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.

Saturday, January 01, 2005

Hurt Hindus to be secular?

Author: Bhanupratap Shukla
Publication: Organiser
Date: December 26, 2004

Introduction: Every demand of the Hindu society, its aspirations and faith, its rites and rituals are seen through the eyes of a Muslim, not of a Hindu.

Earlier it was a faint sugggestion, but now it is clear that the chief proof of being considered secular is an attack on the Hindus. As a result, the majority of members of the Hindu society have come to believe that this nation belongs only to the minorities, that is, the Muslims. The Muslim is like that only son-in-law of the majority of political parties who, using the threat of divorcing their daughter as a weapon, needs pampering and this has become the foremost political religion of their leaders. Every work executed by the Muslim leaders and fulfillment of every demand of theirs has become the first condition of secularism. Communal and political secularists receive a jolt when any support to the Hindus is given.

The intellectuals in this country are either cowards or else they fail to recognise the cultural nature of the Hindu society. The reason is that while they support caste and religion, they consider the society and religion as communal. If separate conferences are organised for the Khatri Mahasabha, Brahmin Mahasabha, Yadavs, Jats, Harijans, Kshatriya Mahasasbha, Agrasen Society and types of Shaiva, Shakti, Madhva, Lingayat, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh cults and sects, then they bless them. They even attend such programmes to display proof of their kindness and benevolence, but a social and cooperative programme of all religions and sects, devoid of regional and communal feelings, becomes a communal programme for them. Because of such cooperative programmes, they feel that the social structure is disintegrating, that it is a blow to the communal harmony of the nation, that it is a danger to the unity of the country; the welfare of the nation is seen in regionalism and communalism. Unity of the Hindu society, its integrated social structure, the agony of the collective hearts of the people for their country and expression of love for their nation do not find favour with the secularists. Every demand of the Hindu society, its aspirations and faith, its rites and rituals are seen through the eyes of a Muslim, not of a Hindu.

Any talk of the integrity of Hindu nation is seen as anti-Muslim; talk of Hindu history is considered enmity against Muslims: talk of eminent personalities of Hindu India is treated as an attack on Muslims. If the Hindus celebrate their fairs and festivals, then it is considered a challenge to Muslims and if the Hindu lays stress on equal citizenship rights, uniform civil code, similar national objectives, then it is considered fearful as it is supposed to be aimed at destroying the Muslim's identity.

Then what should the Hindus do to keep the Muslims happy? Experience so far has shown that if they ask for a portion of the land from the country, then give it to them. If they demand separate citizenship rights and laws, then accord them. If their desire or acceptance is not forthcoming on any issue, then the Hindu society should not take out processions, nor build temples or ring bells of worship in the temples. If a Muslim from another nation enters this country as an infiltrator, then give him the right to vote. If with the support of Pakistan, he turns lakhs of Hindus into refugees in their own country, then keep mum. If he threatens to support Pakistan during times of adversity, then do not plead in front of him but allow him to live fearlessly. Then only will it be considered national and secular. If the Hindu talks of national concern and integrity, then it is treated as an attack of Hindu imperialists upon the Muslims.

If we want to save the nation from the fires of communal tension, bloodshed and further partition, the communal demands of the minorities, that is, fulfillment of the demands of Muslims till the limits of encouraging factionalism and the fear of Hindu terrorism, we will need to end the practice and hypocrisy of declaring ourselves as intellectuals, politicians and rulers. The Hindu society is not against politics and the State. Its creative abilities, feelings and faith are apolitical. It believes in assimilating all and in keeping all united, but does not believe in religious conversion. Talks of Hindu fanaticism or blind belief are baseless and nonsensical. A society and a religion in which no seed of religious fanaticism and bigotry exists, how can the thorny bush of communalism thrive on its soil? Despite it all, arousal of the feeling of nationalism in the Hindu is taken as incitement to communal jealousy.

