2. What this book aims to do
We aim specifically to examine the following issues:

1. De-nationalising the Hindu consciousness aims at desensitising the Hindu mind to the critical importance of territory for survival as a people. This was achieved in substantial measure when Hindus could not prevail over an ascendant Islam and thwart Partition in 1947. It was only natural that unchecked jihadi Islam whose appetite for territory had been whetted by Partition would, in course of time, enhance these gains by ridding the Kashmir valley of Hindus through genocide and terror; a process still continuing in the rest of Jammu and Kashmir. In the North-East, emboldened by an everintrusive US Government into India’s internal affairs to protect Church and Christian interests and emboldened also by the creation of the Christian state of East Timor, Christian secessionism and terrorism is mainly armed and funded by the American Baptist and the Roman Catholic Churches.

2. This book scrutinises a loose coalition of opportunistic, specific-to-India, anti-Hindu Christians, Muslims, communists and Nehruvian secularists who actually advocate sedition when they dismiss Indian nationalism and deny the concept of Hindu India’s territorial integrity.

3. This group uses history and social ‘science’ to indoctrinate young and impressionable minds with the agenda to de-root the Hindu community from its culturalgeographical nationalism. It should come as no surprise that most individuals under scrutiny had been made members of the Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE) by the present United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government led by the Congress Party.1 And it should also not come as a surprise that the UPA government gave the defunct National Integration Council (NIC) a new lease of life and packed it with ‘secularists’ and ‘minorities’ including the Archbishop of Delhi!2 While some of the activists under the scanner in this book find place in both CABE and NIC, most of them can be found either in one or the other. What is remarkable about the choice of members in different categories is that there is not a single member in CABE or NIC to represent Hindu interests while Muslims, Christians, Marxists and Nehruvian secularists have been nominated exclusively to represent Muslim, Christian, Marxist and anti-Hindu ‘secular’ interests.
   
   What is also remarkable is that the US State Department Annual Report of 2003 on International Religious Freedom (IRF), laments the fact that the NDA Government was ‘rewriting’ history textbooks without taking counsel from CABE and further laments that CABE has not had any sitting during this period! US interest in enabling, and its intentions to exert pressure in the direction of the de-Hinduisation process, is underscored when the issue of reviewing history textbooks for children in India at the school level finds mention in the annual report on IRF by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, although what this has to do with religious freedom is anyone’s guess or why the US State Department should agitate itself over the dysfunctional CABE. Not surprisingly, one of the first things that the ‘secular’ UPA Government did was to re-constitute NIC and CABE and pack them with those activists and representatives of NGOs who had campaigned extensively against the BJP in the 2004 Parliament Elections.
   
   The Congress-led UPA coalition defined itself as a ‘secular’ (as opposed to ‘communal’ Hindu) group and so rewarded these anti-Hindu activists who made anti- Hinduism the keynote of their political activism. These individuals and groups distort history and historical truths, negate the nation’s Hindu civilisational moorings and deny the primacy of Hindu culture and ethos to propagate the twin falsehoods that there is no ‘Hindu’ community and that India was always a ‘pluralist’ country. In this context, we will also examine the concept of ‘pluralism’.

4. The principal objective of these individuals and groups, who have conveniently found space in American academia, particularly in the Humanities, in ‘South Asian’ studies, in the social and political sciences, in Sanskrit and Indic studies, is to propagate the concept of ‘South Asia’, a concept gaining currency since the 1990s. The purpose is twofold: one, to question or de-legitimise India’s national borders and, two, to negate the nation’s Hindu roots and character, which they realise is the essence of Indian national identity. History is essentially the story of civilisational memory, accomplishments of its people, of the intimate relationship with their territory, narratives of historical threats to their territory and way of life, and the story of their continuity. A proper rendition of history commemorates the civilisational memory and revalidates the nation’s foundational ethos. Dismissing the Hindu character of the Indian nation and trifling with national borders has been the hallmark of the Marxist rendition of Indian history and, today, it has acquired a new dimension – a history of a nebulous South Asia and an amorphous South Asian people.3
   
   The propagation of a faceless, characterless South Asian identity derives from a growing realisation that Indian nationalism cannot ignore or marginalise the majority population. Hindus constitute 85% of the Indian population and Indian national identity, no matter how much one may try, cannot ignore the Hindu ethos, Hindu interests and Hindu sensibilities. The creation of an artifice designated ‘South Asia’ serves two critical objectives – one, it aims at bringing the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh into the picture so that a de- Hinduised India and de-nationalised Hindus may be subsumed by a large, more organised and more vocal Muslim populace of the region and, two, it provides the overseas Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh settled in Europe and North America with the intellectual disguise to conceal the uncomfortable baggage of their Islamic identity in the conviviality of non-resident Hindus of India. This is an issue in itself, meriting greater attention than it gets.

5. We will also look at how Indian Marxists, acknowledging the critical role played by American and other Western countries in promoting the NGO industry in this country since the early 1950s to further their agendas, also begin to promote NGOs of their own, owing allegiance to Marxism and its other avatars like Maoism, Leninism and Naxalism.

6. The NGOs and activists use three principal devices to implement their de-Hinduising/de-nationalising mission:
   
   Penetration and infiltration of ‘secularists’ (Muslims, Christians, Marxists and foreigners) into important political parties, Hindu social and religious institutions, and into important political families by marriage or by secretly converting close family members of political leaders to some aggressively proselytising Christian denominations.
   
   De-legitimising as ‘communal’ all issues that affect Hindu sensitivities.
   
   Raising the pitch on human rights whenever the State is compelled to deal sternly with the two most vocal and influential ‘minority’ communities which have taken to insurgency and terrorism and with the growing Marxist terrorist groups in the name of Marxist-Leninist, Maoist or Naxalite.

7. This anti-Hindu coalition uses NGO activism in ‘peace’, education and healthcare as a façade to facilitate transfer of very large amounts of money from abroad either as support funds for their ‘charity’ and social causes or as peace and human rights awards, and thereafter use them for political objectives.

8. This group regurgitates American and Western slogans of human rights, religious freedom and pluralism with a view to strengthening the politics of minorityism which is intended to weaken Hindu influence in the Indian polity. This diminution of Hindu influence is essential if these forces and their agents are to succeed in denationalising the Indian State.

9. Politics of minorityism includes softening the Indian perception of Islam and jihad as a tool of foreign policy; disregarding the history behind the creation of Pakistan; ignoring Pakistan’s stated objectives with regard to India; preventing the government from dealing ruthlessly with demographic aggression by Islam in the border districts and states through infiltration from Bangladesh; refusing to acknowledge or discuss the alarming rise in the birthrate of Muslims in India, in Pakistan and Bangladesh; and ignoring Christian demographic aggression in the North-East and a growing number of districts in other parts of the country by foreign and domestic churches and Christian missionaries, the aim of which is perceived to be separatism, secession and the creation of new Christian nation-states on the lines of East Timor.