| |
|
The Hindu
Hatred of the Indian National Congress To many educated Hindus, the
venemous anti-Hindu bias of India's main ruling party - the "Indian
National Congress" is so patently obvious that it needs little or no
elaboration. But for many Indians, notwithstanding the mammoth
corruption scandals that have engulfed almost the entire leadership of
the Congress Party, there is still some residual admiration for its
historic role in the freedom movement and its supposed "secular
liberalism". Such Indians
remained relatively unmoved when the Congress Party and its sundry
political allies (along with their cohorts in the mainstream media)
attempted to pin false and unsubstantiated charges of "communal hatred"
against Pilibhit's current parliamentary representative Varun Gandhi.
When several Hindu activists such as Sadhvi Pragya Thakur were rounded
up on allegations of "conspiracy" and "terror" - there was no one in
the liberal intelligentia who questioned the lack of evidence or the
complete denial of due process that was afforded them. It was, as
though, their mere existence as conscious and assertive Hindus was a
crime, and no one from any Human Rights organization in India or abroad
questioned the shameless violation of their human rights. On the other
hand, when the Delhi police was obliged to raid Islamic terror hideouts
in Jamia (and elsewhere) there was a shrill outcry (notwithstanding the
overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence that justified the raid). Time and time
again Congress bigwigs like Digvijay Singh and others have issued
highly provocative and inflammatory statements designed to hurt the
sentiments of India's patriotic Hindus while making common cause with
the worst of Islamic terror-mongerers. The Party's crown prince has
reportedly issued statements that have purportedly downplayed the real
and ever-present menace of Islamic terror while falsifying the
non-existent threat of "Hindu" or "Saffron" terror. Yet, India's
supposedly "secular" and "liberal" population has either ignored these
insults, or chosen to swallow them, or worse, make pitiful excuses for
such malignant behaviour. When Yoga Guru
Baba Ramdev attracted lakhs of Hindu-identified supporters to his
anti-corruption rallies even supposedly very dedicated anti-corruption
activists ignored the very serious corruption charges that were
levelled at Ms Sonia Gandhi (aka Antonia Maino). Her false claims about
her non-existent college credentials, the inconsistencies in her
citizenship application, her nefarious connections to the Italian and
Islamic Mafia and the astronomical wealth suddenly accumulated by her
son-in-law Robert Vadra were summarily dismissed by virtually all
sections of the liberal intelligentsia. This is not to say that Baba
Ramdeva is a flawless leader or should be taken seriously regarding his
prejudicial claims to "curing homosexuality" - but there was certainly
no basis to conduct a midnight raid with such brutal force that it led
to serious injuries and even the death of peaceful and innocent
supporters many of whom were women and children (or the elderly). There
was no outcry over the uncalled for violence that was directed at
basically patriotic Hindus who were alarmed by and aghast at the extent
of corruption that was taking place at the highest levels of government. Contrast this
with the unending witch-hunt that has been directed at Narendra Modi
and his supporters in Gujarat. All manner of fictitious and trumped up
charges have been spread ad nauseum - he has been denigrated and
maligned as though he were a veritable Hitler. And yet - no one
appears ready to discuss the first and only real pogrom - the heinous
attempt to roast alive hundreds of Hindu activists whose only "crime"
was that they wanted to awaken the nation to what had been destroyed by
India's violent Islamic conquerors. But in a nation in which it is an
intellectual "crime" to speak of the Islamic invasions as genocidal in
character and spirit - when it can't even be revealed that the earliest
conquerors of what are now Afghanistan and Pakistan were marauding
slave-traders who may have killed millions of unarmed Hindus and
Buddhists - this is not entirely surprising. When Hindus
aren't even permitted to tell the truth about the history of their
thousand year long subjugation by Islam - when they were subject to
being murdered, looted and enslaved - when in Punjab and the Gangetic
plain, their entire civilizational history was destroyed - when
even the memory of their culture and ancient achievements in art,
philosophy and science were cynically manipulated or obliterated - how
can they assert their moral horror at what was done in Godhra? In which modern
nation could one even imagine a conspiracy by any "peaceful minority"
community to roast alive hundreds of unarmed citizens of the majority
community at a train station in the early hours after dawn? But when
mostly women and children were mercilessly burnt alive - did India's
"secular liberals" feel the anguish of the victims or their loved ones?
