Author: A Hindutva Supporter
Publication: The Times of India
Date: July 29, 2006
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1823444.cms
Introduction: Why do Muslims feel the system
is biased against them? Our society is divided into so many sections and everybody
is angry about something or the other. Even a Dalit is angry about the way
he's treated. Why doesn't he react in the same fashion?
I grew up in a small town in Mayurbhanj district
of Orissa. After completing my school and college education there, I moved
to Delhi. Mine was a typically apolitical, middle-class family.
No one had ever been a member or actively
supported any particular political party - they used to vote for Congress
and later shifted to Biju Patnaik's party.
As a schoolboy, I did not have any political
leanings. But in class XI, I started attending RSS shakhas, simply because
it was the 'in' thing and all my friends had joined.
It was basically a reaction to the Emergency
and since the ban had just been lifted, we were looking for an alternative
ideology to the Congress.
When I joined JNU for my post-graduation in
the '80s, there was no ABVP on the campus. Communism seemed attractive for
a while. I appreciated their discipline, commitment and anti-imperialist views.
But that was then.
The Nehruvian concept of secular India has
become irrelevant now. Today, I am totally disillusioned by the so-called
secularists and Leftists. I am all for Hindutva.
It angers me when secularists try to look
for a cause and rationalise every terrorist act. Terrorism is terrorism, it
cannot be condoned. They try to link the Mumbai blasts of 1993 to the Babri
Masjid demolition and 7/11 to Gujarat. By doing this, they justify the acts
of terrorists.
Minority appeasement policies of various political
parties are the root cause of a lot of our problems. This has only harmed
minorities (read Muslims), since they have not been able to integrate into
the mainstream. Thanks to these policies, terrorists feel they can get away
with anything. We come across as a soft state.
Theologically, there is a fundamental difference
between Muslims and non-Muslims. The Muslims have problems of co-existence
with most other communities. Examples abound all across the world: look at
Indonesia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Pakistan.
In Bangladesh, there is a systematic attack
on symbols of Hinduism. All over the world, Hindus are considered moderate
and accommodating people. If secularism and democracy has survived in India,
it is only because of us.
Unfortunately, the voice of the moderate Muslim
is not loud enough to be heard by even their own community. Their protests
don't seem to matter to anyone. No wonder it is the extremists' leaders who
have become politically relevant now.
And why do they feel the system is biased
against them? Our society is divided into so many sections based on caste,
ethnicity, state, and everybody is angry about something or the other.
They don't resort to violence to show their
angst. Even a Dalit is angry about how he's treated; why doesn't he react
the same way? Many houseowners may not be willing to rent out their premises
to a Bihari, so why is it that only a Muslim feels victimised?
Can minorities in any other country behave
in this fashion and get away with it? What happened in Gujarat was a response
of the majority community to certain actions.
If the majority does not react all the time,
it comes across as soft. The message had to go across: every action can have
an equal reaction.
- These are the views of a professor at Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi, who spoke to Sujata Dutta Sachdeva.
