To be Hindu is Not Communal-1

To be Hindu is Not Communal-1

Hindu disunity has always been the delight of its enemies, and often, it would appear of itself. Our history has been cruel to us, but by and large, our failures and our defeats are directly attributable to the disunity and treachery within ourselves. Start from Alexander's victory and King Ambhi, to Jaichand and Ghori, Jagat Seth and Clive, Rani Laxmi Bai and the Scindias. The list can go on. And judging from the discourse and debates that abound at ever so many think festivals and think tanks about where our country is heading, we do not seem to be even reflecting upon our historical failures, leave alone learning from them.

It is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption; that the use of words Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practising any religion other than the Hindu religion. And when we speak about "us" in our country, we refer to Hindus 80.5%, Muslims 13.4%, Christians 2.3%, Sikhs 1.9%, Buddhists, Jains and other religions at 0.8%, 0.4% and 0.6% (Census 2011). So whether the contemporary, cultivated brand of neo secularists (mostly those who get fellowships in foreign universities, and believe they iconise themselves by lambasting anything Hindu), like it or not, when we speak of "us"; in India, the statistics are clear. But the moment this fact that the land of India is inhabited by 80% Hindus is articulated in any national discourse as to how the future of our country should proceed, the Goebellesian metaphor branding them as "communal forces" is whipped out. No effective counter is made, and the metaphor becomes stronger. One of the most successful achievements of the decade long UPA government kept the Hindu majority of our country on a complete back foot, putting them on a silent guilt trip of being Hindus, and stripping them of public self esteem, dare they announce to anyone in public that they are Hindus, and that their interest should also be protected. Being a Hindu is something that should remain unstated, because stating it aloud is equivalent of being "communal", is the unwritten script that the UPA government has been insidiously implanting in our population. And they seem to have succeeded. I am pained to say that a very eminent television personality, winced uncomfortably on a programme when asked what his religion was. He did not answer, more for lack of courage, I believe, rather than any conviction, even though his name not only stated his religion, but also his region. Obviously, this was a result of the fear psychosis that a tag of communalism would get stuck the minute there was a public admission of being a Hindu.

This has been a well orchestrated, concerted strategy of the UPA. Hindus as a group or race, or whatever you might want to call them, that inhabited the land beyond the Sindhu, still carry deep trauma and stigma of their defeat and failure of not being able to defend their homeland from the Muslim invaders who started descending in waves from the Hindukush, and from the sea in Sindh. They were defeated, lost their kingdoms, faced death, destruction and pillage, and finally became subjects of the foreign victors for about 500 years. And it must be remembered that it was not only political, but also religious domination that formed the foundation of Muslim rule in Hindustan. This burden of history is deeply rooted in our collective psyche, reminding us that Hindustan, as the foreign victors called us, was a country of losers. It remains buried and unspoken, even today, in any discourse on the subject. But it is at the back of everyone's mind, tormenting us, and preventing us from developing really constructive, not just cosmetic relations, with the Muslims who chose to remain in independent India. This is something that Hindus must come to terms with, if they want to decide upon the future direction of our country in a harmonious, inclusive manner. And this can best be done through a frank, mature and responsible discussion of history that cannot be wished away or buried.

Yet, the greatest unsolved puzzle remains: Why did India, unlike other lands where Muslim conquest completely Islamised the conquered peoples, defy Islamisation? There was the intent and brute force of the conquerors, religious cleansing and genocide, conversions, jazya, but everything failed, and the bulk of the population remained unconverted. The 1901 census of undivided India records 194 million Hindus and 29.86 Muslims. There are many theories put forth regarding the jihad fatigue, but none really answers the core question. Obviously something about the medieval jihad strategy failed to click in our country, despite political domination.

Om Namah Shivay