It is Easy to Abuse the BJP/RSS - Just Ask the Pseudo Secularists

It is difficult to respond to a truism. How can one, for example, disagree with someone who says, "Love your fellow man/ woman"? Or, can you disagree if that same person says, "those who don't love their fellow men are not being nice and decent and honourable"?

However, one need not be frustrated or angry with such "moral highgroundists" (if I may coin a neologism). One only needs to be patient and bring in a little bit of logical rigor to show how such pontificators come with their own agendas, their own hatreds, and their own specially manufactured blinkers.

To give you an example, Mike Ghouse, in a short, simplistic and pompous essay says that anyone born in India is an Indian, and that patriotism is "respecting and honouring every Indian, even if they differ from you in colour, size (sic), language, culture, faith or any other distinction that God (of any belief system) has given them." He then goes on to accuse the BJP and the RSS of, with absolutely no evidence to support, being unpatriotic and un-Indian.

The first problem that anyone will have responding to the Ghouses of this world is that it takes more time to refute such nonsense than it took them time to concoct it. It is the problem that one faces when asked the question, "How long is it since you stopped beating your wife?" It is the most ugly, hateful, and wily tactic but it is also very effective. You, if you wish to use it, will realize how much time the one you have accused or challenged will spend in trying to defend himself. The Ghouses of the world have made it a fine art of throwing around such blame like confetti. It is easy to prepare confetti, and it is even more easier to throw it around. But try clearing and picking that darned thing up!

Now, to the matter at hand. What is wrong with the assertion that we should respect and honour anyone born in India? Let us start with the most obvious and simple problem that this raises: should you respect your corrupt and venal neighbour who takes bribes as a government official? Should you honour a colleague who you know is being unfaithful to his/ her spouse? Should you respect a teacher who doesn't care to teach? You may say that I am stretching the argument to absurd lengths. Am I? Tell me so if you think that after you finish reading this essay.

There is no problem with the assertion that you shouldn't discriminate someone based on their colour, size (?!), language.... But here is the rub: can we respect and honour every Indian even if they differ from you in "culture, faith or any other distinction ..." and even if their culture, faith, religion asks them to dishonour yours? What if the person who differs from you in his faith (religious) tells you that his faith basically tells him that Allah is the only God, and that those who don't believe in Allah as the only God, and Mohammed as the last prophet, are kafirs who have to be converted, even if need be, by force and violence? Or what if this person says Jesus is the only son of God, and that if you don't believe in Jesus you will be doomed and go to hell? Will you still respect this person? Would you still like to honour such a person? And remember this person is accusing you that you are being discriminatory and hateful because you have recognized how his faith discriminates profoundly and dangerously. His religion "permits" him to profess an ugly, violent and discriminatory attitude.

However, your accusing him of that is more discriminatory! Double standards? No, pure, simple, and dangerous cockammery! This is what a mathematician would call a "set theory" problem. Let us say that we put together in a tank of salt water both salt water fish and fresh water fish. You can say that they are both fish. But you know which will survive. However, what if you still insist that that's where they will all be and can continue to survive? You can make it a more powerful analogy if you replace fresh water and salt water fish with sharks and dolphins, but won't there be a hue and a cry that will punch holes in your eardrum!

Don't be worried though. Just look at the history of some religions and what they have done to indigenous peoples in South and Central America, the U.S. and Canada, the Africas -- the world over. The indigenous populations have lost their cultures, their languages, even their names! How many Native Americans even have their traditional names? How many of them speak their languages? How many of the peoples of Central America even remember what their local, tribal, community faiths and beliefs were? They will have to travel to the Metropolitan Museum in New York City to catch a glimpse of their past! To come to the point, let us say that we put together in a "tank" (society) all the religions and faiths of the world. The followers of most of these say "you follow your ways and I will follow mine" and you say, "fine". However, some of them tell you that all these other faiths are false, and that they wish to propagate such an idea either through word or the sword and that their "faith" should be considered to be in a secular society "just another faith." This is what could, in ordinary speech, be termed "talking from both sides of your mouth"! That the combined forces of the Left, the pseudo-secularists, the ignorant do-gooders wish to gloss over the dangerous nature of some faiths should make the reader rather wary. Note how these forces use the terms "fascist", "Nazi" and such terms to demonize those who simply say: "Can we read history please, and more carefully look at current events?"

