|
Blog Home
News Home
Write your Column at iVarta
India, Asia and Global
Breaking Stories, Latest News Headlines, Opinion, Analysis
Columns and Discussions Business, Social and Community Networking.
Comprehensive
Collection of India News, Articles, Columns, Analysis and Research Papers.
Facts about India, Indian History, Culture, Yoga, Meditation & Ayurveda and
more…
|
|
|
|
Oct-13-2008
Author's Home Page
Views expressed here are author"s own and not of this website. Full disclaimer is
at the bottom.
()
 Feedback to author
Are Hindus violent?
In recent times Hindu organizations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal, are increasingly, accused of propagating violence. In Orissa and Karnataka, Hindus stand indicted for homicide and Church destruction in response to the brutal murder of a Hindu Swami and to aggressive Christian evangelism. Some politicians, English media and Islamic leaders have raised a chorus, despite the proud claims of responsibility by Islamic terrorist groups and firm evidence collected by the investigating authorities, claiming that it is Hindus who have covertly initiated the series of recent terrorist activities of serial blasts to discredit the Muslim minorities, in the strange logic that Hindu groups stand to benefit the most if Muslims are defamed. Consistent with this bizarre rationale is the shrill demand for a ban on these Hindu organizations, by Muslim appeasing politicians and hypocritical, self appointed watchdogs of human rights. Meanwhile the thinly veiled Christian empires of the West have lent their political muscle along with their treasuries to cower upon a weak-kneed Indian government. The Pope, the Italian, French, European Union and US governments have risen up in unison to demonstrate that the modern Western State is nothing more than the executive arm of the Church. Such is their concern over the loss of a few Indian Citizens since their stripes are Christian, as if affiliation to a Church overrides their national and cultural identity of eons. Our minority Prime Minister has done his due diligence by claiming the Hindu"s reaction in Orissa to be a national shame.
Are Hindus Violent? - Part I
Are Hindus Violent? - Part II
Are Hindus Violent? - Part III
So are the "nonviolent" Hindus taking recourse to violence? Do Hindus indulge in unprovoked violence? Even if provoked, is "Hindu" violence justifiable? Should Hindus retaliate and be revengeful? What is the Hindu scriptural dictate"?
During the Mahabharata war, according to the Bhagvat Gita, Lord Krishna revealed himself to Arjun and asked him to wage "dharma-yuddha". Do we question the Lord for inciting Arjun into violence? Was Lord calling for revenge or was he merely advocating preservation of Dharma and the path of righteousness that befits Kshatriya Dharma? Arjun rightly feared the destruction but the Lord merely asked for right action guided by Dharma, not action tailored to outcomes of personal gain.
To make a nonviolent interpretation of the Gita, was what perhaps Mahatma Gandhi did, but that does not negate the need for necessary violence, without which we would not have any need for judiciary, police or armed forces. Protection of self is a necessity - all civil societies so agree. Nobody argues that nonviolence is a desirable quality. It is true that Hindus do not force their religion on "non Hindus". On the other hand, history is witness to the violence and atrocities committed by Muslims or Christians all over the world, past and present, in the name of religion. A malignant self-destructive nonviolence has been subtly allowed to sprout and mushroom in the collective psyche of the Hindus, and "inaction" has been deceptively euphemized as "tolerance" to destroy our righteous will. Our independence struggle has been almost totally credited to this Gandhian philosophy, which is a huge injustice to the large number of leaders and common people who have given up their lives for our freedom.
Have Hindus always been nonviolent? Don"t we believe that the "virtuous Devtas" always fought the "evil doing Asuras"? Wasn"t it a necessity for Lord Vishnu to incarnate repeatedly in the form of his various "avatars" to save the universe from evil forces? Wasn"t it required of Ram to kill Ravan for a just cause? Didn"t Krishna use his divine power right from childhood to slay the demons and "save the innocents" repeatedly?
