Have Hindus Become M ore Intolerant , Or less Indulgent? By BS M urt hy When the Sem itic free run on t he Hindu turf under Sonia’s proxy w at ch ended with the ascent of Narendra M odi ont o the Delhi gaddi, the Indian agendas of the Christian w est and t he M uslim um m a faced impedim ent s result ing in the brouhaha over t he grow ing religious int olerance of Hindus tow ards India’s m inorities. Given the racial biases and the religious prejudices of both against the Hindus and that the world m edia, by and large is cont rolled by them , a critical appraisal of t heir propaganda with object ive lenses is called for. Hence, as the accusat ion is on the religious ground, it is imperat ive t hat t he theocrat ic credos of Islam and Christ ianit y as w ell as the philosophical ethos of santana dharma aka Hinduism, the only surviving ‘w ay of life’ of yore on eart h, are to be reckoned with. The prist ine precept s of Hinduism are Nar ō Nārayana M an is but God, Vasudhaiva kut umbakam Holds world all in one household, and ekam sad viprā bahudhā vadanti. What is right is One only, describe it wise variedly. However, in t ime, as t he broad ‘man is but God’ becam e t he narrow ‘cast e is the creed’ , the so-called Hindu upper cast es, so as not t o suffer all and sundry, turned head on the unifying ‘holds world all in One household’ int o the divisive ‘sunder cast es m en on eart h’. What is w orse, t hey managed to push the so-called low er castes into untouchable dalit ghet tos on t he peripheries, and far aw ay from t em ples of their gods. It w as into such an Indian set t ing that t he M uslim vandals, spurred by the Quranic credo of loot and rapine, made their w ay t o render it unt o Islam . However, set t ing aside the M uslim penchant t o force t he conquered populace into t heir alien fait h, for the most part , the craving of the deprived-of-god dalit s for a religious hold that could have furt hered t heir Islam ic cause t o convert . Nevert heless, t he self-absorbed upper cast e Hindus w ere indifferent to the socially inim ical development t hat began t o upset the demographics of t heir ancient land even as the progeny of the convert ed began to imbibe the et hos of Islam t hat underscores t heir inseparable separat eness from the non-believers t hat is besides inculcating hat red tow ards them wit h Quranic dikt at s such as – “ Your friend can be only Allah: and His messenger and those who believe, who est ablish w orship and pay the poor due, and bow dow n (in prayer).” “ O ye who believe! Take not t he Jew s and Christ ians for friends. They are friends one t o another. He am ong you who taket h them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guidet h not w rongdoing folk.” “ Let not t he believers t ake disbelievers for their friends in preference t o believers. Whoso doet h that hath no connect ion with Allah unless (it be) t hat ye but guard yourselves against t hem, t aking (as it w ere) securit y. Allah biddet h you beware (only) of Him self. Unt o Allah is the journeying.” “ Those who believe do bat tle for the cause of Allah; and t hose w ho disbelieve do bat t le for t he cause of idols. So fight the m inions of the devil. Lo! the devil’s strat egy is very w eak.” “ Relent not in pursuit of enem y, If ye are suffering, lo! They suffer even as ye suffer and ye hope from Allah that for w hich t hey cannot hope. Allah is ever Know er, Wise.” “ It is not for any Prophet to have capt ives until he hath m ade slaught er in the land. Ye desire t he lure of this w orld and Allah desiret h (for you) the Hereaft er, and Allah is M ight y Wise.” However, t he haught y upper cast e Hindus, who according to Alberuni thought ‘t here is no count ry but theirs, no nat ion like t heirs, no kings like t heirs, no religion like t heirs, no science like t heirs” , never deem ed fit t o grasp the nit t y-grit t y of the alien fait h and inst ead could have falsely assum ed t hat it w ould be but a benign variant of t heir own dharm a, ‘what is right is One only, describe it wise variedly’, and thus saw no need t o cont ain it s grow th in t heir midst for which their progeny paid the Islamic price in the form of Pakist an a m illennium lat er. In that set t ing, while t he upper cast e Hindus, who dism