live, they tend not to live in coexistence with others, not to mingle with others; and instead of propagating their ideas in a peaceful manner, they want to spread their faith by resorting to terror and threats. The world has become alert to this danger.

As far as we are concerned, we have been fighting against terrorism for the past twenty years. Terrorists have tried to grab Jammu and Kashmir through violence, but we have countered them. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India, and will forever remain so. No other country’s dream will ever come true. Now other nations in the world have started to realize what a great mistake they did by neglecting terrorism. Now they are waking up, and are organizing themselves. They are putting together an international consensus against terrorism.

We tell them through our own example that a large number of non-Hindus live in our country, but there has never ever been religious persecution here. We have never discriminated between “our people” and “aliens”. The modes of worship may differ, but God is one. Only the paths to reach Him and realize Him can be different. It is for this reason that India’s prestige is growing, India’s reputation is rising.

I have also had an occasion to visit many other countries. Everywhere Muslims live in large numbers. And the rulers in those countries are worried lest those Muslims embrace extremism. We told them that they should educate people on the true tenets of Islam, that they should teach science in madrasas, and that they should also teach other subjects in madrasas. Islam too should be taught, but emphasize that people should live together and that it is necessary to accept that faith cannot be propagated on the strength of the sword.

(This is the first half of the speech)




Home | Syndicate this site (XML) | Guestbook | Blogger
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments, posts, stories, and all other content are owned by the authors.
Everything else © 2005 Pseudo-Secularism