Page 17 of 18
To this I would add the following:
Reject the word ‘Hindu’ so that the content of the word is rendered wide open to opportunistic definitions; By removing the protective umbrella of the word ‘Hindu’ from specific communities, to encourage and actively support the fragmentation of the Hindu community, both through intellectual formulations in academia and public discourse, and by NGO activism at the grassroots of Hindu society. By insisting that some communities like the Dalits and tribal people are not Hindus, these intellectuals legitimize and even actively encourage religious conversion;
Supplant the natural diversity of the Hindu civilisation with the concept of ‘pluralism’, which is antithetic to nation, to enable the accentuation of sub-national and pan-national identities;
Re-write history in a manner that explicitly insults Hindu sensibilities and faith, and which makes out centuries of Muslim invasion and occupation as being nothing else but a culturally enriching phase of Indian history – a phase that gave us Sufi poetry and the Taj Mahal.
Hindu nationalism is under great pressure from its adversaries at home and abroad. Its political voice has been secularised and thus disabled from serving Hindu interests. Whether Ayodhya or Article 370, whether seeking to ban cow slaughter or enforcing a uniform civil code, whether striving to regain control of temple administration or seeking to check the flow of foreign funds to Christian churches and ‘charitable’ organisations, the Hindus have been rendered powerless from influencing the polity or the judiciary on any issue. And this is the measure of the success of this anti- Hindu coalition operating under the protective umbrella of Nehruvian secularism.
What is happening to the BJP now is not dissimilar to what happened to the Congress in 1947, and the tactics being adopted now by Western powers and their ally the de-nationalised Congress to weaken the Hindu BJP vis-a-vis a loosely-aligned coalition of Nehruvian secularists, is similar to the tactics employed by the British administration then to weaken the Congress vis-a-vis the Muslim League. The objective always has been to weaken the resolve of important Hindus, Hindus with the power and the influence to make a difference, from making any attempt to restructure the polity in conformity with the nation’s Hindu ethos and, if such attempts are made despite extreme opposition, to abort it or thwart in it an exemplary manner.
Even in the face of bitter opposition from Nehru, Hindu nationalists rallied themselves together to re-build the Somnath temple. That Nehru was mortally afraid of Hindu nationalism was revealed by YD Gundevia.12 But this was the last major assertion by the Hindus before Nehruvian secularism gained a stranglehold over the country. No leader who opposed Nehru or Nehruvian secularism was allowed to remain in the forefront of Indian polity or public life in the immediate years after independence; it should be obvious that Nehru by himself could not have shaped the course of Indian polity then. Bringing down the Babri ‘masjid’ in 1992 followed by the nuclear tests in 1998 were the first and last major nationalist moves by the BJP before it was rendered hors de combat. The international sanctions that were slapped on India following Pokharan II, the rise of the Italian Sonia Gandhi within the Congress and subsequently in national politics at this time, the new breed of young parliamentarians from powerful political families married to foreigners, denial of a visa to Narendra Modi by the US Government, and the highly intrusive role adopted by the US State Department in India’s internal policies must be seen as a continuum of decapacitating the Hindu movement and thwarting any attempt of the Hindus to organise themselves into a powerful political force.
The individuals and organisations that this book profiles have played a major role in the promotion of the politics of minorityism, in the politics of Nehruvian secularism. This is a virulent anti- Hindu coalition, which makes its living from being the obliging shouting brigade of the forces that seek to keep Hindu assertion at bay. While this group which formed itself into an alliance named Coalition Against Genocide (CAG) chortled with glee when the US State Department denied a visa to Narendra Modi, political observers smiled cynically because the US has one set of rules for ‘freedom fighter’ Yasser Arafat who was treated like an untouchable while another set of rules governs it with regard to ‘freedom fighter’ Gerry Adams who gets invited for photo ops in the White House. The US has one set of rules for Musharraf and terrorism against India while another set of rules govern its attitude to Slobodan Milosevich and Saddam Hussein.
The US State Department’s treatment of Narendra Modi was meant to be a warning signal to the BJP and Hindu nationalists that the US would not countenance Hindu nationalism. It was also a warning to those Hindus who aspired for US visas, green cards or citizenship to distance themselves from the RSS’ Hindu nationalism and Hindutva. Hindu nationalism poses the biggest threat to Western neo-colonialism, resurgent communism, Christian missionary hegemony and Islamic jihad. While these offspring of the same parent have engaged in murderous wars during different periods in world history, not one of them has the capacity to eliminate the others. For the Hindus of India all four pose a major threat to our survival and to our territory while Hindu nationalism’s capacity for sturdy resistance poses not only the conceptual threat to their worldview but also a physical threat to their existence on the territory that is still controlled by Hindus. And that is why these forces are arraigned against Hindus and Hindu nationalism. This book is intended to serve notice on this anti-Hindu coalition and its masters.