[nukkad] Example of Minority Appeasement

[Gireesh Dixit / PCS <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  Well-timed silence has more eloquence than speech.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bhagawandas P. Lathi
Secular Democracy Of India: A Sinister Fraud
The politically correct leftist media in India has always found it to be
open season for attacks on the BJP and other Hindutva groups. By habitually
referring to BJP as communal, and other Hindutva organizations as fascist,
they have so distorted the public vision that the truth comes as a surprise
to most people when they come to know about the pernicious discrimination
against Hindu institutions. The irony is that it is BJP and Hindutva
organizations that are truly secular because they want equality before law
of all religions. But their accusers have perpetuated communal minded
discriminatory policies.
One reader, in his letter to the editor (India West; 7/23/99), stated, "when
the BJP government coalition took oath, the Sangh Parivar was dreaming of
Hindu Rajya." Perhaps he is right. The so-called "secularists" in India, as
well as their bedfellows, the English newsmedia, have both fostered a great
deal of misunderstanding as to what is meant by Hindu Rajya. This is either
(1) because of their basic ignorance of Hinduism, or (2) to further their
own vested interests and prejudices. They ascribe to Hindu Rajya a grand
design of a theocratic Hindu state, with the equivalent of a Pope or
Ayatollah, who will enforce the equivalent of Islamic sharia on the entire
population. Alas! Hinduism is not an organized religion. It has no Pope or
Ayatollah. Rather, it has tremendous diversity and its scriptures constantly
urge devotees to inquire, search and experience the truth for themselves and
to not accept readymade views. This has allowed complete freedom of thought,
which is the reason why Hinduism is ever renewing itself with rise of new
Gurus with every age and clime. This is also why the concepts of blasphemy,
fatwas and excommunication are non-existent.
Furthermore, Hinduism does not have "One God, One savior," or "the last
Prophet"; nor does it have one sacred book, such as the Bible or a Koran,
which is regarded as the word of God that every one must be made to accept
(by force, if necessary). (The Vedas, rather than being revelations by the
gods to human prophets, as some think, are, in fact, hymns sung by human
poets to the gods,). Nor does Hinduism claim that its religion alone has the
final or highest truth.
For precisely the same reason is the phrase "Hindu fundamentalism" an
oxymoron. The prerequisites for fundamentalism are the following: (a) one
(and the only) God, (b) one (and the only) savior or last prophet, (c) one
(and the only) holy book, and (d) belief in one (and the only true)
exclusive creed, which divides humanity into two ever antagonistic camps,
igniting a permanent fire of tension between believers (favorites of the
God) and non-believers (kafirs or heathens, enemies of the God). Hinduism,
on the other hand, is not a "creedal" religion - you don't have to believe
in any dogma to be a Hindu. Moreover, it does not divide humanity into two
antagonistic camps. Rather, Hinduism asserts that the same divine
consciousness (Brahman) pervades all, and that all creatures and the entire
universe are, in essence, God. Hindus have a mind-boggling diversity in
their beliefs, which is inimical to fundamentalism. Nonetheless, the
politically correct, copycat newsmedia fraternity of India keeps railing
against some imaginary "Hindu fundamentalism." Throughout history, it is
rare to find a Hindu king that has not been secular. Genuine secularism is
as natural to Hindus as cold is to ice or heat to fire.
Currently, the secular Indian constitution is interpreted in an Orwellian
manner, with favored treatment of the minority religions and blatant
discrimination against Hindus. When they hear the facts about this
discrimination, most Hindus are surprised and are incredulous. The
politically correct media never like to talk about this sinister and
nefarious politics of secularists, nor will they allow publication of any
article exposing the truth. The Art 30 of the constitution, or rather its
fraudulent interpretation, is the bedrock of discrimination against Hindus.
I shall give here just a few flagrant examples.
1. Muslim Mullahs are paid a hefty salary by the government of India
("GOI"). Before the Narasimha Rao government; that salary used to be Rs.
