HVK Archives: Does secularism amount to anti-Hinduism?
Does secularism amount to anti-Hinduism? - The Free Press Journal
P.S Sharma
()
April 15, 1998
Title: Does secularism amount to anti-Hinduism?
Author: P.S Sharma
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: April 15, 1998
If so, the pre-partition Muslim League was, and is, the most
secular party of the Indo-Pak Sub-continent.
A distinguished American pacifist and Gandhian, Homer A Jack, had
in an open letter to 'Hindu friends', published in the Statesman
dated June 6, 1993, made the following six suggestions:
1. Oppose the pandering to religious organisations and religious
"voting banks".
2. Cease blaming Muslims for the problems of India.
3. Help your children understand, cherish and appreciate their
Hinduism, but help them also to respect and accept all world
religions.
4. Set for yourself some date, before which you will not blame
people for whatever their ancestors did to rule, despoil, and
colonialise the Indian sub-continent.
5. Special attention must be given to the Dalits and Harijans as
the fate of the caste Hindus is inextricably linked with their
fate.
6. Ponder the best way to regulate the religions of India.
Jack Homer is an honourable man. Or is he?
But the(problem is that his Hindu friends' stove already
succeeded in bamboozling and befouling him by feeding him the
vilest propagandastuff in their armoury, i.e. untruths, half-
truths, distortions and falsifications of facts, and downright
lies - white lies, black lies and lies of unimaginably bizarre
hues.
That is the reason why Homer Jack's analysis goes off at a
tangent and goes awry, and he blunders into ridiculous
conclusions. Or are the conclusions predetermined and deliberate?
For instance, Homer Jack says, "Me demolition of the Babri Masjid
in Ayodhya on December 6 of last year and its aftermath have been
called the greatest tragedy for India since the assassination (of
Mahatma Gandhi in 1948)."
Babri Masjid is the most diabolical myth of the 20th century.
Babar destroyed the Rain Temple at the Ramjanmabhoomi in Ayodhya
in 1528 through his General, Mir Baqi, and on the sanctum
sanctorum of the temple he got a mosque-like structure erected,
which structure came to be known as Masjid Janmasthan. The
structure was therefore destined to go.
For all practical purposes it was a functional temple, and there
were court orders that Muslims could not go beyond 200 yards of
it. The court called this structure as the disputed structure.
Muslims were veering around to the view that in the interest of
abiding Hindu-Muslim amity, Hindus be allowed to re-build the Ram
Temple at the Ramjanmabhoomi and Muslims may build a magnificent
mosque, outside its periphery.
But the prospect of Hindu-Muslim understanding was an anathema to
Homer's secular friends. So they christened the disputed
structure as the Babri Masjid and, began inciting people against
the Hindus through public speeches, through radio, through
television and through incendiary 'national' media.
Suddenly, the 'molehill' of a 'disputed structure' became the
'mountain' of a Babri Masjid. It was this propaganda blitz (and
not the demolition of a dilapidated structure which in any case
had to go) of vilifying the laudable movement for liberation of
Ramjanmabhoomi which was the greatest tragedy since the
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, or rather since the tragic
partition of India by secular Hindu leaders on communal lines.
We certainly do not and cannot blame the Muslims.
They wanted an Islamic Pakistan and they got it. They conceded a
Hindu India but Hindus won't have it, because they cannot live
except under the hegemony of Muslims. They are accustomed to
Islamic rule for a thousand years.
Even Mahatma Gandhi did not mind being ruled by the Amir of
Afghanistan.
I fully agree with Jack Homer that Hindus must have multi-
religious education so that they may know that Islam and
Christianity stand for converting the Hindu, and not for
establishing any rapport with them in a vague and foolish' Sarv-
Dharm-Samabhav and Mazhah Nahin Sikhata manner A Muslim and a
Christian are proud of their respective religions. Even the Sikhs
are. But a Hindu is very apologetic about his own and takes
delight in denegrating Hindu saints and prophets.
In India, Hindus freely and shamelessly cast all sorts of
aspersions on Lord Ram.
No Muslim can even think of casting any aspersion on Prophet
Mohammed; blaspheming him is punishable by death in Pakistan &
other Islamic countries.
Hindus have not changed much over the centuries. It is the Hindus
who perpetuated Muslim rule in India for centuries.
It was Raja Man Singh who fought Maharana Pratap's valiant
Rajputs at the battle of Haldighati and massacred over twenty
thousand of them.
Had he joined hands with the Maharana, that would have been the
end of the Mughal, and Muslim rule in India.
It was Maharaja Jai Singh who ensnared Shivaji and became
instrumental in putting him in Aurangzeb's dungeons. Had he
responded positively to Shivaji's overtures, the tyrannous Mughal
rule could instantly have been put to an end. And it as not a
handful of British soldiers who conquered India. It was the
Hindus who helped them do it.
The Hindu psyche has over the centuries got conditioned to exult
in its own humiliation and destruction.
What the BJP, RSS, VHP and others are trying to do is to reform
the Hindu and create some sense of self-respect in him.
They have nothing whatsoever against the non-Hindus. But some
Hindus who believe in self-flagellation, self-denigration and
self-abuse in order to enjoy the luxuries of power and pelf, are
opposed tooth and nail to this most laudable objective of
bringing about a renaissance in the Hindu society, so as to bring
it at par (yes, at par, neither at a lower nor at a superior
pedestal) with other great religions and societies of the world.
As for coexistence of religious in a peaceful and harmonious
manner, there can be no better pattern than already laid down by
Swami Vivekananda in the Parliament of Religions a century ago.
For such a peaceful coexistence, proselysing religions must learn
to respect views directly opposed to theirs.
If not, the Hindus have a right to aver that theirs is the only
true religions (i.e., Dharma). All other religions are
regimentations under one prophet or the other. And they must
take to proselytisation themselves.
Back
Top
|
