Hinduphobia, Secularism & other Vices that afflict India

One should clearly know the history of Forty-second amendment act 1976 that made some series of changes to the constitution of India, to understand how an alien concept (Secular) has been systematically used to perpetuate Hinduphobia. Modern day politicians, at least since independence used this word without explaining to the masses the necessity to have it. 

The political liberty which we have got after enduring the slavery of 1200 years from alien occupiers is indeed a different paradigm that we should have approached with a practical outlook, instead Congress tried to straight jacket things through a regressive ideology called Socialism/Communism. Pt.Nehru in the AICC (All India Congress Committee) session that held in Avadi (Chennai, TamilNadu) in 1955 declared that Socialistic Pattern of society was the goal of Congress, hence the goal of India. 

Few years ago in an interview , Sadhguru Vasudev said that people who didn't have the courage to call themselves Communists defined themselves as Socialists. He also said that Karl Marx may have known much about Economics, but he knew nothing about Human being. Banditry became a philosophy in the name of communism. Probably one reason why socialists would not call themselves as Communists is because of the mindless violence that is normally associated with Communism. Millions of innocents perished due to Communism. In Russia alone more than 25 million people died, more than the combined death toll of World War II. Image from this link

Even if we have to disagree with Pt. Nehru on Socialism, he should be given credit for the wisdom he had; else the AICC session should have declared that “Socialist”, “Secular” is our goal. Because Pt.Nehru knew that Hindus who belonged to this ancient civilization are inherently secular and they never needed an alien import which is irrelevant to the Indian society. 

In the modern parlance, if a law has to be passed first its necessity has to be ascertained. It cannot be passed to further the agenda of a single political party or a leader. To the least, adherence to Constitutional morality is essential. The requirement shall arise as a demand from society or from a legitimate source. For eg: - ban on Cow Slaughter is a direction that constitution gives to the State, hence such laws may be passed and would stand the judicial scrutiny.

The question one has as to why Indira Gandhi when she had no Legitimate Political Authority would pass a Constitutional Amendment in a hurried manner? What was she trying to prove? If we have to take Congress party’s democratic credentials at its face value, then we shall go by what it has always preached to others i.e., democracy is incomplete if there is no opposition. Then the question is how a constitutional amendment be called a legitimate exercise of authority when the whole opposition was locked up in Jail during Emergency? Readers are encouraged to read - Tom Christiano's "Authority", from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to understand what is authority and its legitimacy. Image from Google.

Just like Article 25 of Indian Constitution is used aggressively by Abrahamic faiths for conversion activities through questionable means, the variety of Indian Secularism in its current form, is used to perpetuate Hinduphobia or bluntly Hindu hatred successfully. All groups that are engaged in this task have their individual goals to be met, but there is a consensus on the method that has to be applied, i.e., institutionalizing and legitimizing Hindu Hatred or Hinduphobia.

Hence in the popular political culture terms such as Secular Muslim vote, Secular Christian vote are accepted as correct. And any reference to Hindu vote is communal. There can never be a term called “Secular Hindu Vote”, it has to be “Communal Hindu Vote. Such ideas assisted some political parties to perpetuate their rule. The victim is indeed a poor Hindu.

One should know the actors that are systematically engaged in spreading Hinduphobia.

1.    Missionaries

2.    Islamists

3.    Communists

4.    Media

5.    Leaders of Dalit Politics

If you closely analyse the relationship between these actors in isolation, they are staunch opponents to each other; importantly the protagonists (Missionaries, Islamists and Communists) of the story, the rest just follow them mostly because of their ignorance or they are compromised.

Some Important Questions:

1.    How successful are the actors in spreading Hinduphobia, what are the gains so far?

2.    Did Hindus themselves take part in furthering Hinduphobia because of their rational ignorance?

3.    Is Hinduphobia affecting social cohesion?

4.    Are the self-proclaimed liberals and secularists winning the argument?

5.  Is it correct to assume that the compulsions of electoral politics forcing the mainstream political parties to turn a blind eye to the destabilizing effects of Hinduphobia?

If answer to each question listed above is a resounding yes, then we are definitely in for a serious trouble. It is incumbent up on every Hindu to work relentlessly and turn the situation around.

