Thoughts on issues of current interest, including instances of some double standards of our public figures, especially in the construction of Hindustani identity (all those Macaulayan myths, and the hypocrisy that is Nehruvian secularism) - Krishen Kak
The Constitution of India recognizes "Bharat" as an alternative name for India.
The world over, nationals personify their nation as "motherland" or "fatherland".
We describe our land, our nation, as our mother, and we cry "Bharat Mata ki jai".
We can no longer do so.
To do so is to offend Muslim, therefore "secular", sentiment.
The Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir has banned the raising of the slogan "Bharat Mata ki jai" in Poonch district in Kashmir (http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story1%2Etxt&counter_img=1).
The J&K government is headed by the Nehruvian-secular Congress Party. Its chief minister is a Muslim. Our National Anthem cannot be played in Poonch, Rajouri and Doda districts in Jammu and, for many years now, in the Kashmir Valley.
To do so is to offend Muslim, therefore "secular", sentiment.
Eerily reminiscent of the Rs 55 crores gifted by the "secular" government of newly-independent India to the Government of the new Islamic State of Pakistan (that then used this money to send jihadis - "raiders" - to invade Kashmir), the "secular" Government of India has just gifted USD 25 million to the Government of the Islamic State of Pakistan ostensibly for its 2005 earthquake victims. This is in addition to an earlier gift valued at USD 5 million. It is not known how much Islamic Pakistan gifted to "secular" India for the Bhuj earthquake victims.
India's gift to Pakistan was announced on July 11, 2006 (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EKOI-6RM4CZ?OpenDocument). That same day Pakistan-sponsored jihadis (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1742892.cms) invaded Mumbai, killing 200 Indians and wounding over 700.
Our prime minister is a napunsak (V'mala 73). After his craven response to Islam's murderous attack on Mumbai, he was lauded by US President George Bush as "a really true gentleman" (The Hindu, Jul 18, 2006). Older readers will recall "wog" - the derisive label that White rulers used for Brown/Black "gentlemen" who aped them and preened under White patronising approbation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog). President Bush himself, by his own criterion, prefers not to be a gentleman when his own country is attacked. Remember 9/11? He hit back, and very hard. It's called the doctrine of active defence, and is exemplified as: "When asked whether those who helped September 11, 2001 attacks on America could be forgiven, General H Norman Schwartzkopf retorted, 'It is God's job to forgive, it is our job to arrange the meeting.'" (http://www.centralchronicle.com/20060719/1907305.htm).
Australia bluntly rejects minority appeasement (http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=13464). The Vatican State publicly noted, in regard to Islam, "Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves". It acknowledged the failure of its policy so far of "quiet diplomacy and muted appeasement", and it has re-learnt the historical truth of reciprocity ( http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3729). The historical truth of reciprocity goes back at least 5000 years in our history, to when the Pandavas eventually understood it for dealing with the Kauravas. It is a truth our Nehruvian secularism has chosen to forget, and our Macaulayan system of education does not want us to remember.
Meanwhile, Nehruvian-secular India that boasted that all our jihadis were foreign ones can now take pride in having successfully cultivated home-grown ones (http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story1%2Etxt&counter_img=1).
After the Mumbai blasts, when the Gujarat chief minister was to visit, Maharashtra's deputy chief minister threatened him with legal action if he made a "provoking" speech in Maharashtra. But no one's dared threaten legal action against Delhi's Shahi Imam who publicly served "provoking" notice that "''we were rulers here for 800 years. Inshaallah, we shall return to power here once again'' ( http://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/India/20060718/394446.html).
To act against this mullah would be to offend Muslim, therefore "secular", sentiment.
The Supreme Court of India upholds a ban on the jihadi Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI); the "secular" Indian prime minister lets the ban lapse, and the "secular" UP chief minister absolves SIMI from jihadi blame - even as his own police department doesn't! And SIMI distributes pamphlets advocating the killing of Hindus ( http://www.hindujagruti.org/eng/phpnews/news.php?action=fullnews&id=577).
A UP government minister demands a "Muslim Pradesh" ( http://indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/9089.html).
Mullahs regularly issue fatwas against the singing of "Vande Mataram" ( (recently, see http://www.samachar.com/showurl.htm?rurl=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1629373.cms?headline=Fatwa~against~singing~Vande~Mataram), and call for the creation of Hyderabad as a Muslim city-state.