I will not bother readers about the myriad instances recorded by hundreds of historians of the brutal nature of the Muslim invasion of India. Those who seek to find the truth will find it (though the slightly lazy could get in touch with me for some interesting and relevant citations and sources). But I will mention one that happened in the slightly distant past, one this century, and then I will provide some material relating to current events so that you, the reader, can decide if there is any merit to Mr. Ghouse's ululations.

The first. How many of you have visited the site of the Vijayanagara empire? Hampi, the capital of the empire, in northern Karnataka, stands in mute testimony to the wanton destruction by the sultans of the Bahmani empire. Vijayanagara was "more thoroughly sacked than was Delhi by Timur's army" say historians Kulke and Rothermund in A History of India (1993). Those who visit Hampi will be so devastated that few of them will have words to describe their experience. A great imperial capital, of whose wealth, culture, architecture, beauty of its men and women, many have written and sung, and in whose glory days lived the great saint Purandaradasa, the father of modern Karnatak music, was destroyed so thoroughly, and in such a wanton manner that it could be done only by the bigoted, the hateful, the foreigner, and those professing a religion which urges them to do so.

Oh well, you may say, it happened in 1565 A.D. Why bring up old memories, and why lick at old wounds? I say, go visit Hampi and then tell me what you think and feel. I also say, is there any Muslim historian, in India or elsewhere, who has chronicled the sacking and condemned the wantonness? Is there any Imam or a Muslim politician who has pointed to the fact and bemoaned the destruction? There are thousands of them who will beat their breasts about a mediocre little mosque that was built on top of a Hindu temple in Ayodhya and that was torn down by Hindus in 1991. They will point that out to claim it is the end of harmony and mutual respect. But how many of them, even in passing or by mistake have said, "You know, the Muslim invaders brought death, destruction, pain, and suffering to this country. They tried to impose their culture, their faith, their ways, their wantonness on another people. They even succeeded to an extent. Maybe, it is time to acknowledge that." Did you expect President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed or President Zakir Hussain to say it? Does any of the preening politicians like Syed Shahabuddin dare talk about it? What about the mullahs and Imams who at the drop of a hat issue a fatwa? Will they acknowledge India's history?

And here we have a Mike Ghouse, sitting in Dallas, and calling the Bharatiya Janata Party unpatriotic and un-Godly because the BJP and the RSS have on their agenda the recovery of the Kashi Vishwanatha temple in Benares, the Rama temple in Ayodhya, and Krishna's birthplace in Mathura; the abrogation of Article 370 that gives special status to Kashmir; and the promulgation of an Uniform Civil Code.

That makes them traitors? Such ugly assertions and name-calling, born in ignorance, cultivated through arrogance, and spread in Goebbelsian fashion should make the objective reader beware. Very beware.

What about the other seminal event, this century, and the second point I wished to bring up? I will let the inimitable Dr. Ambedkar, the God of the Dalits, speak to the matter.

Those of you interested in reading more of this can read his book, Pakistan or the Partition of India, especially chapter 7. Talking about Muslim atrocities between 1920 and 1940, Ambedkar says this about Gandhi: "He has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus" (p. 156). What does he say about Muslim leaders? "The leading Moslems, however, never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs and agitation was carried on for clemency being shown to them" (p. 157).

What were some of these crimes? Too many to list, but I will focus on the Mopla massacre (euphemistically called the Mopla rebellion). And I will quote Dr. Ambedkar again: "Beginning with the year 1920 there occurred in that year in Malabar what is known as the Mopla Rebellion. It was the result of the agitation carried out by two Muslim organizations, the Khuddam-i-Kaba (servants of the Mecca Shrine) and the Central Khilafat Committee. Agitators actually preached the doctrine that India under the British Government was Dar-ul-Harab and that the Muslims must fight against it and if they could not, they must carry out the alternative principle of Hijrat. The Moplas were suddenly carried off their feet by this agitation..... The aim was to establish the kingdom of Islam by overthrowing the British Government.... As soon as the administration was paralysed, the Moplas declared that Swaraj had been established.... As a rebellion against the British Government it was quite understandable. But what baffled most was the treatment accorded by the Moplas to the Hindus of the Malabar. The Hindus were visited by a dire fate at the hands of the Moplas. Massacres, forcible conversions, desecration of temples, foul outrages upon women, such as ripping open pregnant women, pillage, arson and destruction - in short, all the accompaniments of brutal and unrestrained barbarism, were perpetrated freely by the Moplas upon the Hindus until such time as troops could be hurried to the task of restoring order.... The number of Hindus who were killed, wounded or converted, is not known. But the number must have been enormous" (p. 163).