Explaining the objectives:

For Missionaries conversion is their main focus, through hook or crook. Their target group is Hindus. Their regular tricks would not work with Muslims as a social group, for the reaction will be too much for the missionary agents to bear. When it comes to Islamists their target is to increase the numbers mainly through unrestricted child bearing. Hence any talk on family planning shall be instantly termed as something against Secularism. No Democratic Country in the world has a separate civil code based on religion, if some one talks about Common Civil Code, then it is anti-Minority/anti-Secular even though Directive Principles of State Policy states it. The most dangerous of all the other actors are Communists; the technique employed by them is to build narratives of Hindu Hatred under the garb of discussing reason and rationalism through derogatory interpretations of Hindu Philosophy. 

As if aboriginal ideologue Karl Marx advised Communists that “Hinduism is Opium of Masses” not “Religion is Opium of all Masses”, Communists perform the ritual of spreading venom against Hindus at regular intervals. They do it by wearing a gloves of rationalists but wouldn't raise their finger against superstition in Christianity and Islam, because it is against their goal of spreading Hinduphobia.

The Christian Missionary Psyche is best explained by a letter Francis Xavier wrote to Jesus Society, Rome in 1543. Here is what he says about Hindus.

“… the great majority of their idols are as black as black can be, and moreover are generally so rubbed over with oil as to smell detestably, and seem to be as dirty as they are ugly and horrible to look at …  “ 

In Abrahamic faiths there is a Doctrinal sanction to abuse other faiths and ways of life.

In a lecture I have recently attended, the speaker quoting Professor Rummel said that more than one Billion people are killed mercilessly because of arguments such as “Your God is not better than mine” , “Your god is no god”, “There is only one god, that is my God”, “ Only those who believe in my God will go to heaven, others are packed to hell” , “believers are good, non-believers are bad” etc.,

But look at the fundamental philosophy of Hindu which says "Your God is good for your and my God is good for mine and we shall co-exist peacefully". Now who is bombarded with lectures on secularism? Who gets to lecture whom?

Since time immemorial, long before the west re-discovered Democracy, state apparatus and other things which they call modern, in India there was a perfect harmony between State and Religion. Both did not trample on each other’s foot. The sphere was clearly defined. Contrast this with the clash between Christianity and State power. Or for that matter how Islam is used a political tool to control and gag people since its origin. 

People could not bear the atrocities of Roman Catholic Church in the name of religion; hence they revolted against it to fight for their basic Human dignity and liberty. Often the ill-informed who is getting converted in India because of some allurements or indoctrination has no clue about the bloody history of the Abrahamic faiths. 

The very fact that the time frame in which people risen up against the organized church and won is called as “Age of Reason” is proof enough that Christianity had no reason then and no reason now.

After the ordeals a common man had to endure through two centuries of struggle between him and the church, there was compromise that from now on Church will mind its own business and it will not impose its writ on individuals and shall not interfere in their private affairs, either on its own or through state. Such a phenomenon understandably is called Secularism, separation of state and religion.

Such a demarcation was there in India since ages with the exception of King Ashoka the Great who embraced Buddhism as a state religion in addition to some minor skirmishes in South between Vaishnavas & Shaivaites. But Ashoka never killed a man because some one did not agree with Buddhism.

An individual always had the basic freedom to decide about his life subject to some community ethics. For example one can be an Atheist and still can call himself as Hindu. Such a liberty is not available in Abrahamic faiths. If you don’t believe Allah or Christ, you are either Kuffar or Pagan (simply heathens, a derogatory reference used to describe people who did not believe these gods of Middle East).

Such is the bloody history behind the origin of concept called Secularism in Europe. Hence, it was purely an alien and is definitely not necessary in India. All injustices are committed to an average Hindu in the name of this alien import called secularism. Swami Dayananda Saraswati would always say that Secularism means “State should stay aloof from all religions”. On the contrary it is used to appease certain religious sections because they represent a particular vote bank. 

Additionally in the name of Secularism Hinduphobia is legitimized to facilitate Missionaries of alien cultures to meet their sectarian goals. Hence sending Muslims on Hajj pilgrimage using the tax money paid by Hindu is Secularism and if a Hindu asks others to respect his cultural sensitivities and stop the cow slaughter is termed anti-Secularism and Communal. Hence Yoga becomes Communal because of its Hindu Origins and terrorism inspired by Islam should not be called as Islamic Terrorism.

