Portraying ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hinduism’ in a puerile and perverted manner is deeply rooted in the psyche of the Indian National Congress
- In Politics
- 11:57 AM, Jul 08, 2024
- Shwetank Bhushan
During a stormy monsoon session in the Parliament, when the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi rose to speak, he held up a placard with the image of Bhagwan Shiva saying that the opposition took refuge in the Hindu deity when it was under attack. Amidst the commotion, and after citing Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism to emphasise non-violence, he also said, “Those who call themselves Hindus, talk about violence, hatred and lies 24 hours.”
It is not the first time that a Congress leader has portrayed ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hinduism’ in a puerile and perverted manner. This phenomenon is deeply rooted in the psyche of the Indian National Congress. Let us not subscribe this to Rahul Gandhi alone. It is just a carry-forward.
Since the Nehruization of the Indian National Congress, the words ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hinduism’ have been made to sound dirty and despicable. All sorts of scholars, scribes, and politicians who subscribe to what passes for Secularism in India have been after these two words with hammer and tongs. The phrase ‘Hindu fundamentalism,’ has long been coined and portrayed in this puerile and perverted manner with great fanfare.
The puzzle gets solved when one contemplates the character of Indian Secularism and finds that it is no more than a smokescreen used by the Muslim-Christian-Communist combine to keep India’s national society and culture at bay. One must study the doctrines of Islam, Christianity and Communism if one wants to understand why the adherents of these ideologies present ‘Hindus’ and ‘Hinduism’ the way they do.
It makes it worthwhile to review the history of the words ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hinduism’ first and determine what the words have meant, at what time, and to whom.
A study of literary and epigraphic sources shows that the word ‘Hindu’ has appeared in our indigenous languages or popular parlance in a comparatively recent period, keeping in view the long span of our recorded history. We do not find this word in any indigenous language before the advent of Islamic invaders from the seventh century onwards and yet was used sparsely in the local literature.
The word “Hindu” occurs for the first time in the “Avesta” of the ancient Iranians who used this word for designating this country as well as its people. It was simply their way of pronouncing the word “Sindhu”, the name of the mighty river which has always been a major landmark for travellers to this country from lands towards the north-west. The Iranians became more hostile to the ‘Hindus’ (which had acquired a religious connotation), as Buddhism spread in Khurasan and Central Asia.
Then the Arab and Turk invaders defined the ‘Hindus’ as idolaters and started using it frequently for the hated ‘but-prast’. At the time the Islamic invaders appeared on the scene, the people of this country subscribed to numerous ways of worship. But the Muslim chronicles noticed no Buddhists, no Jains, no Shaivas, no Shaktas, no Vaisnavas, but all as ‘Hindus’ and despised them as the ‘crow-faced kafir’, and the “blind but-prast’.
By the time the Islamic sword swept over the South, and the Vijayanagara Empire took shape, the word ‘Hindu’ became a source of unity, and the natives invested it with immense pride. Native heroes such as Maharana Kumbhakarna and Krishnadevaraya, who defeated the Islamic onslaught, were hailed as ‘Hindu’ heroes. Maharana Pratap of Mewar becomes renowned as ‘Hindu-kula-kamala-divakara.’ Chhatrapati Shivaji was hailed as the saviour of ‘Hindu Dharma’. And the word ‘Hindu’ stood sanctified when Sanatana Dharma became known as Hindu Dharma.
The gravest injury that Hindus had suffered at the hands of Islamic imperialism was the destruction of their temples and monasteries, which were also seats of higher learning, and the slaughter of Brahmanas and Buddhist monks, who were not only priests and spiritual practitioners but were also leaders of larger Hindu thought.
Hindus survived the onslaught of Islamic imperialism and came out of it with renewed pride in their spiritual and cultural heritage. The wounds inflicted on Hindu religion, culture, society, polity, and economy were deep and needed time to heal. Hindus did not get that time as new forms of imperialism appeared on the scene in successive waves while Hindus were still battling with the residues of Islamic imperialism.
How and why the latter-day imperialisms succeeded where Islamic imperialism had failed, is a long and complex phenomenon.
Alexander, who succeeded in breaking through India’s border defences in the fourth century BC, was soon tired out and turned back by the stiff resistance offered by the small republics. He wanted to know as to why the Indians had fought so bravely. He was told by his advisers that the Indians fought so well because they were guided by the ‘Brahmanas’. He met some Brahmanas and learnt the substance of their teaching.
But neither the Macedonian adventurer nor the Islamic invaders had spotted the second line of “Hindu” defence – the decentralised Hindu social organisation. That was left to the Christian pirate, Francis Xavier, who landed in Goa in AD 1542, and concluded that Christianity was not likely to make much headway in this country so long as the Hindus had the “Brahmanas” and the “Varna System” to teach and protect them.