What was the reaction of Gandhi and the Muslim leaders? Here is the Mahatma: "The Hindus must have the courage and the faith to feel that they can protect their religion in spite of such fanatical eruptions. A verbal disapproval by the Mussalmans of Mopla madness is no test of Mussalman friendship..." (p. 158).

So, given the escape hatch what did the Muslim leaders do? Swami Shradhanand (who was murdered by Muslim fanatics) wrote in the Liberator of August 26th, 1926: "The first warning was sounded when the question of condemning the Moplas for their atrocities on Hindus came up in the Subjects Committee (within the Working Committee of the Congress). The original resolution condemned the Moplas wholesale for the killing of Hindus and burning of Hindu homes and the forcible conversion to Islam. The Hindu members themselves proposed amendments till it was reduced to condemning only certain individuals who had been guilty of the above crimes. But some of the Moslem leaders could not bear this even. Maulana Fakir and other Maulanas, of course, opposed the resolution and there was no wonder. But I was surprised, an out-and-out Nationalist like Maulana Hasrat Mohani opposed the resolution on the ground that the Mopla country no longer remained Dar-ul-Aman but became Dar-ul-Harab and they suspected the Hindus of collusion with the British enemies of the Moplas. Therefore, the Moplas were right in presenting the Quran or the sword to the Hindus. And if the Hindus became Mussalmans to save themselves from death, it was a voluntary change of faith and not forcible conversion...." (Quoted in Ambedkar, p. 159-160) (Italics mine).

And why did I bring the Mahatma into the picture? Do I hate him? I have organized in this small Midwestern town, over the last four years, three classical Indian music concerts exactly on October 2nd. The artistes that I was able to bring here were Ustad Imrat Khan, Pandit Ronu Majumdar, and Nandkishor Muley. I have a picture of Gandhi, the only picture of an Indian, in my office, predominantly displayed. I do not even display any picture of my family members as is the wont in this country! Now, why IS the Mahatma important to this discussion?

Because of the constant haranguing by the opportunists that it was the RSS that was responsible for his assassination. You believe it too, right? Let me quote from an otherwise critical treatise by Curran (Militant Hinduism in Indian Politics), published in 1950: "RSS agitation did not diminish in intensity after Partition. It directed bitter criticism against the Congress leadership, accusing Gandhi, Nehru and other Congress leaders of having appeased the Muslims at the expense of millions of Hindus, and of allowing the Muslim League to mutilate "Sacred Mother India." The RSS had considerable prestige during these days, and by its accusations helped to keep communal passions burning furiously. The climactic tragedy was the assassination of Gandhi.... The national revulsion at this deed led the government, in February 1948 to outlaw the RSS and to imprison most of its leaders. It was soon discovered that Gandhi's assassins were not connected with the RSS, but the ban remained until July 1949 (italics mine). And let us see how Gandhi's name has been used by the pseudo-secularists, feminists, and others who love to use his name as a stick to beat the RSS with. Gandhi has been accused of being a sexist, a patriarch, of being psychologically and emotionally confused, of really being a Hindu (because he loved Rama) despite everything else, etc., etc., etc. So, it is fine for the pseudo-secularists, the Leftists, the feminists in India to assassinate the character of Gandhi but their crime is lesser than the crime they have "foisted" on the RSS, huh?! They have, and continue to, commit a double-murder: the character assassination of Gandhi, and the wanton and false accusation against the RSS. So, now you have it as to why I brought into this discussion the Mahatma.

So, now we know a little more of the history. Raw, straight, without the embellishments of pseudo-secular, leftist, and shrill historians bred and nurtured at JNU. So, is it treasonous of me to bring up these facts?

Am I condemning all Muslims? Am I saying they cannot be Indians?

This article was originally published at Sulekha.

Disclaimer