Terrorism, sedition and treason charges against Muslim leaders are not pressed or are dropped, whether Madani in Kerala or Falahi in UP ( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1767832.cms), never mind the Hurriyat in Kashmir.
The Union Home Miinister, he of the Bangladeshi invaders-are-our-brothers fame, declares madrasas "are seats of social service..... where knowledge of humanism is being imparted and where human values are being taught" to produce "servants of humanity", notwithstanding his own Intelligence reports to the contrary ( http://dailypioneer.com/archives2/default12.asp?main_variable=NATION&file_name=nt1%2Etxt&counter_img=1&phy_path_it=D%3A%5Cdailypioneer%5Carchives2%5Cjul2406).
Indeed, as some years ago I was personally informed by the then Commissioner of UP's Varanasi Division, both the Central and State Governments had been fully briefed about the madrasas mushrooming on the UP border being stockpiled with weaponry. But this couldn't be, could it, what this Home Minister meant when he went on to say, "Our leader Sonia Gandhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and our Government know that. There should not be any doubt on that and there should not be any apprehension"? No doubt, what these "secular" worthies know - and about which we aam admi should have no apprehension - is that these guns are really pens in disguise. Recall that "our leader Sonia Gandhi" is a champion of SIMI's rights ( http://dailypioneer.com/archives2/default12.asp?main_variable=oped&file_name=opd1%2Etxt&counter_img=1&phy_path_it=D%3A%5Cdailypioneer%5Carchives2%5Cjul2506).
Therefore, according to Nehruvian secularism, these guns don't kill us; we Hindus kill ourselves so we can blame Muslims ( http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit3%2Etxt&counter_img=3).
Prime Minister Nehru abdicated his responsibility when, in 1962, his "heart bleeding for the people of Assam", he abandoned them to the Chinese. The impotent response of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the 2006 jihadi attack of Mumbai is an explicit abdication of his responsibility for the security by his government of its much-vaunted "aam admi". The Nehruvian-secular Indian State is now concerned only with the safety of its VVIPs (see, for example, the Delhi Police's post-Mumbai advertisement in The Hindu, Jul 23, 2006, expressing concern that "the security of VVIPs and Govt. Institutions" is not "endangered". As far as "the public" - that's you and me - is concerned, we must not "panic", that's all, not one word about our "security"). Ordinary citizens are abandoned to our own devices and, if we survive, are congratulated by our VVIPs for doing so. Mumbai clearly affirmed the aam admi is expendable in the cause of Nehruvian secularism; only VVIPs need security and protection.
All over the world, Hindus remain under attack. Temples in the hundreds have been destroyed in Pakistan and Bangladesh (http://www.newstodaynet.com/guest/2107gu1.htm). We are persecuted in Pakistan and Bangladesh. In Kazakhstan we are persecuted (http://in.news.yahoo.com/060612/211/65091.html). We are persecuted in Russia. We are persecuted in Malaysia (http://religionandspirituality.com/view.php?StoryID=20060721-111627-8712r).
The Supreme Court of India noted the failure since 1950 of the protection of Assam and our northeast from a steadily increasing "trespass of foreign nationals" so that today there are "millions" of them in our country in what the Court declares is "external aggression" with consequent "internal disturbances", and a change in the demography of the region reducing the pagans to a minority in our own homeland (http://dailypioneer.com/archives2/default12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story1%2Etxt&counter_img=1&phy_path_it=D%3A%5Cdailypioneer%5Carchives2%5Cjul1505).
The Governor of West Bengal declared Bengal "is sitting on an infiltration `time bomb?" (The Pioneer, July 21, 2005). Bengal itself has well over a million Bangladeshi invaders. What is this if not terrorism on a fearful scale? The Prime Minister of India admits that "responses in the past are inadequate in dealing with the problem" (http://dailypioneer.com/archives2/default12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story2%2Etxt&counter_img=2&phy_path_it=D%3A%5Cdailypioneer%5Carchives2%5Cjul2606).
Our political pusillanimity in 1947 lost us huge chunks of our land. Post-1947 it has lost us our land to Pakistan and to China. Now Bangladesh, with impunity, grabs our land (http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story1%2Etxt&counter_img=1).