Christian imperialism which had arrived in India at the beginning of the sixteenth century, received a new lease of life with the triumph of British arms by the end of the eighteenth. What made the real big difference in favour of the new adversaries was the Western scholarship. Francis Xavier’s perceptions came in handy. They chose a concentrated attack on the ‘Brahmanas’, as well as the decentralised Hindu social organisation which had served them as their second line of defence whenever the Hindu state broke down under the impact of a foreign invasion. Brahmanas were ridiculed as practitioners of puerile priestcraft, and the Hindu social organisation was denounced as the ‘Caste System’ invented by the ‘Aryan invaders’ to keep down the toiling masses.
It is noticeable that the word ‘Hinduism’ has been added to our vocabulary at a still more recent stage. It was originally contributed by the modern discipline of Indology and gained wide currency in this country simply because the leaders of our national reawakening in the second half of the nineteenth century espoused it as expressive of our national identity as well as our spiritual and cultural greatness.
This was the time when Swami Vivekananda’s speech in the global interfaith dialogue had a profound impact on the audience. His message of universalism, tolerance, and the spiritual essence of ‘Hinduism’ left a lasting impression and continues to inspire people around the world to this day. These leaders, from Savarkar down to Gandhi, never conceded that ‘Hinduism’ did not include Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, or any other way of worship that had its roots in India.
Finally, Communist imperialism jumped into the fray in the wake of the Bolshevik revolt in Russia. The Christian missions, the British administrators, the Communist fifth column, and Secularists of the Nehruvian brand – all had joined the ranks of these Hindu baiters. In fact, Nehruvian Secularism embodies all imperialist ideologies that have come to this country in the wake of foreign invasions.
The essential theme of this Western scholarship was that the white man’s civilisation is the highest achievement in human history and that the white man must shoulder the heavy burden of pulling the rest of the world out of different stages of savagery. It was a pure coincidence that this scholarship surfaced at the same time as modern science. This coincidence enabled this scholarship not only to harness modern science for its imperialist purposes but also to pretend that it shared the scientific spirit. Marxism-Leninism has been the culmination of this masquerade.
The salient features of the portrait of ‘Hindus’ and ‘Hinduism’ which this scholarship proceeded to paint (THE LIES), were as follows:
- That a race of bloodthirsty, God-worshipping barbarians – The Aryans, invaded this country and settled down to live on the fertile land for all time to come.
- The Aryans created a ‘Caste System,’ constituting Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas as upper castes, while the conquered populace were reduced to Shudras and outcaste untouchables.
- The Aryans concocted priestcraft, presided over by the wily Brahmins and couched in the complex Sanskrit literature, to legitimise and safeguard the Caste System.
- Brahminism destroyed the shrines and slaughtered the holy men of Buddhism and Jainism because these rationalist and humanitarian religions questioned the iniquities and cruelties of the Caste System and pleaded for a just and equalitarian social order.
- Hindus, the upper caste descendants of the Aryan invaders have joined hands with every reactionary ideology and force – feudalism, capitalism, colonialism, etc., to safeguard the Caste System and their stranglehold on the toiling masses of India.
This was the lore that was published by prestigious publishing houses such as the Oxford University Press. This was the lore that was taught in schools and colleges under an education system designed and controlled by the British establishment and the Christian missions. This was the lore that became the stock-in-trade of the Communist Party of India, the Muslim League and a large section of the Indian National Congress under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru.
The word ‘Hindu’ was thus robbed of all the pride and prestige it had acquired over the past several centuries, and the word ‘Hinduism’ was made to mean not only primitive superstition but also an oppressive social system. The ‘Dravidian South’ was taken out of the Hindu fold and called upon to rise in revolt against everything Hindu. Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism became revolts against Hinduism alias Brahminism. The word ‘Hindu’ no longer designated the majority population, and the word ‘Hinduism’ no longer stood for the vast spiritual vision and variegated cultural complex in this country.
At the same time, some Muslim and Marxist scholars had come forward to salvage Islam from its blood-soaked history. Prof. Mohammad Habib of the Aligarh Muslim University propounded that Islam was a doctrine not only of religious tolerance but also of social equality and human brotherhood. He explained away the extensive destruction of Hindu temples at the hands of Islamic invaders in terms of the sultans’ lust for loot. The chief charlatan M. N. Roy proclaimed that Islam had come to India to complete the social revolution that Buddhism had started but failed to accomplish.