issed the Islamic invaders as mlechchas, also derided the convert s as kat uas, ow ing t o their circum cision t hat t heir new fait h ordained, the new -found religious aggressiveness of the lat t er coupled wit h their ageold social grievance could have ensconced them in an impot ent rage. How ever, t he fact that t he int ruders happened to lord over t heir erst w hile oppressors would have afforded som e vicarious pleasure t o t he Indian M usalm ans. Yet , in a remarkable social int ercourse, t he new ly m int ed M uslim s that gloat ed over t he reflect ed glory of t he new rulers and the upper cast e Hindus, who laid store on their perceived superiorit y over all others, m anaged to live t oget her t enuously t hough, which, in lat er days, the left -liberals cam e t o romantically falsify as ganga jamuna t ahjeeb. Then, when the eight -hundred years old Islamic semi-dominance over India w as on the w ane, t he Christ ianit y spread it s religious w ings under the aegis of t he British Raj, ost ensibly t o reform t he Hindu heat hens that the Bible holds in ut t er cont empt in psalm s such as “ Ask of me, and I shall give t hee t he heat hen for thine inherit ance, and the ut t ermost part s of the eart h for thy possession.” 2:8 “ Thou shalt break t hem w it h a rod of iron; t hou shalt dash them in pieces like a pot t er's vessel.” 2:9 “ Thou hast rebuked the heat hen, thou hast dest royed the wicked, t hou hast put out t heir nam e for ever and ever.” 9:5 “ Thou hast given us like sheep [appoint ed] for meat; and hast scat t ered us among t he heat hen.” 44:11 “ But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them ; t hou shalt have all the heathen in derision.” 59:8 “ Pour out thy w rat h upon t he heat hen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdom s that have not called upon thy name.” 79:6 So, st art ing from t he dalit bastis, t he evangelist s forayed furt her into the t ribal t andas to spread Christ ianit y by m eans fair and foul. How ever, as their catchment areas w er e peripheral to t he Brahmin agraharas and the upper cast e quart ers, t he Christ ian dem ographic alarm failed to w ake t hem up from t heir slumber of indifference t hough unyoked from the Islamic hegemony by t hen. And to make mat t ers w ere for them , M acaulay cam e up w ith his M inut e on Indian Education, which, am ong other t hings w as aimed to divest t he Hindus from their “ false hist ory, false ast ronom y, false medicine, in com pany with their false religion” with the right west ern educat ion. However, while the M usalm ans, fearing t hat the west ern education w ould lead to the dilut ion of Islamic faith among their wards, avoided M acaulay like a plague, the Hindus embraced him willy-nilly giving up their ‘haught y’ indifference t o other fait hs end ending up w ith ‘naive’ indulgence t ow ards them. What is w orse, from the Hindu point of view , the M acaulay educat ion, over t im e, succeeded in m aking them have a dim view of the sanatana dharma of t heir progenitors and skept ical about all things Hindu be it it s hist ory, ast ronomy, m edicine, cult ure et c. If anything, Gandhi in lat er years, t o put it in t he Hindi phase, turned out t o be M acaulay’s baap, for he professed that “ Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against M uslim s even if t he latt er want ed t o dest roy t hem . Even if t he M uslims w ant t o kill us all w e should face deat h bravely. If they est ablished their rule aft er killing Hindus w e w ould be ushering in a new w orld by sacrificing our lives.” But it w as Nehru, who symbolized the fruit ion of the M acaulay mission for he not only proclaim ed that “ I’m English by educat ion, a M uslim by culture, just born a Hindu by accident ” but also conduct ed himself accordingly. It ’s thus, when it came t o choosing the first Prim e M inist er of what is left of India aft er Jinnah had part ed w ith part s of it s land to est ablish Pakist an for the M usalmans, it’s no m ere coincidence t hat Gandhi threw his heavy w eight behind the M uslim-orient ed Nehru and against the Hindu-m inded Pat el. Im mediat ely t hereaft er, t rue t o his charact er, Nehru st rained every nerve t o ensure t hat the Indian M usalm ans did not m igrat e in num bers t