The problem is not of Muslims: the question is of keeping India’s secular (where all religions are equal) and national pride alive. The Hindu has been enriched and endowed with national pride. He knows how to live and strive with all. In this connection there is the example that if India is judged from the scientific and materialistic view, then we will find that this country and its people have given birth to the greatest number of religious sects. And it is this country that has the maximum experience in dealing with religious minorities. Christian and Islamic religions have arisen from Jewish religion, while Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Lingayats, Madhya and others have arisen from what is known as Hindu religion. Followers of these religions have arisen from among the Hindus. Hindu religion due to its distinct nature has been co- existing with Islam since 900 years and with Christianity since about 400 years, while Christianity and Islam which have arisen from Jewish faith have not been able to co-exist.

After all, why have issues related to the birthplaces of Rama and Krishna and the temple of Kashi Vishwanath in the town of Shiva not been resolved to this day? In 1857, the Hindu and Muslim rulers had unanimously decided that a mosque would be built separately in Ayodhya. However, the British hanged those who took this decision. If this problem could be resolved a hundred and fifty years ago, then why could it not be done after Independence? The Muslims have no trustworthy intentions towards Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi. After all they too have been living in this country and are aware of Hindu mythology, Puranas and history. Surely an understanding can be reached to remove the mosque by discussing among each other. By going to courts or giving tit for tat or placing the temple under lock and key will only deteriorate the relations between these two communities.

But this will not happen. It will not be allowed to happen. This is simply because the Muslims here are aware of each atom of the Indian mainstream. And to make the Muslims the basic structure of this country is not acceptable to the vote-bank politics of the ruling Indian leaders.

The rulers and leaders want this controversy to continue till eternity so that the national life of India remains permanently unstable and terrorised; national issues continue to remain as Hindu-Muslim controversies so that they can keep their next move ever ready in vote-bank politics. The sooner the Muslims instead of the Hindus understand this point, the faster they will be relieved from the clutches of minorityism and will be able to discharge their national and religious duties as natural citizens of the Indian nation.

Among the thousand of temples desecrated by the Muslim invaders and rulers, the country’s 85 crore Hindus ask for only three places of worship. In their own land, do they not have even the right to worship their God-like great men and offer them respect? If not, then a modern Mahabarata is inevitable. This war may take place today or tomorrow; it cannot be wished away.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

3 Comments:

At 3/07/2005 04:19:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

have a look at http://www.nehrufamily.com . you might like it..

 
At 6/08/2006 01:27:00 AM, Blogger themusafirs said...

I am Indian Muslim and Indian by Birth and soul and muslim by faith, i do agree to some of your comments but also disagree as it diverts away and u end ur venting ur anger and state main purpose that u do hate 'muslim' after all any way not going in details

Just have few Question. i want ur answer if u dare i.e
dig up a answer (& remember the 1 who ask Questiuon always have answer in their sleves)

When, where and who coined the title or labelled 'Hindu' which has its root word 'HIND'

Who gave u that name 'HINDU''HIND' when 'Bharat' was the name of 'this Land'?


my terms & condition

Where does 'Hindu & Hinduism' appear in Sacred Books of GITA, VEDAS or any of ur religious Book

---------------------------------

I am poet and INdian poet so please do write to me or post if u wish on ur Blogger I am awaiting

 
At 1/02/2008 01:03:00 PM, Anonymous kalyanvis said...

Dear Indian Muslim,

The Hindu Religion used to be called Sanatana Dharma. Exactly when it acquired the name "Hindu" is not entirely known, though there are many theories about it.

But I have a question for you - Why is this even important. Is it your theory that there is no such thing as a Hindu or Hinduism ?

As a Hindu, I don't have a problem with Muslims per se, but the Islamic attitude towards "Kafirs" and "Jihad" are very troubling. Islam does not recognize the validity of any tradition other than itself, it seems to me, and all Kafirs are fair game in its relentless drive towards Islamization of the world.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home




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