Noted scientist, professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, free speech absolutist, Darwinian atheist, a fiery debater on television news channels and social events, author and columnist Dr. Anand Ranganathan’s work “Hindus in Hindu Rashtra – Eighth-Class Citizens and Victims of State-Sanctioned Apartheid” published by BluOne Ink LLP, is a masterly depiction of the truth amidst which every Hindu is surviving in independent Bharat post-1947.

Apartheid was a system of institutionalised racial discrimination and segregation that existed in South Africa and South West Africa.  Apartheid ensured that South Africa was dominated politically, socially and economically through ‘minoritarianism’ by the nation’s dominant minority white population.

Dr. Anand Ranganathan, the author, of this masterpiece narrates in detail eight reasons – State approved, legally sanctioned eight measures – which discriminate against Hindus and thus have pushed them to the bottom in terms of their identity and standing in Bharat.  Since these are the measures of the State and its establishment, equating it with Apartheid is apt.

The author lists out the following measures of the establishment, which today has virtually pushed the Hindu community to the gallows:

1. State control of Hindu temples
2. Injustice towards Kashmiri Hindus
3. The Waqf Act, 1995
4. The Right to Education Act
5. Legislations that appease non-Hindus but target Hindus
6. Judiciary that almost exclusively tries to reform Hinduism
7. Celebrating those who killed and converted millions of Hindus
8. Places of Worship Act, 1991

All eight measures find legal sanction and the author delves deep into each of the eight reasons putting forth facts, some hitherto not known to the general public thanks to political treachery and cleverly worded judicial pronouncements.

Sample this:

1. While the Hindus rejoiced at the historical Ayodhya verdict of the Supreme Court, they did not even realise that they had also been whipped to such an extent by the judgement that the laceration was beyond cure when the Supreme Court in its judgement cleverly ratified and upheld the barbaric Places of Worship Act, 1991.  While the Hindus, through this judgement no doubt reclaimed Sri Ram Janmabhoomi, this judgement by the Supreme Court also closed the doors of reclaiming thousands of temples lying buried below a mosque or a church!  This was nothing but a court-approved atrocious barter.
2. While the entire country reveres late Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao for his far-reaching economic reforms, the majority Hindu population forgets that it was under his leadership that, as the author describes, the barbaric legislation ‘ever peddled’ in India, the Places of Worship Act, 1991 was passed.  This Act ensured that legal recourse to correct historical injustices against Hindus was denied permanently.  While P V Narasimha Rao opened the doors of Bharat’s economy through his liberalisation reforms, he also permanently closed the doors on the prospect of reclamation of thousands of civilisational monuments of Hindus.  What more was thus left of our civilisational identity?  P V Narasimha Rao’s action was akin to cutting the hands of a hungry man and offering him a sumptuous meal to have on his own!  Does this man deserve to be revered?

This work certainly proves the ‘free speech absolutist’ credentials of the author for, it does not mince words whether it be criticising certain judgements of the Supreme Court or the appeasement, rather the policy of apartheid by any political class irrespective of ideology, including the current dispensation at the Centre.

From the enactment of laws to negate the judgements in cases like Shah Bano and Shirur Math, to the worshipping of Islamic and Christian invaders and marauders, each and every action be it of the State or the Judiciary, is detrimental to the Hindus and our civilisation.  This is evidenced by the author in all the eight measures pointed out beyond any dispute.

The author’s understanding of political, legal, religious and social issues is unparalleled and the ability to debate and prove his point of view with data makes this book a compelling read.