Did the leading spokespersons of the Islamic media or political elite
express moral repugnance and horror at what was done? It is no trivial
task to roast alive hundreds of passengers in any train even in India.
A mob of two thousand people does not gather before dawn at random at
any railway station in India. And Godhra is not even a large city. What
was done to the passengers was akin to what the Nazis did to the Jews
in their concentration camps. It required premeditated planning and
connivance at multiple levels in the city administration as well as
some complicity within the railways. But how many
Indians even paid attention the the real import or meaning of Godhra?
That in independent India - hundreds of unarmed Hindus could be roasted
alive and that a majority of perpetrators might even get away with it.
That even after partition - Hindus who had already been terrorized into
forsaking their homes and livelihood in the Kashmir Valley couldn't
even expect to be safe from Islamic pogroms in Hindu-majority Gujarat. Few journalists
or academicians cared to notice that the Godhra city administration was
in the hands of the Congress Party - that civil agencies such as the
local and railway Police and the local Fire Department must have all
been a part of the premeditated conspiracy to set Hindus on fire. Why
is it that the entire liberal establishment chose to downplay this
heinous crime while focussing exculsively on subsequent riots in which
both Hindus and Muslims lost their lives. The military was called out
to bring order within 48 hours after the riots escalated into violence.
In legal terms
what happened in Godhra was a pogrom - mass murder of the first degree
driven entirely by a vicious hatred of Hindus. What happened
subsequently was mostly manslaughter (or at most second-degree murder
in some instances) and the criminals and victims came from both
communities. Yet the
pro-Congress political, media and intellectual establishment continues
to act as though the post-Godhra riots were premeditated, that the only
victims were Muslims, and the only criminals were all in the Gujarat
government and the horrific pogrom against Hindus in Congress-ruled
Godhra was entirely irrelevant. This false and
viciously anti-Hindu narrative has been massaged and refined, and
repeatedly trumpeted at leading universities in India and in the West.
Major newspapers in Europe and the US have spread outright lies and
falsehoods to protect the Indian National Congress so that an agent of
the Italian Mafia can rule the second-largest nation in the world even
as the Mafia has come under attack in the country of its birth. The world over,
there has developed an irrational love of Islam even as Jewish and
Hindu patriots have become easy targets in the media and academia.
Scholars partial to Marx or Mao have routinely denigrated legitimate
Hindu and Jewish grievances and aspirations even though neither poses
any broad civilizational threat to humanity. Jews have only one tiny
nation to call their own and Hindus have one highly truncated nation
that is over-populated and scarce in most precious industrial resources
vital to the modern economy. But Muslims rule with absolute authority
in over 50 countries - many of whom are sparsely populated and very
resource rich. While neither Hindus or Jews engage in mass-conversions
- Islam remains an expansionist, undemocratic totalitarian force.
