Page 1 of 41
NGOs AND ACTIVISTS: Singing for their Supper
- Radha Rajan
This chapter elaborates the core issues raised in the Introduction. The introduction to the book had stated that the primary objective of some of the foreign-funded NGOs and other activists in India is to keep the Hindus in a continuing state of disempowerment, to de-Hinduise and de-nationalise the Indian state.
De-Hinduising the Indian state entails rendering the Hindu identity to any aspect of the nation´s being illegitimate in public life and public discourse, with the singular objective of eroding the ´Hindu´ consciousness in the Hindus and finally erasing the Hindu face of this nation. Thus the demand for a ban on cow- slaughter , the demand of Hindu bhaktas that Government withdraw from temple administration and stop usurping temple money and temple revenue, the demand for the right to administer their temples and utilize temple money in the interest of Hindu dharma , the demand that governments take cognizance of growing religious demographic imbalance, the demand that governments acknowledge the consequences of foreign, state- powered and funded religious conversion, demands for an accurate and honest writing of history and the stubborn ´secularist´ refusal to admit that all terrorism leading to secession is either Christian or Islamic terrorism, only attests to Hindu powerlessness in the face of political conduct which derives from a twisted definition of ´secularism´.
De-nationalising and de-Hinduising Indian polity is the stuff of which Nehruvian Secularism is made. De-nationalising is de- valuing both nation and nationality. De-nationalising the Indian state has resulted in deadening our consciousness to the ignominy of the rise of a foreigner in Indian polity who aspires to become our prime minister. This simply begs the question - had Sonia Gandhi been the Italian White Christian son -in -law of Indira Gandhi ´s hypothetical daughter, would the nation have permitted the rise of a White European man to the position that Sonia Gandhi holds today? If not, then it begs another question - whether our national incapacity to critique Annie Besant, Margaret Noble, Madeline Slade and Mirra Alfassa has led the nation to the point where we have uncritically accepted persons like Gladys Staines, the widow of the evangelist Graham Staines (Gladys Staines , incidentally , was conferred the Padma Shri award by the Nehruvian-secular UPA government), ´Mother´ Teresa and Sonia Gandhi in the nation´s public life. Hindus suffer from a civilisational handicap which will not generally permit them to suspect the motives of persons doing ´charity work´, even if they are foreigners, and will also not subject women to critical appraisal particularly if these women have ingratiated themselves into the inner circles of the life and work of influential men.
In this chapter we will describe in brief the anti-Hindu coalition of Marxists, Muslims, Missionaries and Nehruvian Secularists (with a dash of Hindu pretenders, and Tamil and Sikh separatists), list the organisations that belong to this coalition, and also reproduce word for word what these activists have written and said about nationalism, Hinduism, the RSS, Partition, Indo-Pak relations, the Gujarat riots, India´s nuclear programme and, of course, Jammu and Kashmir. This chapter will feature, among others, Martin Macwan and his White Christian patron saint Kathy Sreedhar, Arundhati Roy, Sandeep Pandey, Akhila Raman, Praful Bidwai and his tweedledee Achin Vanaik, and Nirmala Deshpande and her tweedledee Admiral Ramdas. Much as I would have liked to have similarly profiled Shabnam Hashmi (sister of Safdar Hashmi) and her two organisations, first SAHMAT and now ANHAD, Ram Puniyani and Teesta Setalvad and her Communalism Combat, I have chosen to focus attention on those who have been bestowed foreign awards and why I think they were thus rewarded.
To begin with, the above-mentioned activists have been feted, wined, dined and awarded with various ´Peace´ prizes or the Magsaysay in the years 1998-2004 when the BJP-led coalition was ruling the country. It is difficult not to draw the conclusion that they were being rewarded for the virulent anti-Hindu and anti-BJP/RSS campaign that they had jointly mounted. This was the period when the ´Hindutva fascist-forces´ (as these awardees call the RSS and the parivar) captured political power and retained it for six years. And the first thing that the Vajpayee Government did after assuming power in 1998 was to conduct nuclear tests in May 1998. This was followed by a clear signal from the Home Ministry that terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir would be dealt with ruthlessly, be the terrorists domestic or imported. Exonerating Pakistan for exporting Pakistani-Punjabi jihadis into India we had several of these peacenik awardees visiting Pakistan and the United States on speech and lecture tours and on ´peace´ missions. The content of their coffee-shop talk shows was to denounce India´s nuclear weapons programme, denounce India´s determination to thwart the secessionist movement in Jammu and Kashmir, abuse the RSS and the BJP, speak ill about our armed forces and our police, accusing them on foreign soil of ´human rights violations´ in ´Kashmir´; and some of them even advocating secession of ´Kashmir´ from India ´if that is what the Kashmiris wanted´.
The Gujarat riots of 2002 provided these awardees, and theforeign churches and human rights organisations egging them on, with yet another cause for Hindu and RSS bashing. The campaign that these peace awardees and human rights activists carried out against our armed forces and our police in Delhi, Maharashtra and Gujarat, every time they arrested Indian Muslims or killed Pakistani Islamic jihadis, by questioning the very fact that they were terrorists and imputing the basest of communal bias to our men in uniform, was intended only to weaken the resolve of the Indian State to tackle terrorism ruthlessly. By ordering a headcount of Muslims in the armed forces, the UPA Government (read Sonia Gandhi) set a dangerous precedent of communalising our armed forces - a move which can only lead to emphasising the religious consciousness of the ´minorities´ over the national consciousness. Praful Bidwai and Kuldip Nayyar even approached the NHRC in the immediate aftermath of the Delhi Police killing two Lashkar terrorists in the parking lot of Ansal Plaza in New Delhi in November 2002 to demand of Justice JS Verma, the then Chairman of the NHRC, to enquire into the shooting. Playing to the international gallery of human rights proponents and defenders, Justice Verma promptly issued notice to the Delhi Police.
Bidwai and Nayyar pre-judged the issue and termed the shooting a ´fake encounter´ without a shred of evidence to back their preposterous claim. Till date neither these bleeding heart activists nor subsequent police investigations have substantiated their wild allegations that these terrorists were not terrorists nor that they were killed in a ´fake encounter´, nor has the NHRC seen fit to issue a report which would have thrown light on the shooting and restored people´s confidence in the NHRC as an impartial outfit committed to protecting the human rights of all citizens. In yet another selective perception of human rights, the NHRC, while intervening in the issue of bodies of tribal people killed in police firing on January 2, 2006, in Kalinga Nagar, Orissa, allegedly mutilated during post-mortem, has remained studiously silent about the horrific violation of the human rights of the policeman, a havildar in Kalinga Nagar, who was hacked to death by the agitating tribal people. The NHRC´s studied silence about the grossest violation of the human rights of our policemen and our army routinely killed day after day by terrorists of all persuasions, its utter indifference to the plight of displaced Kashmiri Hindus who are languishing in refugee camps in our own country and about the Hindu victims of Godhra and the Hindu victims of Mumbai riots of 1992, specifically the Hindu victims of the Radhabai Chawl carnage 1 are just some instances of NHRC selectivity which do little to sustain the faith of Hindus in this statutory body.