The Hindu secularists : Liberals or Hypocrites?
By Sameer Thakkar
Today, we can find many people who are quick to christen famous Hindu gurus as “dhongis” and “pakhandi”. Such people generally hold the view that to become a guru all one needs is to chant a few mantras and promote the superstitions. These people think that the millions who follow the advice and teachings of such gurus are “fools” and ignorant of the modern science. Moreover, they not only percieve Hinduism as a mix of cast system, dowry, sati pratha etc but also use these assumptions as a basic elements of their argument to further denigrate their own culture and the ancient knowledge. These are the set of people who have never read even the bhagvad-Gita, the works of the world famous scholar Sri Aurobindo or the testimonials of the famous scientists like Heisenberg, Nicholas Tesla, Albert Einstein etc.
On the contrary, today, if any other Hindu promotes the true aspects of hinduism and tries to clear the myths and distortions, then such people are quick to term him as ‘illiterate and unscientific’. Moreover, if a Hindu questions the aspects and practices of other religions he is termed as “communal”. A person born in a hindu family who doesn’t even know anything regarding these differentiations created by the abrahamic invaders is often termed as anti-minority if he, from his own conscience and objectivity, questions reservation based on religion and animal killing. If he questions the scams, corruption and anti-nationalism of the ministers in the Congress government which thrives on minority appeasment, then he is termed as “BJP-RSS” activist.
A patriot is one who thinks about his country first. It is the conscience of a person which makes him voice against animal killings and other atrocities. How can any person who raises “pro-India” slogans which can be anti-Congress be confused as or termed deliberately as pro-”BJP-RSS”? Reservation based on religion is a direct abuse to the secularism and animal killings are against animal rights and welfare. How can supporting these causes be called “communal”?
Recently, many pseudo secularists wrote articles against Dr.Subramanyam Swamy’s article on ‘How to wipe out Islamic terror”. Aditya Ramakrishnan wrote, “I am 17 years old. I am not a Muslim. I am not a Christian. I was born a Hindu, but I am against religious fundamentalism of any kind because it breeds distrust and tears apart the social fabric of any country.” Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr wrote, “Many liberals have been outraged by Swamy’s arguments. The maverick — he hates the term and objects to being described as one — politician is no closet Hindu right-winger.”
If Aditya Ramakrishnan and Venkateshwar are so concerned about Dr.Swamy’s statements, then perhaps they should also similarly discuss on the killing of infidels, idolators, jews and christians as openly mentioned in some other scriptures which divides the society between their faith and the rest of the world. The apologists argue that the term “infidel” refers to one who doesn’t believe in God. “La Iaha Ill Allah Muhammudur Rasool Aallah”, God according to Islam is Allah and there is no other name except Allah and one who doesn’t believe in the abrahamic god is called as “atheist”.
Baburnama and Aurangzebnama themselves testify how Babur and Aurangzeb killed infidels and destroyed temples for the sake of Allah and to spread Islam (e.g Baburnama page 232,370,371, 373, 374, 385-388, 527 etc). The same pattern can be seen in the email sent by the Indian Mujahideen on Varanasi terror attacks. But, the pseudo-secularists seem to have a habit of ignoring such patterns but rather argue that “all religions are the same”. If that was the case, then abrahamic invaders would have prayed in the temples instead of demolishing them, Bamiya Buddha statues would have been honoured and animals like goats and cows would have been protected and not killed to appease some God on some festival. Quran itself sees Allah as the ultimate god and Islam as superior. How is it then such pseudo-seculars are the champions in denigrating Hinduism which doesn’t divide the society between hindus and non-hindus, and pioneers in playing a mute audience where secularism and democracy are openly abused? For a muslim, no other name is to be chanted other than Allah and to appease that “God of mercy” a goat is killed on Bakr-Id. Jihad related terrorism is not just local to India but global. Do we find Hindus, Buddhist, Sikhs, Jains etc blowing up mosques or churches all over the world? Why is it then that the Indian history which is full of temple destructions, conversion by hook or crook etc, as stated by the invaders themselves, is ignored? Why is it that an open discussion and exposition of such verses and testimonies is called “communal”?
Discussions and questioning of Quran and Mohammed is prohibited and reservation based on religion or animal killing to appease some God are ignored. Ex-Muslims like Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie were exiled. Whereas, thousands of Hindus and non-hindus keep writing inflammatory speeches against Hinduism and India themselves. “O you who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of each other. And whoever amongst you takes them for friends he is indeed one of them. Surely Allåh guides not the unjust people”. (Quran 5.51). Clearly, the Jews and christians are not friendly according to Quran and the idolators are “unequal and unclean” (Quran 9.19, 9.28). Nobody is a born genius to know about a “holy name”, if a particular animal is really meant to be killed or if a particular category of people are “inferior or unfriendly”. Some apologists argue that such verses reflect the ancient life when Islam started in Arab. Such a connotation also implies that such ancient practices are not applicable in the case of India, a land where “athiti devo bhava” and ideals of “ahimsa” have been the eternal mantras, the cows are treated as divine and the divine elements of the nature are personified and celebrated in the form of paintings and idols. In general, such ancient practices are not compatible with the modern world where people make idols of different forms and personalities for different reasons.
The Indian law gives death punishment in the rarest of the cases, but can the same be said about Sharia law which is based on Quran? “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger [i.e., Muhammad], and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter. ( Quran 5.33)”
Fight those who believe not in Allåh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allåh and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of s subjection (9.29)
In the western world, the studies of comparative religion itself is a subject and history is seen without any bias or filters. But in India, it seems, any discussion of history which includes abrahamic invasion and mughal atrocities or questioning of “minority scriptures” is seen as “communal”.
Full texts os Indian Mujahideen on Varanasi blasts : http://www.freedombulwark.net/voices/257