Several Hindu streams are avowedly atheistic or agnostic - yet,
Marxists and Maoists who claim to have no god will routinely defend or
even collaborate with misogynistic and violent Islamists. But why has such
unscientific and perverse self-hatred taken such deep roots in India? Certainly centuries of Islamic domination has left a deep psychological scar that has so damaged the Hindu psyche that it is not even aware of its oppression. When the desire for freedom from British rule gripped the more advanced sections of the Indian intelligentsia, they were not only carrying many hundreds of years of Islamic subjugation, they had also been well brain-washed by more than a century of colonial indoctrination by British intellectual racists like Macaulay who infamously asserted: "It is, no exaggeration to say, that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in Sanskrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England". It is then
little wonder why most Hindus who wished for freedom from British rule
did not even try to create a new and independent political party but
simply joined the British-created Congress - initially intended as
little more than a club for British Indian loyalists to talk shop and
engage in the sort of political banter that would have posed little
danger to the longevity of colonial rule. That the Indian
National Congress would at some point degenerate into a bastion of
Hindu hatred and rampant corruption is not too surprising when one
considers the ideological legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi. For instance, it is not too well-known that Nehru was a great fan of Islam: " The idea of brotherhood of Islam and of the theoretical equality of its adherents made a powerful appeal, especially those of the Hindu fold who were denied any semblance of equal treatment." Not only was
this assertion historically false as to the appeal of Islam for Hindus,
it revealed the dangerous extent to which Nehru had been influenced by
India's former conquerors and colonial masters. First of all,
even Nehru should have been able to see that in the Mughal provinces of
Punjab and the Gangetic states, where Islamic rulers had the
opportunity to rule almost without interruption for over 500 years,
dalit communities had not been converted to Islam. In fact, even after
partition and the almost total expulsion of Hindus from Sindh - there
still remain tens of thousands of janitorial workers who are Hindus. In
fact, even prior to independence, Ambedkar's research revealed that
contrary to fanciful beliefs about Islamic equality, Muslim communities
in East Bengal (now Bangladesh) practiced the caste system with as much
vigor as the Hindus. In fact, what is even more onerous is how foreign
born Muslims saw Indian Muslim converts as inferior and unworthy of
inter-marriage. In any case,
Nehru himself went on to state that in most cases, the Hindu rulers
converted first, and the subjects followed. In fact, in most
instances, it was the brave Hindu chieftans and local leaders who
rebelled against Islamic rule who were always under the greatest
pressure to convert. Once the Hindu leaders gave up resisting Islam -
artisans and traders who had direct dealings with the imperial Islamic
rulers also felt coerced into converting. And the status of Islamic
artisans in Islamic ruled India was no better than the status of Hindu
artisans in Hindu ruled India. It is also
apparent that Nehru was completely unfamiliar with the Quran or Hadith,
because had he read either of them, he would have become aware of the
hatred of the "unbeliever" and the "atheist" that is so evident in
these medieval texts. As an atheist and a supposed "liberal" thinker
how could Nehru have reconciled to the violence that is permitted and
even encouraged against the apostates and the infidels? While it is
understandable that in his British education, Nehru would not have
learnt about the slave-trading Islamic dynasties that first attacked
and raided the Indian subcontinent from the North. It is also
understandable that he may have been ignorant of the scale and extent
of violence and brutality that accompanied the Islamic invasions and he
may have been completely unaware of the systematic manner in which unapologetically
racist Arab Islamic crusaders instituted the ugly and inhumane
institution of slavery throughout Africa. But even without
all this knowledge, Nehru should have been able to see the slavery of
Islamic women as they walked about in black burqas in the Indian summer
heat. It takes an enormous degree of internalized misogyny to accept
and tolerate the enslavement of the human spirit that is embodied in
the Burqa. Anyone can understand that a person in mourning may choose
to wear black or white but even people in mourning are not obligated to
be veiled or covered from head to toe in the heat and humidity of
India. That so many women in Islam must be permanently imprisoned in a
Burqa points to the complete lack of autonomy and dignity afforded to
the traditional Muslim woman. But in pre-Islamic India, women were not
even obliged to cover their breasts and the enormous variety of
hair-dos, jewels and tunics that adorn women in Indian sculpture points
to the freedom they enjoyed in self-expression. As Nehru's quote
reveals, he was clearly disinterested in the equality of men and women.
If Islam treated half of humanity as third-class citizens, he seemed
unbothered by it. Secondly, it must be emphasized that the equality of
Islam is almist entirely notional. Even the Quran categorizes Muslims
into various ranks depending on their loyalty to Islam and a
willingness to engage in acts of violence to further its spread.
Contrary to popular belief, it is the violent Jehadi Muslim who is most
revered and ranked far above the peaceful or liberal Muslim. In any case,
there is never any notion of equality of the non-Muslim to the Muslim.