1500 per month. To garner Muslim votes, Rao raised it even higher prior to
the general election. The current Bajpayee government raised it again, not
to garner Muslim votes, but to show its secularist credentials, and earn a
few brownie points from the secularists and the press. (A sure-fire way of
getting in the good graces of the press is to hurt Hindu interests and
sentiments). Hindu pujaris on the other hand, are paid a ridiculously low
pittance of a few rupees (as low as Rs 20 to 30/pm), and that too not by the
GOI, but from temple income.
2. In 1959, Nehru passed a law to pay a hefty subsidy to every Muslim
pilgrim going to Mecca (Hajj). The subsidy, which in 1993 used to be Rs.
16,000 per person has also, raised recently. In 1997, the total subsidy paid
by the GOI was about Rs. 970 million, according to Prof. N.S. Rajaram. Hindu
pilgrims receive no such subsidy. Indeed, the places of Hindu pilgrimages
are in a sorry state of maintenance. Many people routinely die on the way to
pilgrimage for lack of proper road maintenance and other facilities. In
1996, in Amarnath yatra alone, 400 pilgrims were buried alive in snow. In
contrast, Islamic places of worship are subsidized by GOI. As if this is not
enough, Hindu pilgrims are required to pay taxes for the deployment of
government facilities (security, ambulance). This is reminiscent of Jizia
tax, which was levied by Islamic rulers on nonbelievers (Hindus) as a mark
of humiliation. Speaking of the new Hajj Act to be placed before Parliament,
on August 5, 1999, Bajpayee stated that three new embarkation points for the
Hajj are being added. He stressed the need for an increase in India's Hajj
quota (India West, 8/13/99). He must surely have become quite a darling of
the secularists and the newsmedia
3. With respect to educational matters: even though the Government pays most
of the expenses of minority institutions, they are nonetheless off limits to
the Government. Hindu ones, however, are not. Because education falls under
the states' purview, the laws differ from state to state, but an example
will suffice to give the general idea: In the 1980's, the Bengal government
tried to nationalize the Ramakrishna Mission schools, using a teachers'
strike (organized by the communist trade union) as pretext. What was the
response of the RK mission? Rather than fight for their rights, they took a
plea to the Calcutta High Court to obtain minority status by claiming that
they are not Hindus (see Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction--CO No. 12837).
Imagine an institution founded by Vivekananda (who essentially introduced
Hinduism to the West), asking to be declared non-Hindu! The Supreme Court of
India saved the RK mission from this ignominy by ruling that that the RK
Mission is Hindu, but that its schools cannot be taken over because the
relevant law in West Bengal specifically exempts not only minority schools,
but also the RK Mission, from government interference. Arya Samaj later
followed the same pattern of disavowal of their Hindu identity in a
(successful) attempt to obtain the unequal benefits reserved for the
minorities. The above example vividly demonstrates Hindu weakness. The
divide and rule tactics can easily victimize them, and leave them unable to
stand together and fight an injustice with one voice. This is how invaders
subjugated India in the past. Hindu sects like the RK mission, Arya Samaj,
Lingayats, as well as other components of the commonwealth of Sanatan
Dharma, like the Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains, fell victims to this tactic
and opted out of Hindu fold for their own narrow gains, leaving the
mainstream Hindus to fend for themselves. In all fairness, the Jains did
resist, for some time, the "carrot" of minority status that was dangled
before them by the minority commission for a while. The minority commission
(an autonomous body funded by the GOI and whose president is usually a
Muslim), is systematically dividing Hindus by tempting various group with
"minority" status. It has succeeded admirably. Hindus (which includes
Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs), to their sorrow, will find out later that if
they do not hang together they will hang separately in this secularist
paradise. It is already happening.
Hindu institutions often have to live with the harassment, and irksome ,
vindictive interference by a pseudo-secularist government often undertaken
to please minority vote banks and to show their secularist credentials to
become darling of the newsmedia. Government can declare itself an owner of a
Hindu school and appoint its manager, and then gradually change recruitment
policies and the curriculum. It cannot do this with minority schools, which
often teach a separatist, anti-national, curriculum that is the hallmark of
some religious books, which also teach hatred of other religions. 