First, Islamic demographic aggression; now, Islamic territorial aggression. And the Union Defence Minister defends our responses as effective (The Pioneer, Jul 25, 2006).
Pakistan demolishes a temple in Lahore, describing it as "a structure" and "an abandoned property" (http://www.samachar.com/showurl.htm?rurl=http://us.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/15temple.htm?q=np&file=.htm?headline=Krishna~temple~is~safe:~Pakistan). That bald claim is persuasive enough for our Nehruvian secularists not even to squeak a protest. After all, it's Hindu. But when a Muslim structure and disused property was demolished in India, they screamed the world over in protest.
Not to have done so would have been to offend Muslim, therefore "secular", sentiment.
Two days after the Islamic attack on Mumbai, " the government of India issued a directive banning 17 websites. These websites were singled out because, according to the Indian government, they might incite religious violence. The nine American websites banned by India are all critical of the Islamist movement. Not a single website of Islamic extremists justifying and even celebrating the Mumbai bombings has been banned" (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51177).
To do so would be to offend Muslim, therefore "secular", sentiment.
Nehruvian secularism supports an anti-terrorism law for Maharashtra, but not a like one for Gujarat (http://dailypioneer.com/archives2/default12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story2%2Etxt&counter_img=2&phy_path_it=D%3A%5Cdailypioneer%5Carchives2%5Cjul2306).
To do so would be to offend Muslim, therefore "secular", sentiment.
The government of India is to set up an Arab Cultural Centre in the Jamia Millia Islamia. This Centre will be fully funded by the public exchequer (http://www.newkerala.com/news3.php?action=fullnews&id=5535). The government of India will never consider setting up a Jewish Cultural Centre, will it?
Because to do so would be to offend Muslim, therefore "secular", sentiment.
"The Rajasthan anti-conversion bill is being opposed by the Congress that pushed the same legislation in Madhya Pradesh in 1968 and in Orissa in 1967, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court itself. Shall we then conclude that the Congress then was ruled by indigenous leaders with concerns for Hinduism and now by a foreigner, and that too a Christian by birth?" (S Pawar, "The Pope?s Human Rights Farce", The Sentinel, Guwahati, Jun 15, 2006).
No, because to do so would be to offend Christian, therefore "secular", sentiment.
In Andhra Pradesh, a Christian chief minister aggressively pursues an anti-Hindu agenda, encouraging evangelism in Tirupati, working towards the construction of a church in the Saptagiri, settling Christian families there, appointing Christians as temple employees, diverting temple offerings to non-Hindu ends, ensuring temple contracts to Christian organizations, appointing Christians as vice-chancellors of the Sri Venkateswara and the Padmavati universities (who've replaced pictures of Venkateswara and Padmavati with those of Jesus and Mary) - it is a veritable Christian invasion of one of our dharma's holiest centres
http://www.haindavakeralam.org/PageModule.aspx?PageID=1334) and it has the full support of Nehruvian secularism.
To fight back would be to offend Christian, therefore "secular", sentiment.
For almost a 1000 years, we were ruled by Islam and then Christianity. Independent India is ruled by their "secular" legatees. Independent India still denies its history ( http://dailypioneer.com/archives2/default12.asp?main_variable=oped&file_name=opd1%2Etxt&counter_img=1&phy_path_it=D%3A%5Cdailypioneer%5Carchives2%5Csep303). In the "systematic ethnic cleansing" going on in our country, "Hindus always become the victims": "...are the wails of Hindu widows the price we have to pay for our vaunted secularism?" (http://www.samachar.com/features/250506-features.html).
But to fight back would be to offend "secular" sentiment.
Nehruvian secularism's founding deity was a Gandhi (V'mala 20). It's reigning deity is another Gandhi.
In Bharat, we Hindus cannot shout "Bharat Mata ki jai".
To do so is now to offend "secular" sentiment.
But we can shout "Sonia Mata ki jai".
Because Bharat Mata is "Hindu", but Sonia Mata is "secular".
So, to be "secular", all Hindus should now cry, "Victory to Mother Sonia".
Not "Vande Mataram", but "Vande Mata-rome" (V'mala 59).