Coming to terms with the 'NEW' Hindu. The Hindu has realised that if his religious assertion does not match that of the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism will die. In other words, to survive, the Hindu has mutated.

By A Surya Prakash

The communal situation is showing signs of deterioration in the country, with the Congress party and several other regional political outfits stoking the fires and encouraging grave provocation in different states and regions. Never before has the nation seen such widespread violence as during Ram Navami and similar religious festivals. Obviously, there is mischief afoot and it is now reaching a point of no return. Congress must take full responsibility for the deteriorating situation because having lost political power at the national level, the Nehru-Gandhis, who own and control the party, have been stoking the communal flames since 2014. They are in the “after me, the deluge” syndrome and want to show that after their ouster from power, India’s social fabric has broken down. But, that is incorrect. Some other parties, who survive on minority appeasement, are also playing the same wicked game.   

Beginning with Jawaharlal Nehru, there was always an underlying anti-Hindu sentiment in the Congress’ policies and the party is now paying for the sin. Although the nation was divided in 1947 because Muslims wanted a separate Islamic State, the Hindu majority chose to build a secular, democratic India. But this extraordinary commitment to a plural, liberal society by the Hindus in the face of Muslim bigotry was neither acknowledged nor respected by Congress. Instead, what the party did was mock the religious practices of the Hindus and their polytheism, while remaining blind to many obnoxious beliefs and practices in other religions. This became obvious when Nehru wanted to push through the Hindu Code Bill in parliament but was unwilling to effect reform in the Muslim community and other religious minorities. This indeed was the starting point of the problem. 

When the Hindus chose to have a secular, democratic state, the Congress should have ensured that a uniform civil code would guide all communities in democratic India. Those who wanted Muslim Personal Law to prevail had, in any case, the option to move to Pakistan. But Nehru did none of this. Instead, he and his party began Muslim appeasement from day one. In later years, Congress saw this as a permanent vote bank and made this part of its credo. Side by side, it began taking the Hindus for granted and even encouraged self-deprecation among the Hindus.

Since Nehru was a leading figure in the freedom movement and a towering personality, his obvious disdain for Hinduism injected a sense of shame among Hindus about their religion and culture.    

Soon, other parties climbed onto the Muslim appeasement bandwagon and looted this much-cherished vote bank of Congress and gained political power. The Hindus remained sullen, hapless spectators. Except for the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates including the Jan Sangh, there were no political or social leaders who could articulate their concerns.   

While all this went on for decades, simmering discontent was brewing among the Hindus. Then came the watershed moment: the Rath Yatra of Lal Krishna Advani to campaign for the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya and the slogan “Garv Se Kaho Hum Hindu Hein” (say with pride that you are a Hindu) in 1990. This slogan was meant to galvanise the Hindus who had been made to feel inadequate, meek and submissive by Congress.

As we progressed as a democratic nation, secularism degenerated into pseudo-secularism. For Muslims and Christians, secularism meant religious assertion whereas, for Hindus, secularism meant religious negation. The more disdainful the Hindu became of his religion, the more “secular” he was regarded, but it was just the opposite for citizens of other religions. This led to a slow build-up of resentment among the Hindus and finally, the dam burst. Today, the Hindu is as assertive of his religion and its practice as the Muslim, Christian or Sikh. And, this is supposedly illiberal and anti-secular. This is the line taken by the pseudo-secular brigade, many of whose members sport Hindu-sounding names like Ramachandra, Sitaram, Prakash, etc., and joining them are hotheads of other religions, who just want to go back to the good old days of the subdued Hindu.

Meanwhile, the Hindu has realised that if his religious assertion does not match that of the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism will die. In other words, to survive, the Hindu has mutated. He demands a new order, a new arrangement to ensure social harmony.

So, “Garv Se Kaho….” is now a reality. But, it took time for the idea to germinate – about 25 years. Suddenly, the Hindus have become visible, especially in elections and lately on the internet. “The Internet Hindu” has rattled the pseudo-secular brigade that had lived on a staple anti-Hindu diet under the Nehruvian umbrella. Where do we go from here?  

So, what does the new arrangement entail? It entails a new equation between the Hindus and the Muslims and other religious minorities in which the minority religions will need to acknowledge the following:

1)That India is a secular, democratic nation because the Hindu majority willed it to be so; 2) that “secularism” cannot be a one-way street, all religious groups must adhere to the secular ideal; 3) every kind of teaching and preaching which promotes hatred against other religious groups must be banned in all madrasas and such religious schools; and 4) the Hindus have as much a right to religious assertion as the adherents of other religions.

Is this too much to ask? Do you think this is a tall order? Then, alas, there are no easy solutions to the emerging problem.

A SURYA PRAKASH 
Former Chairman of Prasar Bharati and Scholar, Democracy Studies
(suryamedia@gmail.com)