Friday, May 2, 2014


Faces of Indian Secularism-Article based on facts.HINDUS ARE WORST ENEMY OF HINDUS.
Photo: Farooq Abdulah asked those who vote for Mr Modi to jump in the sea? See Exhibition on the exodus of #KashmirHindus
What is this Kashmiriyat?

What does it stand for? When was the term Kashmiriyat coined? Who coined it and for what? The Left-oriented and essentially pro-Congress and ragtag UPA news channel, NDTV India, on November 1 organised a debate on Article 370 under its programme, Badi Khabar between 6 and 7 pm. The anchor was the sophisticated, Nidhi Kulpati. One of the five participants, journalist Om Thanvi, like the anchor, was absolutely ignorant about Article 370. They were neither here nor there. Two of them – Union Minister Harish Rawat and MP Mehboob Beg of National Conference – exhibited their hatred for the Indian laws and used the opportunity to distort facts, murder history, preach falsehood and speak half-truths to mislead the nation.

Both behaved in the most irresponsible manner and proved that they represented that view that had culminated in the communal partition of India in August 1947. The remaining two panelists – BJP’s Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi and RSS’s Baldev Sharma – were the only ones who sought to put things in perspective. But what they said about Article 370 is not the issue under scrutiny. The issue under reference is Kashmiriyat. Nidhi Kulpati repeatedly used this term and asked Harish Rawat if the Congress felt outraged and deeply concerned over the use of this term by the BJP Prime Ministerial candidate Narendra Modi in his speech during Lalkar Rally in Jammu on December 1. She sought to create an impression that it was the Congress that had been using this term and describing its historical significance for years. Interestingly, he endorsed the ill-informed formulation of Nidhi Kulpati, saying, “Kashmiriyat is a reality and the Indian Constitution protects and promotes it”. “The Congress understands India and its uniqueness, but the BJP doesn’t,” he said. He simply exposed himself.

Even what Harish Rawat, who seldom talks sense and quite often jumps on to the bandwagon of ultra-communalists, said Kulpati in response to her innocent query is not the point of discussion. As said, the issue in hand is Kashmiriyat. Put in any amount of effort to find if the term Kashmiriyat found place in any history book or chronicle or in any literary work produced before 1975 or any article that appeared in any newspaper before 1975 and you will come out of the exercise minus everything. The reason is that this term did not exist at all. It was only in 1975 that this term was coined by a Jammu-based politician-cum-columnist Balraj Puri. That was the year the votary of plebiscite, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, was brought back to power by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi after bringing down her own party’s Government to pander to the protagonists Switzerland-type independent Kashmir.

The people of Jammu province and Ladakh region, besides the minority communities in Kashmir, especially the miniscule minority of Kashmiri Hindus, felt aghast over this dumb-founding and dangerous development for obvious reasons, the most notable being the well-known communal, anti-Jammu and anti-minority and pro-semi-independence credentials of Sheikh Abdullah. Balraj Puri, who had earlier flirted with Sheikh Abdullah and his Valley-based National Conference, joined the party to fulfill his ambition of entering the Lok Sabha on the NC ticket. He got it but suffered a massive defeat at the hands of the patriotic people of Jammu. In between and even thereafter, he continued to use the term Kashmiriyat in his essays to mislead the nation by saying that it stood for liberal, secular and democratic values; it was all-embracing; and it made no distinction between man and man on the ground of caste, creed and religion. His whole objective was to keep Sheikh Abdullah and his son Farooq Abdullah in good humour by projecting them as ardent champions of Kashmiriyat.

Farooq Abdullah as the Chief Minister made him working chairman of the Regional Autonomy Committee immediately after forming his Government in October 1996 with Minister of State status. Kashmiriyat is neither liberal nor all-embracing. It is regressive. It stands for exclusiveness and exclusion of all against the Kashmiri-speaking ethnic Sunnis, who have been in power since October 1947. It is they who control and run all the Kashmir-based ‘mainstream’ political, terrorist and separatist organisations. These include the NC, the Congress, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the CPI, the CPI-M, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the ALL-Party Hurriyat Conference – Mirwaiz (APHC-M), APHC (Geelani), Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), Jammu & Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party (JKDFP), the People’s League (PL), the People’s Conference (PC), the Dukhtran-e-Millat (DeM) and Hizbul Mujahiden (HM) to mention only a few.

