Author: Pooja Bhatia
Publication: Satyavijayi.com
Date: May 6, 2017
URL:   https://satyavijayi.com/sagarika-ghose-said-hinduism-political-agenda/

A recent blog piece by Sagarika Ghose in Times of India blog was an attempt to enlighten the supposedly deprived ‘Hindus’ of India. Sagarika very cleverly puts across her point, saying that Indians were ‘happy Hindus’, joyfully following their customs, traditions, rituals, at home.

She noted that with the change, when ‘Hinduism’ it being asserted by political pundits or it has become so, a political agenda perhaps, people are disgusted. She implies that only ‘vegetarians’ have a place in India now. That there is so much assertion of ‘being Hindus’, in disguise of violence, love jihad, forceful worshipping of god, and so on that, LIBERAL Hindus are feeling disappointed.

Yes, she coined a new term to represent her sentiments and views on ‘being Hindu’ and it is, Liberal Hindus. That reminds us of the British era, when our foreign rulers said India has no substance in its history, culture, tradition, and that, it has always been a slave of foreign invaders. Soon, they created a class of English-medium educated class of people, who only followed the knowledge path of western scholars and historians, rather than believing what existed in their homes. These so-called brainwashed Hindus are likely to form a majority of Liberal-Hindus, most probably.

Coming back to our current topic of discussion, it now means, liberal Hindus and non-liberal Hindus, behave differently and react to situation differently, such as:

If Indians are asked to stand for national anthem in movies halls, those who choose to stand are non-liberal Hindus, and other, who feel it is not necessary to show respect to the nation and that, they are being forced to do so, are liberal Hindus. This liberal lot of people wants a choice to show respect or not, okay.

Going by that logic, any foreign national, who show so much passion for their country, when their national anthem is being played; recall, a cricket stadium, where every citizen stands proud on their national anthem, is conservative and traditional. Irrespective, of where a national anthem is played, you should show respect. And, if you are not happy about ‘it’ being played in movie halls, is it still necessary to show a negative sentiment, by choosing not to stand? Is that the correct course of action, ask yourself?
 
2. True Hindus are accommodating, of any religion, community, or simply said, not Muslim-hating. So, when issues like Triple Talaq are raised, why don’t these true Hindus, who have a voice in the media, speak up aloud rather than dismissing it as a political agenda? Any motive which is good for people should be supported whole-heartedly, irrespective of being political or not, right?

And, when famous Muslim personalities, take a political stance against the government, they should be treated in good faith. A desh, which has given them all love and respect, should be allowed to be let down in public, by handful of people. And, only conservative Hindus should protest. For the rest, we are too liberal to forgive anything and anybody, who openly insults our nation.

These so-called suffocated Muslims don’t realise how safe they are really in India. We are not Pakistan, where a Balochistan happens, or an Afghanistan, where Taliban happens. If at all, India is a secular country, where every citizen lives happily. Then, why should anybody complain?

“Those who killed Mohammad Akhlaq in Dadri or Pehlu Khan in Alwar, those attacking lovers, movie directors, meat-eaters, artists or writers or rationalists, can those attackers really represent a religion which places individual freedom at the very centre of spirituality? No, liberal Hindus, you’re repelled by those who kill in your name. You’re appalled at what the world will think of Hinduism if the gau warriors are its only face,” comments Sagarika Ghose in her blog.

Did we hear it right? One, the so-alleged non-liberal Hindus are not against any writer, rationalists, artist, movie-directors, lovers, or anybody for that matter. The answer lies in the fact that anybody and anybody, who demeans our heritage, for personal, professional, and political interests, will naturally be dismissed. If a famous director, to add glamour to a movie, will distort the facts of Indian history, it should be appropriately corrected. Vandalism is not the right way, but a one of a kind incident cannot take away the limelight, and the larger issue ignored at-will. Why don’t we talk about the aspect of Bollywood misleading people?

You want to tell us, there was no violence ever in India? That there were no atrocities in name of honor-killing, lovers in the open, that, it something apart is happening now and the present political leadership has to take the blame for it?

Coming to the point of meat-eaters, if you know of Hindu culture and practice so well then, you might be aware of the fact that people in hinterland of India, survive on cows, calves, cattle, for their living. It is part of Indian cultural values to show respect to cattle for giving us livelihood.

If you can respect the sentiment of a liberal Hindu then, why can’t you respect the real-sentiment of Hindus?

Second, instead of making a mountain of a mole, there is nobody who will really speak the truth. Indians relish buffalo meat, and it is only buffalo meat, which is legally served in India. Cow, cattle, the milk-producing animals, should not be butchered for economic reasons than social perception.

Mob lynching is definitely not right, but instead of speaking about it again and again, why don’t we focus on the larger issues? Writing in a English-medium newspaper, it is obvious we are appealing to a urban-educated class of people. Then why should we not focus on only the facts? Vernacular media is there to do the on-ground corrections, and for, the benefit of people-at-large, isn’t it?