Muslim leaders had branded the Congress as a Hindu organisation ever since its birth in 1885. They had denounced the freedom struggle against the British as an attempt to impose the Hindu Raj on the Muslims. The Congress leaders were trying to prove that their organisation was not Hindu but national. However, the Muslims had refused to cooperate with the Congress except during the short-lived Khilafat agitation.
The Khilafat agitation ended in a fiasco, and the Ulama came out with cries of jihad against the Hindu Kafirs. Instead of revising its policy of all-out appeasement of the Muslims after this reminder, Congress did just the opposite. Nehru had already started selling Mahmud of Ghazni as a brilliant soldier, Babur as a man of great culture, and Akbar as the father of Indian nationalism. All those Hindus who refused to swallow this history were now getting denounced as ‘Hindu communalists.’
M K Gandhi was neither a Marxist nor an Islamophile. He was a staunch Hindu who was aware of the vast Hindu spiritual vision, its rich cultural complex, and the glorious historical traditions. But neither his admirers nor his opponents paid any attention to this side of his personality. Both remained preoccupied with Gandhi’s policy vis-a-vis the Muslims. Unfortunately, his knowledge of Islam was not only less than poor, but he also had little patience for those who tried to place before him the facts regarding the doctrine of Islam. The only thing that can be said in favour of Gandhi Ji is that he never indulged in or encouraged Hindu-baiting.
The words “Hindu” and “Hinduism” had not yet become dirty except among a small minority of Marxists, particularly the disciples of M.N. Roy. The Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS were still functioning and were not ashamed of describing themselves as Hindu organisations. Gandhi Ji was still introducing himself as a Sanatani Hindu. Congress leaders other than Nehru could still promise that the Somnath Temple would be restored. Cow protection could still be incorporated into the Constitution as one of its Directive Principles.
Gandhi Ji became a problem for Hindus only because he made Hindu-Muslim unity into a sacred cult and refused to listen to any voice of dissent. He was all smiles for those who subscribed to his cult. His advice to the Hindus was that the “communal problem” would be solved if the Hindus continued to concede Muslim demands. In short, he was asking the Hindus to commit suicide. It was a great tragedy that a staunch Hindu became the bridge over which all sorts of Hindu-baiters – Marxists, Mullahs, and the self-loathing Hindus crossed over to the Congress camp and captured it completely soon after his death.
Nehru had never had any use for Gandhi Ji except as a shield against what he described as the reactionary forces inside the Congress. Nehru’s first opportunity to strike a blow at Hindus and Hinduism came when Gandhi Ji was murdered by a Hindu. He and his brigade inside and outside the Congress sprang into action as never before, attacking the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS, making political use of the national tragedy.
The Communist Party of India was revising its line under orders from Moscow and had already started denouncing Gandhi Ji as “the cleverest bourgeois scoundrel”. But after his murder, the Party’s press was reminding the people that the ‘Mahatma’ had not died a natural death but had been murdered by Hindus. Even the Muslim leaders who had all along abused Gandhi Ji an enemy of Islam, were shedding crocodile tears. The combined call was to accuse ‘Hinduism’ of a conspiracy to get Gandhi Ji out of the way. The murder of Gandhi Ji is still being used by the Hindu baiters as a stick to beat the Hindus.
The situation started worsening after Nehru rose to supreme power after the death of Sardar Patel. He blamed partition also on “communalism”, a word by which he always meant ‘Hinduism’.
“It must be recognised that the Muslims in India cannot, in the nature of things, adopt an aggressive attitude. Individuals may do so, or occasionally small groups. But conditions in India are such and their numbers are relatively so small that any attempt at aggressive action would recoil on them. It is only when they become afraid that desperation seizes them and then they may act wrongly and aggressively. This fact has to be kept in mind because without realising this we shall fail to act correctly or take proper measures. Basically, the responsibility for communal peace rests on the majority community, that is, the Hindus. If there is a breach of this peace, I would start with the presumption that it has been caused by the Hindu communal elements who have created a situation leading to fear and conflict. Indeed, this is not a question of Hindu or Muslim, but the majority always being responsible for this kind of thing.”
[Letters for a Nation: From Jawaharlal Nehru to his Chief Ministers. 18th May 1959]
Nehru placed the strategic Ministry of Education in the hands of a Marxist-Muslim combine headed by an Islamic fundamentalist, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. The missionary apparatus which had panicked when it saw the British Raj ending, was feeling self-confident again. Prof. Mohammed Habib came out with his latest thesis that the so-called Muslim conquest of India was an “urban revolution” in which the “Indian working class” had opted for the Shariat as against the Smriti, and for the leadership provided by the Turks as against the Thakuris. Nehru endorsed the thesis in a Preface. He also patronised the Communist Party till it became a formidable force with dreams of forming the next government. Had not Mao Zedong spoiled Nehru’s game, one wonders where he would stop in his drive against ‘Hindus’ and ‘Hinduism’.