It is of course possible to set up a Hindu private school, which is fully
Hindu in character, but then it will receive no subsidies. A minority school
by contrast may be communal in recruitment of teachers and students, in its
atmosphere (e.g. interrupting classes for namaz), in its curriculum, without
threat of losing its subsidies. Minority schools can legally discriminate
against nonminority students' admission to an institution supported by
government funds. A year or two ago, the Chennai High Court ruled that a
prestigious Christian school could reserve up to 50 % of its places for
Christians. No Hindu school can do this, unless it receives no grant from
the government. Christian schools routinely use surreptitious attempts at
conversion. Last December, during my visit to India, I was shocked to hear
from my nephew's daughter about how the convent school she attends
systematically tried to play on her psyche to convert her. Many weaker and
financially handicapped students are easy prey. At the least, these schools
subtly attempt to instill skepticism and contempt for Hinduism. There are
absolutely no restrictions on minority institutions regarding religious
teaching, unless they go against hygiene and public morality.
4. While minority places of worship are treated favorably, Hindu places of
worship are discriminated against: the government can interfere with, and
control Hindu temples, but minority places of worship are off limits. The
usual justifications for imposing government control is that temples are
mismanaged, and temple income is siphoned to private pockets -- as if this
could happen in Hindu temples only! In any event, it is the government which
ends up siphoning income from rich temples by appointing government henchmen
to the lucrative posts of temple trustee. The occasional attempts to have
temples declared Hindu reveals just how high the stakes are. A recent
example is the temple dedicated to Sai Baba of Shirdi. This temple's owners
and a state government (I believe of Maharashtra) disputed, in court,
whether Sai Baba was a Hindu (as the government maintained) or not (as the
owners maintained). The court ruled that although his teachings were Hindu,
Sai Baba himself was not (because by birth he was Muslim). This ruling
prevented the government from appointing its own managers to the temple.
5. Muslims insist on separate Islamic civil code. Actually, Islamic code is
hurting only Muslims. Half their population (Muslim women) is held in
bondage by being treated as second class citizens. But just to maintain
their separate identity, and separatist spirit, they insist on this code and
the divisive religious instructions. In this respect it is very 
dangerous for the national integrity of India. Why do they not insist for
such a code in Europe or the USA, where there are large number of Muslims?
Is it because in these countries, the politicians still have some patriotic
feelings and pride? How can such hideous anomaly pass under the guise of
secularism and democracy? Enactment of the common civil code is enjoined
(but not imposed, courtesy Chacha Nehru) in Art. 44 of the constitution. It
is not being done away because every one including BJP is afraid of the
storm Muslims and the politically correct, secularist media would raise. How
does India propose to survive as a nation in such an atmosphere? A common
civil code, meaning equality before the law of all citizens regardless of
religion, is not just a contingent fact in all secular states, but is the
number one defining element of a secular state, so that India cannot be
called truly secular until it has abolished the Sharia family law for
Muslims.
These are but a few of the wonders of the secular Indian democracy
perpetrated by Congress (the champions of the secularists) and other non-BJP
parties. George Orwell's "Animal Farm's" 'doublespeak' appears to have come
alive in India's so-called secular politicians. Equal treatment of religions
is the norm in all democracies, except India, where any group demanding such
equality is labeled "communalist." This is precisely the reason that the
BJP, RSS, VHP are called communalists practicing an "ideology of hate." I
challenge any one to name instances of hate mongering by Hindutva
organizations. Recently, the Sangh Parivar has been accused of many
atrocities on minorities in Jhabua (M.P.), Wyanand (Kerala), Dang (Gujarat),
among many others. In each of these cases, the Sangh Parivar was proven
completely innocent of any complicity. Now, the Wadhwa commission absolved
the Sangh Parivar of the Staines murder in Orissa. Secularists always like
to blame the RSS for Mahatma's murder. Yet, after full investigation, the
judicial inquiry at the time revealed that neither the RSS nor Godse's party
(the Hindu Mahasabha) had anything to do with the conspiracy, and that it
was the act of a few individuals. The same holds true with the Babri Masjid.