The successful propagation of Hinduphobia in a land where Hindus live in majority defies logic. Can we imagine Islamophobia in a Muslim majority country? Impossible. But how Hinduphobia in a Hindu majority country is working? It is here the systematic coalition between Missionaries, Islamists & Communists works. The communists have successfully worked on Dalit fault lines to further divide the Hindu society. This is simply to prohibit a political mobilization of Hindus.

Be it current day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan or some extreme north - western parts of China, significant amount of territory of Hindu civilization has been lost to alien cultures and ideologies because of the lack of social & political mobilization of Hindus.

To save what is left out is only possible through a two pronged approach one is legal and the other is social, the latter is more important. If Hindus become socially and politically vigilant and throw their artificial barriers/differences like caste, creed, language, regionalism etc., in the Indian Ocean that separate them at the moment and proclaim to the world that “I am Hindu, I belong to Bharathvarsha (i.e., India) “, that alone will solve 90% of the problems.

At the earliest the government should initiate a process to remove statutory and legal obfuscation that is used to legitimize Hinduphobia. Start with removing the word “Secular” from the preamble of the constitution. It was inserted without giving any regard to constitutional or legal morality, removing it only means restoring the respect to constitution. We should know that all that is western is not modern.

Indians: Argumentative versus Opinionated

There are different categories of people in Indian society. These categories I am talking about have got nothing to do with categories or groups that fall under the head - sociological but it is purely psychological. Sociological/Social groups are for example caste groups, religious groups and others. At least arguments or debates with such groups will be blunt and clear as the one who argues with them knows in advance what their stand is on a specific subject, and the possibility of obfuscation is minimal or none.

I shall explain these groups/categories in terms which we can easily understand and relate.

Category 1: Those who say that India is a pathetic country. Every invader who came here for pillage & plunder has helped us improve from being a highly pathetic society to a less pathetic one. Let’s see some clichés which people use who fall under this category.

• Thank god, Greeks invaded and enslaved us. Because of which we have learnt logic. Otherwise we would have been stupid.

• You know, if Mughals did not invade us we would have never learnt how to make Chicken Tikka & Kebab. So I salute Mughals.

• Thanks to Brits, we now have post offices, Railways, bridges & high-rise buildings. Most importantly they taught us English along with morals and a great religion through missionaries. Otherwise we would have been a bunch of idiots worshipping rocks, monkeys and idols. Thanks to Lord, they have given us Jesus. 

Category 2: Those who say that India is a best country in the world, and there is nothing wrong here and they say India is shining. There will be no need for any clichés because for them nothing is wrong with our society. These people will normally will hold their allegiance to a political party. For example, when BJP is in power, if you speak to a hard core BJP supporter he will say that “India is shining” and there is nothing wrong with India because all is well. When Congress is in power if you talk to a hard core congress party supporter, he will say that India has become a super power and all other parties are communal, we are the only secular party in India etc.,

Category 3: Though I am tempted to call this category as neutral, rational and objective, but they are not completely rational. Because Humans will never be completely rational. There is nothing called as rationality, but bounded rationality, says Herbert Simon, Nobel Prize winning Economist. Read his paper here  to understand as to what is Bounded Rationality. So, though in a way people who fall in this category are relatively better than the two categories mentioned above, they are not completely neutral. Because they will have a soft corner to a particular party or ideology, even though they don’t agree with them completely. Let’s take my example I have a soft corner for BJP at the moment when compared to the positions of other parties on subjects like national security etc., I go along with BJP but not on everything, but still have a soft corner. If not on all the occasions most of the times discussions will be driven by facts rather than by unsubstantiated opinions & obscurantism. 

In this occasion I will be my own judge and say that I fall under this category3. Because for most of the opinions I rely on facts. If I say that both LTTE & Sri Lankan establishment are equally responsible for the sufferings of Tamils, I will cite at least few facts to support my argument, instead of making claims out of my hat. If a person who falls under the category1 have to speak on this issue, he will blame either Sri Lanka or LTTE as fully responsible with least regard to facts but not both. LTTE sympathizer might just say that Prabhakaran was a freedom fighter notwithstanding the atrocities for which he was responsible, and a Srilankan supporter would just dismiss him as a terrorist. Truth may be in between? So, I claim that I fall under category3. Jury is out.