But such sectarian exclusivity appears not to have troubled Nehru even
though virtually all traditional Indian philosophical streams are
essentially ecumenical and universal. Almost every indic belief system
posits a universal soul - and the possibility of salvation of all human
beings based on their good karma. There is no blanket hatred or
contempt of the other in any Indian belief system. And this is what
was constantly reflected in the naive and foolish idealism of Gandhi
who could see no evil in Islam even as he repeatedly berated Hindus for
not being moral enough. Muslims or
British could commit any crime against Hindus but Hindus were never
allowed to even adequately defend themsleves let alone retaliate. While Nehru was
a brainwashed Hinduphobe who saw in Hindu society only the burden of
caste but was mesmerized by the apparent "brotherhood" of Islam and saw
none of its many evils, Gandhi was an avowed Hindu who saw the
preservation and advance of societal morality as an exclusively Hindu
burden. While Nehru saw
no potential of a Hindu ever being moral and was thus more enamoured of
Islam, in Gandhi's mind there was no expectation of moral reciprocity
or shared moral responsibility. Only Hindu India was obliged to be
moral - Muslim or Christian India was given a free pass. Yet, in spite of
these very grave intellectual failings, too many Indians continue to
revere these very flawed leaders. In the modern
world, "religious equality" even when genuine is mostly illusional. The
enjoyment of life requires access to land and resources, and presumes a
provision of vital services and income to facilitate the consumption of
common consumer goods. This further requires a well-trained modern
work-force that is gainfully employed in a well-developed modern
economy. For that access and commitment to a modern education and
professional skill development becomes vital. Contrary to
Nehruvian prejudice, a traditional Hindu education did not run entirely
counter to a modern scientific education. In the traditional Indian
education system - the search for the unvarnished truth and cultivating
merit were very compelling and laudable educational goals. But Islamic
society with its zealous resistance to replacing madrassa education
with something more modern and genuinely secular simply cannot create
individuals who can function as creative and productive members of
modern society. The whole
quota-Raj instituted by the Congress is reflective of this moronic
thinking whereby the fabric of civilization is undermined by No society
progresses by enforcing an equality that is built on an edifice of
lies, corruption and incompetence. Fairness requires genuine
equality of opportunity. But enforcing an equality of outcome without
regard to merit, creativity, or hard work, or personal probity is a
recipe for civilizational disaster. And that is
precisely where India is headed if the honest people of India do not
rise up and remove all vestiges of this Congress cabal that has become
synonymous with Hindu-hatred, caste-manipulation, all-pervasive
corruption and incompetence, furthered by state violence and
vindictiveness. The recent
charges filed by the Delhi Police (at the behest of a
Congress-identified lawyer charged with corrupting witnesses) against
India's valiant anti-corruption crusader Dr Subramaniam Swamy (when no
such charges are even contemplated against a host of More and more Indians are realizing that the Congress is a haven for criminals and traitors - that its most ardent supporters are casteist pimps who wish to either keep India backward, or wish to sell it to its enemies for a song. Hindu culture cannot be reduced to mere caste exclusiom - it has been a thriving forward-looking culture that was once eager to improve and excel. And if that spirit can be revived India can once more strive for greatness. But if India's Hindus continue to accept humiliation upon humiliation, if they accept lies as truths, if they fail to distinguish between the big lies and small falsehoods, the big criminals from the petty ones, and after all that has been exposed about the Congress still choose to vote for it - then India is surely doomed. And India's non-Hindus should not presume that they have no responsibility in taking India forward. If India is doomed, they don't have much of a future either. They should not delude themselves into thinking they will all be able to join in the Congress's loot. As the country declines, there will be less and less left to loot. And India's looters aren't likely to suddenly become so benevolent as to share their loot equitably. It is in the long-term interest of all patriotic Indians to get rid of this gang of looters that presides over the nation, destroying its soul like a ferocious cancer. And the first step in fighting this fatal disease is to understand and reject this mindless and self-destructive Hindu hatred that has poisoned the minds of even some very genuine and caring Indians. The opposition to the Congress may not be entirely perfect - it is a rare political party that does not have its flaws - but the continued rule of the Congress can only be disastrous for the nation. Indians simply cannot afford to be complacent or casual about the dangers presented by the Congress. They must stand up and be counted now or forever pay the price. Related Essays: Vote Bank Politics Quotas Versus Merit Back for other selections from South Asian Voice for other articles on issues confronting India and the region. Also see South Asian History or Topics in Indian History for relevant essays that shed some light on the history of the subcontinent. (If you liked our site, or would like to help with the South Asian Voice project and help us expand our reach, please click here)
|