In the past, the Muslims forcibly destroyed and desecrated thousands of
Hindu temples. Hindutva groups had made the modest demand that at least a
few of these holiest sites (e.g., RamJanmabhoomi) be returned to the Hindus.
When these efforts failed, in frustration, the Hindutva groups brought down
the Masjid, abandoned by Muslims since 1936, and which was being used as a
Hindu place of worship since 1949. Islam does not allow even public
observance of any other religion in Arabia, not to mention a Hindu temple in
Mecca. Actually, this struggle is not between Hindu and Muslim communities.
As a Belgian Indologist Koenraad Elst says, " The most important opponents
of Hindu society today are not the Islamic community leaders, but the
interiorized colonial rulers of India, the alienated English-educated and
mostly Left-leaning elite that noisily advertises its 'secularism'. It is
these people, who impose anti-Hindu policies on Hindu society, and who keep
Hinduism down and prevent it from proudly raising its head after a thousand
years of oppression." (Ayodhya and after, 1991)
Now let us sample the behavior of the pious secularists who are foaming at
their mouths shouting epithets such as 'communal', 'fascists', 'Nazis'at the
Sangh Parivar. It will take literally tons of paper to expose the
machinations of these white knights, perched atop their ivory towers and
riding the high horse of self-righteous morality. We have neither the space
nor time. I shall give just one very recent example.
Last month, Sonia Gandhi went to Lucknow for the express purpose of meeting
the 'respected' Muslim leader Ali Mian (Syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi). ). Sonia
profusely praised the "nationalistic character of this wise man of
religion," and requested that Mian recite a prayer for her benefit in the
upcoming elections. As contact person with Saudi Arabia and as member of the
World Islamic Council, Ali Mian, who controls the purse strings for
Saudi-supported Islamic activities, is easily the most powerful man in
India's Muslim community. He is also the Chairman of the Muslim Personal Law
Board and heads an `Institution of Islamic studies' in Lucknow called
Nadwatul Ulema.
On June 30, in a large congregation of Talibi Jamaat at the Nadwatul Ulema,
Ali Mian rejected a suggestion to pray for the victory of Indian forces
fighting in Kargil. Although he and other Muslim clerics were prepared to
pray for the well being of the country, they had reservations about praying
for the well being of Indian soldiers fighting Islamic militants in an
action of Jehad (a holy war fought to establish Islam). According to Ali
Mian, "to pray for soldiers would mean to pray for the defeat of Jehadis".
This is the same Ali Mian who is notoriously famous for stating, "the
slaughtering of cows is 'a great Islamic act;' while it may not be so in
other countries, in India it is 'a great Islamic act' because the cow is
worshipped in India." In other words, because Hindus worship cows, the
slaughtering of one is a meritorious act for Indian Muslims even when Islam
does not require cow to be used for a sacrifice. This same Ali Mian, in
Pakistan in July 1978, also stated that "Muslims all over the world,
including those of India, were looking up to Pakistan for help and
guidance," and that "the Pakistani debacle of 1971 (in the Bangladesh war)
caused immense grief to Indian Muslims."
On July 31, 1999, Sonia Gandhi promised another cleric, Maulana Asad Madani,
the leader of Jamait-Ulema-e-Hind that Congress was committed to
implementing the 15-point program for minorities. This program provides
"enhanced representation in police and other government security agencies
(armed forces)." Nothing wrong with the promise until one sees the nature of
this Jamait: a news item in the Hindustan Times (August 13, 1999) states,
"Goalpara district vice-president of the Jamait, Maulana Mohammed Muslim
Ali, who is also the chief organizer of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen in Assam,
has been arrested. He admitted to being the agent for sending Muslim youths
to Pakistan to undergo arms training. He had visited Pakistan on five
occasions. The police recovered five passports from his possession." Sonia
also promised to release TADA detainees (which includes hundreds of ISI
supported Islamic terrorists captured after the Bombay and Coimbatore
blasts). In addition, she promised to determine citizenship status in
doubtful cases, which will very likely legalize all Bangladeshi illegal
immigrants. She would further strengthen the notorious National Minorities
Commission and increase the funds in the Minorities Finance Corporation from
the present Rs. 700 Million to Rs. 2000 Million. Of course, she promised to
make sure that the Islamic personal law is untouched. Sonia has promised
many more goodies (the 15-point plan) in return for Muslim votes. Madani
Immediately joined Congress.