o Pakist an though t he raison d'êt re of India’s partit ion was their assert ion that they cannot coexist w ith t he Hindus. What is worse, he was allergic t o the persecut ed Hindu refugees from t he then East Pakist an and even want ed them to be pushed back int o it never m ind t heir annihilation by t he Bengali M usalmans therein, so to say, to put Gandhi’s preaching int o pract ice. In t he light of the above, and his reported obeisance, besides that of his daught er Indira and his great -grandson Rahul, to the Islam ic invader Babur’s grave in Afghanist an, should be seen t he conject ure that his own grandfather w as a M usalman wit h Nehru nom de guerre. Hence, it could not have been a m ere coincidence t hat Nehru placed Hindu India’s educat ional reins in the hands of M aulana Abul Kalam Azad, who publicly voiced his fears t hat post -partit ion, t he M uslim minorit y in t he Hindu m ajorit y India would be disadvant aged. So, so t o say, during his decade-long helm at India’s ‘secular’ education, the clever M aulana succeeded in making it seem t o the vulnerable Hindu minds that t he M uslim rule over t heir ancient land was but a natural Islam ic course all t he while downplaying their ancest ral resist ance t o t he same. Neit her is the fact that four more M usalm ans, all appoint ed by eit her by Nehru or Indira, reigned supreme in the corridors of Indian educat ion for about nine m ore years, all of which w as during t he first thirt y years aft er India’s independence, could be m ore t han mere coincidence. It’s no wonder t he Hindus who adorned that office in bet w een t hese w ort hies or t hose t hat came lat er dared not alt er t he Nehruvian educational course set by t he Islamic credo t hat insensibly becam e t he nonviolable creed of t he Indian school curriculum t ill dat e. It w as in t his continuing Hindu t ragic play, Indira leased t he academic st age t o the Hinduallergic and Islam apologic left ist s in lieu of their political props, t o let them shape and sust ain t he Hindu-inim ical narrat ive for over five decades. Thus with the St at e’s pat ronage, t he dubious left ist s by adding t he deceit ful liberal suffix, managed to spread t heir anti-Hindu t ent acles into every sphere of int ellect ual activit y w ith impunit y, thereby unerringly shaping an inalienable idea of India in which the Islamo-Christ ian com munalism is deem ed as secular and Hindu cultural assert ion is regarded as comm unal. This obnoxious narrat ive on one hand gave fillip to M uslim separat eness, displayed by skullcaps, even on kids’ heads, and on t he other, fuelled the Christ ian urge t o harvest t he dalit and the t ribal souls for the cause of Jesus, and any Hindu concern on either count came t o be derided as religious intolerance. It w as as if the Hindu feelings didn’t count in their own count ry, even aft er it s partit ion on religious grounds, and w hen their pent -up anger erupt ed in Ram ajanm a Bhoom i movement result ing in the hot -headed dem olition of the Babri M asjid, built over Ayodhya’s Ram M andir in Babur’s time, the left -liberal ecosyst em ensured t hat the ent ire Hindu com munity w as engulfed in secular shame. However, t en years lat er, when a M uslim mob at Godhra t orched alive fift y-t w o Hindu pilgrim s ret urning from Ayodhya t o their native places in that Sabarm ati Express result ing in t he ret aliat ory riot ing in Gujarat , even as t he M ullahs tuned in “ Islam is a religion of peace” , t he M uslim int elligentsia proclaim ed t he growing Hindu communalism as the bane of secular India, of course t o the nodding Islam naïve Hindu heads. It w as this Hindu int ellect ual apathy that failed t o produce even a single book on Islam in t housand years of it s Indian presence (save Am bedkar’s st ray, t hough incisive, t hought s on Islam and not counting Chamupat i Lal’s thirt y-four page Hindi booklet, Rangeela Rasool, published anonym ously though, som e hundred years before t hen t hat is available even now in t he int ernet , which, anyw ay, w as only about M uhamm ad’s unbridled libido that too as a ret ort t o som e M uslim derogat ory w rit ings in the form of Krishna t eri geet a jalani padegi and Uniseevi sadi ka maharshi) that prompt ed this w rit er, innat