HVK Archives: The Secular Messiah-Amitabh - Letter
The Secular Messiah-Amitabh - Letter - Voice of Jammu Kashmir
Aneeta Chakrabarty, Acworth, Georgia, U.S.A.
()
1997 January-February
Title : The Secular Messiah-Amitabh - Letter
Author : Aneeta Chakrabarty, Acworth, Georgia, U.S.A.
Publication : Voice of Jammu Kashmir
Date : January-February, 1997
Amitabh Bachchan, by refusing to light a lamp (I.W April 30) on the
basis that it is Hindu, has only shown the symptoms of the disease
acquired from the Congress, which is to "speak secular but follow
the mullah."
In any secular country, such as America, a party which partitioned
the land would have been promptly banned. But in pseudo-secular
India, the Muslim League, which created Pakistan, is not only
hailed as the new Messiah of secularism but its leaders arc allowed
to rise to the highest echelons of power, and to determine what is
secular and what is not. Soon they said that "Bande Mataram" is
communal. The meek Hindus changed the inspiring and immortal song.
Then they demanded Article 370 in Kashmir. Secular propaganda did
such a thorough job that the average Indian does not even know that
such an unfair article exists. Islamic laws superior to the
Supreme Court were allowed. Separatism in every sphere was
actively engaged in return for bloc votes. Today, they dictate that
breaking a coconut or lighting a lamp is communal.
The self-righteous secular brigade and the preaching humanitarians
should ask themselves a few questions. Did any secular country ban
the "Satanic Verses" just because of a few ranting mullahs? Britain
not only stood tall to support the bastion of secularism, which is
freedom of expression, but also protected the right of the author
to dissent. When India broke the foundations of secularism by
banning the "Satanic Verses," where were the Amitabh Bachchans and
the Anglicized reporters and the vociferous secularists? Where were
they when "Islamic terrorism" made Hindus flee from Kashmir? Why
is the Congress Party, which allowed the division of the country on
the basis of religion, considered secular?
In America, the president takes an oath of office by placing his
hand on the Bible. He is not apologetic about lighting a Christmas
tree on the lawns of the White House. The British would not give
up lighting a candle on the basis that it is "Christian." This is
because these men realize that it is not customs but justice that
can form the true basis of secularism.
Secularism cannot be enforced by giving up Hindu customs but by
standing up to the widening winds of fundamentalism from Iran and
Pakistan. It needs men, not mice, in power.
Letter No. 2. - Renounce Names
Author : Arvind Ghosh, U.S.A.
The refusal by Amitabh Bachchan to light the ceremonial lamp
(Letters, I-W, April 30) on the excuse that it was exclusively a
Hindu religious custom and therefore "not secular," clearly puts
the onus on the organizers of the function. Bachchan should not
have been invited to do the lighting of the lamp in the first
place.
Such people, actors and actresses, in any country and civilization,
live on the fringes of society. As a rule, they are men and women
of easy virtue, loose morals and hardly any principles, other than
making money. They are never put in a place where from they can
dictate morals and ethics to people of better quality and
disposition. -
I suggest to Bachchan that in order to generate some credibility,
he should denounce and renounce his name, which is eminently Hindu
and Buddhist. He can easily do that by adopting a name like
Malcolm X had done. I can put up with a Mr. X Bachchan without a
murmur but cannot stand his sermon on secularism, just as it hard
to stomach speeches on ethics by Shabana Azmi.
Back
Top
|