Indira Gandhi carried her father’s anti ‘Hindu’ programme much further. She had no ideology except that of using everything and everyone to build her personal power. But the Communists proved to be her most reliable prop. She placed well-known Communists in positions of power. The Muslim-Marxist combine was placed in control of the Indian Council of Historical Research, and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to lay down the guidelines for producing school textbooks. JNU was created and financed on a fabulous scale for collecting Communist professors from all over the country. It was not long before an all-out campaign was launched for fighting “communalism”, that is, Hinduism, and promoting “Secularism”, that is Islam.
By now, the word “Secularism” had become a sacred word that nobody was allowed to question as regards its meaning. The Sikhs had already opted out of the Hindu fold. The Buddhists and the Jains started saying loudly that they were not Hindus. A section of the Arya Samaj was also distancing itself from the Hindu fold. The word “Hindu” became a dirty word in the academia as well as the media.
Then Rajiv Gandhi, despite an unprecedented majority succumbed to the fundamentalists in the Shah Bano case. When he appeared excessively pro-Muslim, his government allowed the activists of VHP to perform ‘Shilanyas’ inside the disputed Babri premise. The Muslim extremists started hateful speeches fuelling an uncontrollable communal frenzy, that triggered many devastating communal riots across India.
The situation led to some signs of Hindu unrest. Hindus witnessed a few fire-brand unapologetic Hindu leaders like Ashok Singhal, Sadhvi Ritambhara, and Uma Bharti, who galvanised the Hindu sentiments with the call – “Garv Se Kaho Ham Hindu Hain, Hindostan Hamara Hai.”
But before the Hindus could start asserting, happened a humongous disaster in Vishvanath Pratap Singh. He spewed the caste poison by throwing the Mandal Bomb and pushed India and the united Hindu cause a few decades back. His cabinet colleague, Sharad Yadav proudly claimed, “With Mandal we have made sure that Hindus will never unite.”
The BJP saw an opportunity to consolidate Hindus. Lal Krishna Advani, at the behest of VHP, organised a rath yatra to push its Ram Mandir agenda. He astutely managed to repackage the core Hindutva ideal for modern India by propagating cultural nationalism. It was the arrival of a new dawn and an era of Hindu revivalism. The symbol of Hindu subjugation and Hindu civilisation’s centuries-old trauma, Babri was brought down.
While reams and reams of papers were used to write Op-eds pushing the Hindus into another decade of guilt trip, India witnessed Islamic resurgence with the aid of its neighbours in the form of bomb blasts and terror attacks. The worst time for the Hindus began with the fall of PM Vajpayee‘s India-shining campaign.
Led by Sonia Gandhi, the entire UPA dispensation misused and abused the constitutional offices under oath and compromised the national security of this country. From the anti-Godhra campaign to the invention of “Hindu Terror”, Congress had a cloaked dagger against the Hindus. The Home Minister of our country was indicting his police personnel to ensure the terrorists sent by Pak-ISI become martyrs. Unbelievable! But true!! The horrifying 26/11 Mumbai attack was the culmination of the Hindu Terror conspiracy, a part of which was hatched in India’s Home Ministry. The Communal Violence Bill would have been a reality if their brazen corruption hadn’t come to light.
The Achhe-Din for Hindus began with the emergence of PM Narendra Modi. From awakening Hindus to uniting them cutting across all manufactured fault lines, to invoking civilisational renaissance, the present generation of Hindus are blessed to have Narendra Modi as their leader. Finally, the fake Nehruvian Idea of India has been shunned once and for all, and the original Idea of India redefined, with the Pran Pratishtha of Shri Ram Lalla. Those powerful words said that day will remain etched in the consciousness of the entire Hindu civilisation.
However, the sad part is that the Indians have still not been able to put the ugly Casteist Genie released by VP Singh back into the bottle and Congress with its allies continue to feed on it.
It is difficult to say how things will take shape. The only thing that can be said for sure is that India has no future till the words “Hindu” and “Hinduism” regain pride, and the word “Secularism” is seen for the poison it carries in its Nehruvian version. It is time for Hindu scholarship to see through the manipulations that have made the words “Hindu” and “Hinduism” sound dirty.
As the Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the other day in Parliament: “अब हिंदू समाज को सोचना पड़ेगा कि क्या ये अपमान कोई संयोग है, या बड़े प्रयोग की तैयारी है? (if this ridicule of Hindus is a coincidence, or a new conspiracy?)”
Image source: Shwetank's Pad
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. MyIndMakers is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of MyindMakers and it does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.
Comments