ely a novelist , t o come up his Puppet s of Faith: Theory of Communal St rife ( A Crit ical appraisal of Islamic faith, Indian polit y ‘n M ore). While Rajpal M alhot ra, t he publisher of Rangeela Rasool, w as murdered by a t eenaged M usalman in 1929, there w ere no t akers for Puppet s of Faith in 2003, even as the reject ion slip sent by one desi publisher is a giveaw ay. I enjoyed reading t he book. But I suggest you read Dr. Zakaria’s “ Communal Rage in Secular India” . Your book is a bit St rident and could prove dangerous in w rong hands (Hindu fundament alist ). What is t o be not ed is the M uslim com munal grip on the Hindu secular mind, though it is anot her m att er t hat t his w rit er’s w ork has been in the public dom ain as free ebook for long w ithout either raising Islam ic hackles or fuelling Hindu fundam ent alism, if ever t here w as. It w as in that Indian set t ing, t he It alian Sonia could cat apult herself int o such a polit ical posit ion to be able t o direct it s adm inist rat ive course t o further t he Christ ian evangelical drive, t o fuel t he Islamic fundam ent alism and t o demean Hinduism as saffron t errorism. No w onder that the Christ ian dem ocracies and t he M uslim autocracies alike t oast ed her decade-long proxy rule as the golden period of religious tolerance in the annals of t he Indian Republic. But for t he m edia coverage of her unbridled avarice and t he idiocy of her heir apparent , she m ight have had her Hindu-inim ical w ay in India for som e m ore t im e but then as karma caught up with her in t he Hindus’ karm a bhoomi , she was bust ed at the hust ings by Narendra M odi, w ho managed to st ir the nat ionalist ic feelings am ong the Hindus like none before him . However, the advent of M odi on India’s political firmam ent coincided w it h t he spread of int ernet t herein t hat began t o reveal unflat t ering facet s of Gandhi and Nehru and the out raged Hindus lost no time in circulat ing t he same t hrough the em erging social media t hereby t aking aw ay much of the sheen from these t w o, whom t he Hindu-inimical ecosyst em m ade into dem igods. But more significant ly, as the nat ionalist M odi’s ascent t o t he throne uplift ed the Hindu morale as never before, some ent erprising began t o t ackle the t ailor-made Indian hist ory to serve t he Nehru dynast y’s polit ical int erest s t o lay bare it s falsit ies before t he public through their publications, if anyt hing more effect ively in their t alk shows in the TV channels as w ell as in the social m edia plat form s t hat came to abound. The net result of it all is that the Hindus have becom e m ore aw are of the intolerant Islamic credo and the subversive evangelical creed t hat w ere t oget her downplayed by t he Nehruvian left liberal kabal thus far, and so became less indulgent t ow ards bot h, which is galling to the Hindu-inimical forces within and without that have come t o orchest rat e t he chorus of India’s religious int olerance. Be t hat as it may, Narendra M odi, on whom the resurgent Hindu multitudes pin t heir hopes t o blind the Sem it ic dem ographic eyes t hat are cast on India, while going about it must t ake cognizance of Niccolo M achiavelli’s following advice in The Prince. “ So it should be not ed t hat when he seizes a st at e the new ruler ought to det erm ine all the injuries t hat he w ill need t o inflict . He should inflict them once for all, and not have to renew them every day, and in t hat w ay he will be able to set men’s m inds at rest and w in them over t o him when he confers benefit s. Whoever act s otherw ise, eit her t hrough t imidit y or bad advice, is always forced t o have t he knife ready in his hand and he can never depend on his subject s because t hey, suffering fresh and continuous violence, can never feel secure wit h regard t o him. Violence should be inflict ed once for all; people will t hen forget what it t ast es like and so be less resent ful. Benefit s should be conferred gradually; and in that w ay t hey w ill t ast e bet ter. Above all, a prince should live w it h his subject s in such a w ay t hat no developm ent , eit her favourable or adverse, m akes him vary his conduct .” So, M odi m ust inflict some secular injuries on t he communal minded