Such are the allies to which Congress and other secularist parties have
always paid homage to, while accusing the Sangh Parivar of practicing hate
ideology. They cannot, however, give a single example of hate mongering by
the Sangh Parivar. Around August 10, 1999, Congress spokesman Kapil Sibal
stated, "there is no doubt that the BJP and its frontal organizations like
the Bajrang Dal and RSS are a threat to the country." That Sibal and his
party find the Sangh Parivar a national threat, but Ali Mian "nationalistic"
is absolutely amazing. To ensure that Congress gets the minority votes, he
further stated "my party would consider banning the Sangh Parivar." Hitler
should have taken lessons from Mr. Sibal and the "secular" Indian
establishment.
Hindu society has always been pluralistic and tolerant in the matter of
religion. Over thousands of years, the Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs
have never fought religious wars. They used to engage in religious and
scholarly disputes and debates, albeit at times fierce. The leftist Indian
ideologues falsely accuse the Hindus of persecuting Buddhists. In reality,
until Islam and Christianity came to its shores, India has never known
religious strife or wars. It would take a whole volume to refute their lies
(see Negationism in India, by a Belgian Indologist Koenraad Elst). Hindus
have always sheltered refugees from all over the world: Jews, Parsees,
Syrian Christians and many others. Ironically enough, it was only in India
that the Jews found fair treatment. Several of them, who emigrated to Israel
because of the command of their religion, became very emotional and
expressed their sorrow to have to leave their beloved land India. According
to Moazziz Ali Beg, when the entire family of the Prophet of Islam was to be
slain at Karbala, Hussein, the pious grandson of the Prophet and the head of
Shias, just before he was slain by Sunnis, put forth his final proposal to
his enemy, that he and his family would quit the territory of Yazid and
migrate to Hindustan. Do you suppose Hussein wanted to take refuge in India
from his mortal enemy because he loved Hindu kafirs? Or was it because
Hindus were known as fair and tolerant people?
Because of their tolerant ethos, pluralism flourished in Hindu society,
which made it secular since prehistoric times. Yet, many people erroneously
believe that the modern India has borrowed the concept of secularism from
the West. Actually, secularism is a very recent concept for the West. All
countries in Europe, till about the middle of the 18th century, were
theocratic states, aligned with one or the other Christian denomination. The
state was the secular arm of the Church and carried out pogroms against
`heretics' and `dissidents' at the behest of the Church. During this Dark
Age, the king was used by the Church to maintain its stranglehold and he, in
turn, used the Church to sustain his despotism. The oppression of the people
by the Church and the State became so unbearable that finally there was a
rebellion, particularly in France, during the time of Enlightenment, when
the exclusive claims of Christianity were questioned. A fierce struggle by
European intellectuals against the Church with the battle cry Ecrassez
l'infame (crush the infamous one, the Church) led finally to evolve the
concept of secularism with separation of Church and State. In the case of
Islamic states, the fusion of State and Church is so seamless that they are
quite innocent of secularism even today.
Practically all states that achieved independence after World War II
gravitated toward dictatorships or theocracies. The Hindu ethos was the only
reason that democracy and secularism took root in India. It is precisely
because of this Hindu ethos that even among Muslims, the Shias, Ahamadiyas,
sufis, etc. feel much more secure in India than in Islamic Pakistan. 
Gireesh Dixit   
* +27 11 315 - 1210  (Ext. 244) (Voice)
* +27 11 315 - 6767                  (Fax)
* +27 72 171 - 3224                  (Mobile)




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe [Unsubscribe] send a blank message to 
        nukkad-list-request@mumbai-central.com 
with the word 'subscribe' ['unsubscribe'] (without quotes) in the Subject 
of your message.
The list is archived at  http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html