In my opinion we’ll be tempted to debate with people who fall under category1, because we fall in to the trap as we feel that they are sane and at first impression appear to be category3, but actually you can reason it out with category2 not with category1.

Let’s me quote few types of people who fall under category1. Most of the people who have secured a good social status through reservation, yes I am talking about a group which was institutionally oppressed i.e., Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe group. For our discussion here I am referring only to those who fall under the definition of category1, not all.

The reason for undertaking this painful exercise to explain the categories is to explain and share my experience of a conversation I have had with a person who falls under category1. Yes, the type who says that we are better off today only because of British. What appalled me was his reluctance to accept facts contrary to his beliefs and passes judgment only based on his experience. I sympathize for the sufferings he might have undergone, but his personal suffering is not enough to pass a judgement on a whole society which is saner, civil and forward looking, at least on a relative basis.

Let me briefly explain the profile of the person with whom I have had such a conversation. He is a Professor and Head of the department in a reputed university and claims to be teaching for the past 30 years or more. He is about to retire say in a year. An SC/ST who reached where he is now partly because of the policy of reservation or quota system. He is bustling with his prejudice towards Caste Brahmins. Of course he claims to be a victim of caste Brahmin bigotry. Normally he does not take pride in anything good about in India, even on our achievements, past & present. Everything that has gone wrong with this country he sees it through the prism of Caste Brahmins oppressing SC/ST groups.

The conversation started with his prejudicial statements that in those days Brahmins would pour melted copper in the ears of Dalits if they dared to study or educate themselves. For a very long time I have tried to find an evidence on this claim as this was not the first time I have heard such a statement, but I could not find any convincing evidence so far. Even if we have to agree with that statement for a moment, is this what India all about?

Without answering that question directly, I brought up the issue regarding the documentary made by BBC on 2012 Delhi gang rape case and the innuendos suggested in that documentary. I told him that, while rapes are bad and it happens in India too but neither all men are rapists or ours is a society of rapists as suggested by that documentary and tried to convince him that his example was also something like that. And apprised him with facts that the incidence of rape is much higher in western countries when compared to India. As per the official figures, every 25 seconds one woman is sexually harassed in US and in every 6 minutes one woman is sexually harassed in UK, by that I don’t mean that we are better off. Even if it is going to be one rape, we are ashamed of it as a society. But that one rape does not define our identity.

I further added that I have completely agreed with him on the question of discrimination of Dalits primarily by caste Brahmins and conversation is sealed as we have no differences on this subject.

But he was not convinced and went on and said that it is only because of British we are here not otherwise. Then came his clichés which I have explained in the introduction about the people who fall under category will normally use, that he is thankful to British for railways and buildings etc.,

I replied that I disagree with him on this and argued that he should read and understand the theories of Brain and Economic drain. The whole budget of England was based on the resources looted from India, such was the amount of limitless resources she had. Not long ago during Vijayanagara Empire Rayala seema (plains of stones) in Andhra Pradesh was called as Rathanala Seema (plains of diamond). Every piece of visible wealth was taken away from here. In 2000 years of recorded history (read Madison project) India was an economic power house for 17 centuries in a straight contributing towards nearly 30 % of global GDP consistently, only as a result of systematic exploitation of British we came down to 1% at the start of 20^th century. Without British we could have been better off. Though the Chinese were colonized by the British the Chinese never say that they are grateful to their colonizers. Why is it in India we have people praise British for what they have done? The answer is we are psychologically still slaves and we need to break these chains of slavery.

By now he is completely lost his posture and shot back that in China there was no caste oppression. I was getting bored by now, as he clearly lacked intellectual depth in his argument and completely handicapped by his casual opinions which is the result of hearsay & anecdotal evidence.

I humbly retorted “Sire, do you know nearly 33 million innocent people were killed in China during the Cultural Revolution! Doesn't that count as oppression to you? He replied, “No that is different”.