The people of Jammu and Ladakh, the Shia Muslims, the Gujjar and Bakerwal Muslims, the Pathowari-speaking Muslims and non-Muslims, the displaced Kashmiri Hindus, the Sikhs, the Christians and others are not part of the so-called Kashmiriyat. In fact, they are its victims. They abhor Kashmiriyat and believe rightly that it has been posing a grave threat to their distinct identity and personality. It was because of this Kashmiriyat that over three lakh Kashmiri Hindus, hundreds of the Sikh families and many Kashmir-based Christians had to quit Kashmir in early 1990 to become refugees in their own country. It is because of Kashmiriyat that the refugees from West Pakistan, women, the SCs, the STs, the OBCs and similar other social groups have suffered, and continue to suffer, immense socio-economic and political losses. And it is because of the recognition and promotion of Kashmiriyat that the nation has been facing serious challenges in the Kashmir Valley.

Modi shows 'mirror' to Abdullah family on secularism in J&K
Hindus have practiced ‘secularism’ right from the Vedic time. The concept of separation of state from religion is well documented not only in Ramayan and Mahabharat but also in Puranas and other Vedic scriptures. Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma), being a pluralistic religion, has always been tolerant to other religious beliefs. The Hindu traditions have always maintained that other religious faiths like Christianity and Islam could exist without competing with each other. However, the Semitic religions have not accepted the Hindu views claiming that their God is the only true creator and theirs are the only true religions.

This is borne out of the fact that thousands of years ago Hindus provided shelter to the Jews and the Zoroastrians (Parsis) when they were persecuted in their own countries. In the same manner, the Syrian Christians and the Muslim Arab traders were welcome by the Hindus several centuries ago.

But ignoring this historical truth, some of the Indian leaders led by Jawaharlal Nehru at the time of India’s independence imported the word ‘secularism’ from Europe. On November 17, 1953 Nehru wrote to the then President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad: “The Hindu is certainly not tolerant and is certainly narrower minded than almost any person in any country except the Jew.” The result of his hatred towards Hindus was mainly responsible for the introduction of Articles 29 (Protection of interests of minorities) and 30 (Right of Minorities to establish and administer educational institutions) in the Constitution which have defeated the very essence of secularism.

When it was decided to restore the temple of Somnath entirely funded by the devotees, Nehru objected to it and tried to stop Dr. Rajendra Prasad from attending the opening ceremony claiming that it was anti-secular even though not a single penny came from the government’s coffer. But the same secularist Nehru was responsible for the Haj bill in 1959 which subsidizes the Mecca pilgrimage of the Muslims. The cost of this subsidy works out to more than Rs. 1,000 million per year.

Rajiv Gandhi following in the foot steps of his grand father and mother, bent backward to woo the Muslims by passing a law reversing the Supreme Court judgment on the Shah Bano case. The victims of this secular law are the Muslim women who can be divorced by their husbands without providing for any adequate maintenance allowance to them.

The word ‘secular’ was missing in the Indian Constitution till Mrs. Indira Gandhi, late Indian Prime Minster, got it inserted into the constitution by bringing the 42nd amendment in 1976 to suite her political purpose Though the Indian Constitution did not specifically mention the word ‘secular’ before 1976, Nehru and other Congress leaders proclaimed India as a secular country. But at the same time they legalized separate laws (articles 29 & 30) for different communities strictly based on their religions instead of one common law for all its citizens irrespective of their religious beliefs. Thus, they negated at one stroke the very spirit of secularism.

Let us look at the absurdity and hypocrisy of the Indian secularism by citing a few examples below.

While all major Hindu temples are controlled and supervised by the states and the money donated by Hindus in temples goes straight to the state exchequer, Muslims and Christians are allowed to run their institutions without any supervision from the state. The recent reports show that hardly 20% of Hindu donations to temples are used for temple support and the rest are used by the states for other uses including supporting the minority institutions.
The Indian Government subsidizes the Haj travel by the Indian Muslims even though the Supreme Court has disapproved such subsidy. The Christian church recently claimed similar subsidy for traveling to Jerusalem and the government agreed to it. While both subsidies come out from the exchequer, similar subsidies are not granted to Hindu pilgrims going to Mansoravar or other revered Hindu holy places.
Minorities can open educational institutions without any government permission and are allowed to reserve 50% of the institutions’ seats for their religious followers without any quota restrictions. However, Hindus are allowed to open educational institutions, with or without government grants, only after the approval of the government and cannot reserve any seats for Hindus and have to follow strictly the government’s quota system.
Even though the article 44 of the Constitution clearly states that “The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code through out the territory of India”, the Indian politicians have foiled all attempts to enact such law in order to appease the minorities. The Supreme Court’s repeated reminders to the government to enact the common law have been completely ignored.
Educational trusts of minority religions are easily given Income Tax exemptions under Section 80 G of the Income Tax Act. But whenever Hindu institutions like Ved Pathsalas apply for such income tax exemption, they are denied on grounds that they are communal.
Whereas the Congress party having alliances with Muslim League, MIM, MQM and PDP is considered ‘secular’, BJP is considered ‘communal’. Even rabidly communal Muslim and Christian parties are called secular.
Muslims and Christians have the ‘right’ to convert the poor and illiterate Hindus and Tribals but as soon as some of these converts are reconverted, they are called ‘communal fascists’ and ‘religious chauvinists’ by the secularists.
While the announcing the quota for Muslims on the basis of religion by the Indian Government is not communal but talking about massacre and ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Jammu & Kashmir is called communal.

