Secularism in India is Perverted by Hindu Leaders
In 1947, the Indian National Congress Party opted for a secular republic in preference to a Hindu Rashtra. The Congress party was then headed by 2 leaders Nehru and Gandhi who wanted to win over the Muslims. Gandhi in particular had a great desire to be a mascot for Muslims as well and was thus not averse to stooping low to placate them. This also rubbed off on the second line leadership and a culture developed to pander to minority issues in the hope that they will accept being part of a national identity. Unfortunately Gandhi failed and despite a million acts of appeasement he was never recognised as a leader by the Muslims and Jinnah often contemptuously referred to him as a "Hindu Leader".
Nehru had always Muslim leanings and many rumors float around about him and his father Motilal Nehru. These have a meaning as it shaped his thinking and in the ultimate analysis the Hindus were put in the back seat of the republic.
Part of the problem was the docile nature of the Hindu religion itself that made its followers more accommodating than combative and thus Frank Moraes coined the world " The meek and Mild Hindu". This meekness has manifested itself in many ways and also in everyday life. There are many examples to show that though Gandhi and Nehru were inclined to support the cause of the minority, the Hindus themselves at no stage displayed any single minded devotion to their cause or issues affecting them.
An example that comes to mind is the Hindu reaction to the paintings of M.F. Hussain. This man who was a painter of some standing, depicted Hindu deities in a very demeaning manner.He showed the Prophets mother, and others fully clothed, yet he showed Hindu Deities unclad and in the nude. The point to note is that despite such an affront no Hindu propagated a prize money for his head. There was no violence anywhere and except for a few sporadic sessions of burning his paintings nothing much happened. This shows the tolerance of the Hindu. The point to note is that there were no cases of burning Muslim houses and Hussain's houses in Mumbai were left untouched. Needless to say no Muslim or any Muslim organization thought it fit to reprimand Hussain or support the Hindus. In return we had sermons that acts of Hindus against Hussain were a sign of intolerance.
The above attitude of the Hindus can be contrasted with the action at the Azad Maidan riots in Mumbai. The rioters who were from the minority community desecrated the Amar Jawan Jyoti, a war memorial dedicated to the first freedom struggle of 1857. The net result during this riot was that 2 people died and 54 were injured and that included 45 policemen. Property worth Rs 2.74 crores was damaged. Worse not a single Muslim leader or organization condemned this vandalism.
Akbarudin Owaisi is an intelligent man, yet he talks all rubbish about Hindu gods in his speeches. He sometimes mocks them. Yet this man roams around the country articulating his views and nobody from the Hindu community has ever asked for his hanging for uttering lies and profanities.
The Hindu community is in fact cowed down in their own land. They are perhaps gripped with a psychosis of fear as they find their own leaders from Lalu Prasad to the Congress championing the cause of the minority. This has resulted in the minority community being emboldened and resorting to strong arm tactics everywhere, knowing fuly well that the Hindu reaction whether led by BJP or Congress will be a muted one.
Thus the arson and looting at Purnia and Malda is food for thought. Muslim mobs with a purpose fired bullets at Hindu homes, beat up police, burned vehicles and looted Hindu shops. It was a preplanned carnage and the icing on the cake was a statement by the Hindu Chief Minister of Bengal Mamta Banerjee that this riot was nothing, but a clash between some locals and the BSF. One can't get sillier than that.
These riots were activated by some sleeper cells of Muslim extremists in India, notably Hyderabad and was funded by the Muslim world. India as I had earlier written is labelled a soft state and the fact is that it's 100% true. The fault lies with the Hindus themselves as most believe in the inevitability of life and death and are content to let things pass. This approach led to their complete subjugation by Muslims for 900 years. One wonders how a race which constituted 95% of the population of the land allowed itself to be ruled by a alien force consisting of just 5% of the populace. The fact is the Hindus had lost the will to oppose and fight. Part of this belief was fostered by the ills of Hinduism and the failure to present a cohesive force to the invader. This resulted in defeats galore and that further demoralized the Hindus.
After 1947, one expected a change. However we now know that Sardar Patel was sidelined and died soon after independence. ( Read Last Days of the British Raj by Leonard Mosley). With Patel out the way Nehru had a field day and charted a secularism that literally meant appeasement of the minority. He did not follow the Directive Principles of the Constitution for a common Civil Code and allowed the Muslims to be ruled by the Sharia in personal law. He failed to look beyond his nose and observe that the Portuguese in Goa had abolished the Sharia and applied the Uniform Civil Code to all and sundry including Muslims. The Muslims accepted the diktat there and perhaps they would have accepted a common civil code in India when the republican constitution was ushered in 1950. But, now too much water has gone down the river and one cannot see how equality of all religions can be restored.
Secularism really means a freedom to worship ones religion or practice his belief. It does not mean that a community is to be pampered. Another case is the ban on beef. Many Hindus are also going around saying that such a ban is a sign of intolerance. They forget that 56 nations in the world have banned the slaughter of pigs and pork. Nobody has raised a finger on that. Yet if ONE nation bans cow slaughter, a hue and cry is made. One gets confused as to what real and what is artificial.
India missed the bus when a Hindu Rashtra was not declared in 1947. After all the division of India was on the basis of the "Two Nation Theory". The history books and Jinnah trumpet this and the fact is Gandhi and Nehru also accepted this religious divide. Who can contest it ?
The future is stark and unreal. Justice Katju is clear that India will have a revolution. Maybe be it will be 200 years late, but the Augean stables have to be cleaned and there is no way it can be done.
Like it on Facebook, +1 on Google, Tweet it or share this article on other bookmarking websites.