I don’t want to elaborate here on every thing we have discussed but only few important ones. Few things he said about Christian missionaries and their assistance to us. He declared that we are stone worshippers and not wise people etc and Christian Missionaries have helped us. I replied that if a religion or ideology has to be evaluated and a judgement needs to be passed we need to consider its history. A woman was not even treated as human being but slave and how the church persecuted scientists is an open secret, some were burnt alive just because they went against church, and you should really have credentials to preach. But in India Science & religion complimented each other, they were never at war with. Ours is an advanced thought process, but we have our own pitfalls and we agree that. Hence we don’t go to Saudi Arabia or Europe and say that Islam & Christianity is non-sense, your gods are false gods, why don’t you accept ours? But every other murderous crook who came here from these countries told us exactly that.

Then came his sexist remark, women in Europe are white and beautiful and that is why they wanted to keep them as slaves and women here may not be that beautiful. That is what he implied. Already it has been two hours since the start of this conversation with him. Only after that sexist remark I have decided that I might be wasting my time and offered him for a full day discussion on another day so that I can prove him wrong. He was not ready for that, as he said that he does not have a full day. He is nearly 55 or 60 years old and a Head of a Department in a university, and his ego is badly hurt. In all these hours I have not heard one single sane argument. In addition to the arguments I have explained in this write-up I have quoted many other examples to prove my points, but not discussed here all of them for the sake of time and space.

I have told him that it is certainly true that caste Brahmins have discriminated Dalits, but that should not become the only reason for him to hate India and I also said that “I disagree with your theory that only because of alien invaders we are better off”.  After that we have said goodbye to each other, as the discussion was reaching nowhere.

In conclusion all I would like to say is, that it is tough to help people who fall under the Category1 to come out of their mental prisons in which they are living right now, but it is not entirely impossible, and we should not stop trying. I have had positive results in the past. Just that this time I was stuck with a rigid old bird. 

Rescuing India's Secularism

Incidentally few days ago, (as we are in the midst of discussing about Theresa) I have been in a post office to send a register post. When I was standing in queue I have noticed the one standing before me in the queue with some money order forms. Then I casually looked in to his forms to see where he was sending as he asked for my pen to make some corrections, it appeared to be two orders each 50 RS is being sent to two churches in Kolathur, Chennai. Though I knew what this business is all about to an extent, I asked the person, to whom this meagre amount is being sent? He said, church.

Then he started saying Jesus is the saviour and every month we have to pay the money to the Church etc., Looked like he wanted a chance. Then I took my turn and informed that this concept of monthly contribution to church comes from tithe which is in line with old testament. ie., people should pay one-tenth of their earnings to church and there is no compromise on that, it was compulsory once up on a time in Europe, tithe was also considered to be one of the reason that sparked French Revolution. By now he appeared to be not interested any more in extending the conversion and he conveniently said that he had to go. He must have understood that this guy is a waste candidate and cannot be converted.

But in my I my mind I had larger questions, such as does the Govt. has any idea of how much money is collected and where and how it is being spent? Why cannot the Govt. take control of the finances of church and audit it ? Church is managed by Christians directly controlled by foreigners / Missionaries and Waqf property is managed by Muslims, but Temples are managed by Govt. mostly through religious endowment acts, then how can we can call India as a secular state ? Please understand what secularism is.

Missionaries seek donations from the natives and local population to make sure their psychological commitment is affirmed. Christian Missionary's dirty job does not end with converting a Hindu through crumbs, they have to make sure that the converted Hindu must remain a Christian. Hence getting money as a contribution to the church from the converts is an important strategy to sustain them. Ie., once you start paying on a monthly basis your association is further hardened.

To remain a Christian means you should possess some essential qualities, the convert should first denounce his hinduness completely. For example you have to give up all that you have been doing so far relating to Hindu religion and call Hindu gods as satans and say that people who go to temple are possessed by satans etc.,

I have seen it from close quarters when people do it. For example, in my in-law's house there use to be a maid, she is already 70 years old and a very staunch Hindu, all the time we can see her chanting a Hindu deity's name. Suddenly one day I heard that she threw all deity images from pooja rack on the road claiming that she has converted to Christianity, I really had no idea how these missionary crooks could do it. I am proud Hindu, in my pooja rack I have the photo of Jesus this never affected my routine at all. This dirty job of missionaries is possible with sustained campaign which is supported by liberal funding, sources are domestic & abroad mostly US and Europe. Rural India is directly threatened by Missionary activities. They are guillable but good and kind hearted people, this is used as weakness against them. The whole North-East insurgency movements have a direct to link to Christian missionary's activities.