The Indian secularists argued that MF Husain had the right to paint Hindu Goddesses nude (pornographic depiction) because it was a matter of aesthetics. But when asked in ‘Aap ki Adalat’ (Sept. 8, 2004) why he did not apply the same ‘aesthetics’ to icons of Islam, he refused to answer the question. The same secularists will not extend this principle to the Danish Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad. The message is that Hindus should remain tolerant even if their gods and goddesses are portrayed in the pornographic manner but the Muslims have the right to complain about the visual portrayal of their prophet.

In India ‘secularism’ has become synonymous with radical ‘anti-Hinduism. While the Islamic youth terrorist organization, SIMI is considered by the secularists as innocent because they are fighting for justice and therefore any ban on it is unfair and wrong. But the Bajarang Dal, VHP and RSS are called dangerous ‘saffron’ Hindu terrorist organizations and hence they should be banned.

The Indian variety of secularism has also some serious national security implications. In order to appease the minority community, the Indian Government and the ‘secular’ cabal discourage any rational discussion on the issue of Islamic terrorism in India.
In spite of the Supreme Court verdict to hang the Islamic terrorist, Afzal Guru, for the Parliament attack, the government has been dragging its feet for many years by not carrying out the sentence for the sake of vote-bank politics. Several Islamic terrorist acts have taken place in India during the last few years resulting in massacre of hundreds of innocent men, women and children. But the Indian government has in most cases failed to take any concrete action against these terrorists because of its minority appeasement policy. As a matter of fact, there have been well-coordinated efforts by the Congress and its Communist/leftist allies to prevent the security agencies from going after the terrorists with the help of secular media. This has emboldened the terrorists to carry out terrorist acts with impunity, knowing fully well that the Indian state is soft on terrorism. Pakistan and China are using the Indian secularism to destabilize the country.

The Nehruvian secularism over the last sixty years has spread into the vast spectrum of the Indian society. Besides the Congress and its regional allies, the Communists and leftists parties have been in the forefront in advocating and practicing the ‘pseudo-secularism’ as a part of their vote-bank politics. In order to substantiate this falsehood, they have recruited the Marxist historians who have mastered the Goebbelsian art of lies, deceit and distortion by fabricating the Indian history. Under the grab of secularism, an unholy alliance has taken place between Communists, Muslims and Christians to denounce Hinduism and its culture. Of course, Islam considers secularism as an absolute evil but it suits their agenda of portraying negatively the majority Hindu community.

Other followers of the Indian secularism are the English media editors, journalists and TV anchors, the products of Christian missionary and other English schools, who treat everything Indian, particularly Hinduism, with contempt. They suffer from the colonial hangover and inferiority complex which are reflected in their bias and distorted writings and broadcasting against the Hindu society. Most of them are also closely associated with the Communists, Muslims and Christians,

Many intellectuals and elite of the Indian society have also been affected by the virus of secularism. They are the products of the Macaulayite English education who have been brainwashed to disown and denounce their own faith, culture and traditions. After all, Macaulay’s main objective was to “create a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinion, in morals” and undoubtedly, he has succeeded beyond anyone’s imagination.
This phony secularism is tearing the entire nation apart by creating conflicts between the majority Hindu community and minorities. Besides, it has led to mass conversion of Hindus and Tribals by the Christian evangelists which have completely changed the demographics of the North Eastern sates. Some of these states are already asking to secede from the Indian union. Another threat to India’s security comes from the influx of the illegal Bangladeshis who are allowed into the country freely by the vote-bank politicians using the tool of secularism. It has resulted in massive demographic changes in Assam, West Bengal and UP which will have grave consequences in future for the stability and integrity of the Indian state.

If this unprincipled and dishonest form of secularism is allowed to continue any further in India, it will not be too long before India will be Balkanized like Yugoslavia at the behest of the anti-India forces from within and abroad. The time has come to abandon the current anti-national and anti-Hindu secularism and follow the path of true secularism as advised by Dr. Radhakrishnan, former President of India who said: “No group of citizens shall arrogate to itself rights and privileges which is denied to others. No person shall suffer from any form of disability or discrimination because of his religion…The religious impartiality of the Indian state is not to be confused with secularism or atheism. Secularism has been defined in accordance with the ancient religious traditions of India”.


No comments:

Post a Comment