After reading the book one may be forced to conclude that:

1. Hindu Rashtra is only a mirage and is only a mental construct.  Though Hindus are a majority of Bharat, Hindu Rashtra is not ‘sanctioned’ by the Constitution.  In fact, while ‘Hindu Rashtra’ is an oxymoron, the title ‘Hindus in Hindu Rashtra’ may be a paradox.
2. Hindus in an independent Bharat, post-1947, have lived their lives blissfully unaware of the gloom that has descended on the civilisation thanks to the ‘minoritarianism’ of the State and its organs.  Under a secularised Constitution of Bharat, most of the provisions of which were borrowed from constitutions of other non-Hindu countries, not recognising Bharat as a Hindu Rashtra by the Constitution was the first tight slap on the face of Hindus who were witness to the genocide of lakhs of fellow Hindus at the time of partition of Bharat.  While a separate Islamic nation was created in the name of Pakistan, no Hindu Rashtra was created.  “We, The People of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic….” – read the preamble to the Constitution when it came into effect on 26^th January 1950.  Hindus were slapped once again in 1976 when the words ‘socialist and secular’ were inserted after the word ‘sovereign’ in the preamble to the Constitution through an amendment.  Hindus are therefore one amongst everybody as per the Constitution but less equal, which the author has meticulously proven in his eight-fold reasoning.
3. The understanding that the current dispensation is pro-Hindu is hollow.  It has no basis.  It has an equal share in the discrimination against Hindus and the book provides enough material in this regard.  The author bluntly questions the pro-Hindu image of the current dispensation when he wonders what prevents the current dispensation from repealing anti-Hindu laws like the Places of Worship Act, 1991, The Waqf Act, 1995 etc.  He is right in doing so.  Afterall, this party in power at the Centre rose to prominence by hijacking the Ayodhya movement from the masses and various religious organisations and then encashed it to achieve its political aims.
4. The Hindus should not outsource the battle to protect its civilisational identity to the State for, every other political party has acted to their detriment by resorting to ‘minoritarianism’. 

While most of the points in this short (130 pages) but scholarly and equally important work are agreeable without batting an eyelid, three issues which may merit a disagreement would be:

1. The suggestion that Hindu temples be publicly listed so as to free them from State control may not be a fair suggestion since corporatisation has a friendly handshake with secularisation. Further religious customs and practices are priceless and the assumption that ‘peace of mind and reassurance are products’ that temples can sell is wrong.
2. In the chapter titled ‘Injustice to Kashmiri Hindus’, the author may have inadvertently missed the fact that in 2006 the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had met Yasin Malik, the terrorist who gunned down Indian Air Force officers near Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir during 1990 who later confessed to his crime. It was also revealed by news media that Manmohan Singh wanted to contact militants of Pakistan and that Manmohan Singh’s panel was formed to have an unconditional dialogue with the militants as demanded by Yasin Malik.  This handshake by the former Prime Minister amounted to whitewashing the Kashmiri Pandit genocide.  A crime against Hindus was negated.
3. On page 98 of the book, the author, with reference to the Ayodhya judgement writes thus: “This is what makes me proud, that India through the delivery and acceptance of the Ayodhya judgement, has written her history with the grammar of justice, not anarchy”.  Again, on page 100, the author writes, “That’s why I say, in the matter of Ayodhya or Kashi or Mathura, the Hindus must be thanked for pleading before the court to seek justice”.  Continuing he says, “This atheist owes a debt of gratitude to a billion Hindus who are writing their history with the grammar of justice, not anarchy”.  While it is the duty of every citizen of this country to respect the Constitution and Judiciary, it should not be forgotten that the Ayodhya dispute took close to 500 years to resolve! Post independence it has taken 72 years! Was this pleading or mendicancy? What about the Hindu tradition known as “Kshaatra”?  When the other side is mercilessly exercising street veto power where does our tolerance take us to?

As mentioned earlier, this book is a compelling read for every Hindu.  This book needs to be translated to various Bharatiya languages so that the truth reaches far and wide.

Sources:

1. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/yasin-malik-manmohan-singh-wanted-to-contact-pakistani-militants-205317-2014-08-23
2. https://www.timesnownews.com/india/the-kashmir-files-congress-separatists-worked-together-manmohan-singhs-panel-included-yasin-maliks-demand-of-dialogue-with-militants-article-90426238
3. https://twitter.com/AdityaRajKaul/status/1503063279366672393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1503066659195535368%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftsncrm.truescoopnews.com%2FHome
4. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/yasin-malik-pleads-guilty-in-2017-terror-case/articleshow/91477000.cms

Image source: Twitter