As on the other day Prof. Vaidyanathan was talking about Stern magazine claim of 100 Million dollars which Mother Theresa collected in India was sent to vatican's bank ie., money collected in India apparently for which there is no accountability and congress Govt.. refused to look in to the details because it's motto has been to rule this country with the coalition of minorities.
Be it Tirupathi or other big temples, all revenues are accounted for then why not the money that goes in to church and Waqf?

The task of the current generation is to make this great nation of ours a secular country once again, as India's secular credentials were eroded by Nehru & Jinnah type politicians and Christian Missionaries. Hence the Govt.. should start by taking over the control of finances of church & waqf, at least audit the transactions and sources, too many things would tumble out of the cupboard once this is started. Secularism is a fundamental right, you know ?

Religious Conversions – The Real Purpose

The process of conversions could be traced back to time of Jesus Christ when he told his apostles to make disciples in all nations (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus definitely would not have told some one to kill people if a mortal is resisted to convert (as in case of massacres in Cuba when it was colonized by Spaniards, where thousands of tribals were killed by the army sent by church).It has been in practice for many missionaries who decided to employ what ever means they want to convert people to one religion.

In Indian context right from the time of Muslim invaders forcible conversion was the order of time and later came the forcible conversions to Christianity. In his words of Sri Sathya Sai Baba (India’s spiritual leader) “I have not come to create another new religion, but to make a Muslim a better muslim,a Christian to a better Christian and a Hindu to a better Hindu”. Converting from bad to good and better character is important than converting to a new religion. We belong to a land where polytheism is a way of life. The unstable mind must be changed to stable instead of converting the religions. We know Muslim conversions were ruthless in the early days. We have examples like Nithiyanandan, and pedophiles in Europe. They are Hindus and Christians respectively then why they have committed this shameful act understandably with no remorse, simply because they are not better Hindus or better Christians. Now the matter is not with religion but with their character and the state of mind. If a human being cannot believes himself but a religion surely he is degenerating. The Indian subcontinent is predominantly a Hindu Rashtra. Who ever lives beyond the banks of Sindhu River are called Hindus (according to a theory). It is surely against the universal principles if outsiders are allowed to forcibly (or through any other means) convert the residual population to some other religion. The erstwhile church which ruled the whole Europe wanted to spread the Christianity for many reasons, one prominent reason is the tithe. One of the main reasons for the eruption of French revolution is the religion, when the common man had no bread to eat on one end and on the other church was extracting the tithe from the beleaguered population. It is only when the nation states were created in Europe the influence of church actually waned. Conversions made countries to secede (Sudan a case in point). We need to retrospect how poor Africans were forced to embrace Christianity. There are many examples to quote. Nigeria and Sudan is a case in point. While the polytheistic religion asserts that there are multiple ways of reaching god (i.e., attaining the salvation) but the religions with monotheistic inclinations propagates the contrary and that is the reason why we have crusaders and Jihadists. 

We may need more revolutions like the one happened in France(French revolution) in the 19^th century to defend the inherent culture and tradition from the alien and invading forces (I am talking about people who misunderstood Jesus and the great prophet).In regional sense few  state governments in India created laws which declares forcible religious conversions as an offensive act. But stealth of money power is terrifying. A tribal living in a remote village in Orissa does not really bother about any religion; he might be interested to convert if there is an assurance of material returns a chance which missionaries would not want to miss. And these hapless beings think that they could come out of the poverty yoke. A religion means a civilization and also a culture. It is only the power of culture which gave a stiff resistance to British occupation forces as they were stymied with this unprecedented strength which they have never come across in other continents. Imagine a hypothetical situation a Hindu organization (missionary) as invincible as a missionary of any other religion sent to Europe to convert people to Hindu religion, the European dwellers would definitely be unyielding and I think we in this sub-continent deserve to show the reaction to those who want to convert religions. The aliens and the invaders were able to find a place in this vast land only because our ancestors were truly non- xenophobic as in Persia or Maghreb for example. After all we live in a secular, democratic, republic set up and religious freedom is enshrined in our constitution, but forcible conversion is against this grain of the constitution. I think we should include a clause in the ninth schedule of the constitution or in IPC that forcible conversion is an act equal to disturbing the harmony of the society.