M uslim s and the Christ ians on t he ground that i) M uslim s aver t hat all non-M uslims are kafirs and the Christ ians assert that Hindus are heat hens, w hich flies in t he face of the secular dict um that all men are equal. ii) When all m en are equal, as t heir gods cannot be unequal, the proclam ation by M uslims in t he Azan that There is none w orthy of worship except Allah and t he Christ ian propagation of Jesus’ w ords, “ I am t he Way, and the t rut h, and t he Life; no one com es t o t he Father, but t hrough M e” (John 14:6), are alike unt enable. iii) What is worse, w hile M uslim s inculcat e hatred in the believers against kafirs in the m asjids, t hey let the religious educat ion in the madrasas poison t he minds of their youth t o perpet uat e hat red against the others in their umm a, the Christ ian evangelist s falsely propagat e t hat t he Hindu gods and deities are false, both of which are det rim ent al t o t he com munal harm ony in our count ry. iv) The M uslim goal t o usher in Ghazw a-e-Hind by Islam izing India through their unbridled procreat ion coupled with t he illegal Islamist infilt rat ion into it, and the evangelical agenda to bring all Hindus into t he Christian fold are at odds with the preservat ion of India’s sovereignt y and int egrit y. Hence, a) The Article 25 of the Indian Const itution t hat guarant ees t he freedom of conscience, the freedom t o profess, pract ice and propagat e religion to all citizens should be amended t o desist any from propagat ing t heir religion t hough they are free t o profess and practice t he sam e. (Read t he chapt er ‘Const itutional Amnesia’ in Puppet s of Fait h: Theory of Communal St rife cit ed above) b) All should be prohibit ed from m aking divisive suggest ions such as, There is none w orthy of w orship except Allah, Hindu gods and deities are false, salivat ion is possible only through belief in t he Christ, at t he pain of imprisonm ent, punitive fines, and / or both. c) The propagat ion that non-M uslims are kafirs and t he Hindus are heat hens, both dest ined t o hell, should be prohibit ed at the pain of imprisonm ent , punitive fines, and / or both. d) M adrasas, under t he guise of religious educat ion, should not be allow ed to inculcat e hat red in it s pupils tow ards other fait hs and their follow ers and masjids should be barred from doing t he sam e through divisive serm ons at the pain of their closure (now there’s t he French precedent), im prisonm ent of it s mullahs and punitive fines. e) All religious exhort at ions or encouragem ent for unw arrant ed population expansion in any com munity with t he intent t o upset the exist ing demographic balance of the Indian polity should be prohibit ed at t he pain of im prisonm ent, punit ive fines, and / or both. f) All religious personal law s should be invalidat ed by t he Uniform Civil Code for t he whole of India. g) Last but not the least , the Bangladeshi M uslim int ruders should be disenfranchised to begin w it h and t o be deport ed event ually, if need be by coercing Bangladesh to have them back. M odi m ay appreciat e t hat while Raj dharma of sanat ana dhanrma - ahimsa paramo dharmaha / dharma himsa t hadhaiva cha (nonpareil is non-violence / nonet heless is right eous out rage) ordains him t o t ake recourse t o the above m easures to avert India’s second part ition down the line for the Quran that m ade M usalmans press for t he first part ition because they cannot co-exist w it h the Hindus would rem ain the same (it ’s anot her m at t er t hough t hat they have become the most pam pered lot in India), his political acumen should prompt him int o ushering in comprehensive legislat ive and adm inist rat ive m easures som e six m onths or so before t he 2024 parliament ary polls, so that his possible ret urn t o pow er then w ould be deemed as t he public endorsem ent of the sam e, once and for all, to silence and all. Needless t o say, it m ay not be lost on M odi t hat knowingly or unknowingly, he had been following M achiavelli’s second advice - benefit s should be conferred gradually; and in t hat w ay they will t ast e bet t er – for the benefit of his party, and so he can disregard t he first dictum of the political genius only at the cost of India’s ruin.