It is devious to say that Sanatan Dharma preaches only "nonviolence"? It is equally wrong to claim that tolerance of atrocities and adharma is a virtue. On the contrary acceptance of "adharma" is not merely cowardice, it is also sinful. This is why Swami Vivekananda said, "if there is a sin, it is weakness"
Does that make Hinduism the same as other religion in its approach to the concept of violence? The answer is no. Unlike the scriptural sanction of violence in propagation of some monotheistic faiths, Sanatan Dharma has no such parallel; it merely exhorts one to righteousness, which does not include propagation of one"s faith as the only true faith. This is a foundational difference which must never be lost sight of.
Hinduism does not promote violence when it is not necessary or against the innocent. Even in war we had our ethos and principles. Harold Wilson (1786-1860), a British Orientalist wrote "The Hindu laws of war are very chivalrous and humane, and prohibit the slaying of the unarmed, of women, of the old, and of the conquered. "
Megasthenes observed ". among the Indians, . by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighborhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides, they never ravage an enemy"s land with fire, nor cut down its trees"
Can we say the same about the invaders of Bharatvarsha over the centuries? Even our whitewashed history, as we read today, will not support that. Whole scale massacres, rape and destruction in the name of religion and God were the rule rather than the exception. Dr.Younis Shaikh, Pakistani and author of "Islam and Women" writes "..eighty million were slaughtered and millions of women were raped...it was standard practice for Islamic warlords like Ghori and Ghazni to unleash the mass rape and enslavement of hundreds of thousands of women after the slaughter of all males. A large percentage of Muslims in South Asia today are the progeny of forcible conversions and systematic rape campaigns by marauding Muslim invaders. "
In the words of Alain Danielou (1907-1994), French philosopher and writer, "From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of "a holy war" of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races..Mahmoud Ghazni.was an early example of Muslim ruthlessness, burning in 1018 of the temples of Mathura, razing Kanauj to the ground and destroying the famous temple of Somnath, sacred to all Hindus. His successors were as ruthless as Ghazni: 103 temples in the holy city of Benaras were razed to the ground, its marvelous temples destroyed, its magnificent palaces wrecked..Indeed, the Muslim policy vis a vis India, seems to have been a conscious systematic destruction of everything that was beautiful, holy, refined. "
The Western (read Christian) mission on India was no less barbarous. This was Max Mueller"s comment" "India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again. the ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be? "
The history of Christianity, despite the deception of fables of love and mercy of the savior, has been a trail of bloodshed and horror wherever it has stepped in the world. It is an unrelenting continuity of persecution of peoples who differed from the Christian doctrine. The "dark ages" of Europe testify to the horror of crusades, slavery, witch hunt and annihilation of the "pagans"
The Goa Inquisition (1560-1812) in India, the idea of St. Francis Xavier (who is glorified by the unknowing Indians, in the form of all the educational institutions that bear his name, in almost every major cities in the country) was described thus by a Christian historian Dr. T. R. de Souza, "At least from 1540 onwards, and in the island of Goa before that year, all the Hindu idols had been annihilated or had disappeared, all the temples had been destroyed and their sites and building material was in most cases utilized to erect new Christian Churches and chapels. Various vice regal and Church council decrees banished the Hindu priests from the Portuguese territories; the public practices of Hindu rites including marriage rites, were banned; the state took upon itself the task of bringing up Hindu orphan children; the Hindus were denied certain employments, while the Christians were preferred; it was ensured that the Hindus would not harass those who became Christians, and on the contrary, the Hindus were obliged to assemble periodically in Churches to listen to preaching or to the refutation of their religion. "
All in the name of the cross!
Bharatvarsha and Hindus have tolerated all this before independence. Are Hindus any better off now? Has their lot changed? Have they revived themselves in any meaningful way?
Rizwan Salim, reviewer, New York Tribune, writes, "Given the reality that Hindustan is the longest surviving ancient civilization and Hindus have to their credit so many unaccountable and such astonishing achievements of architecture and painting, music and dance, poetry and drama, epics and narratives, intellectual systems and philosophical doctrines, healing systems and mind-body disciplines, Hindus of every caste and class today should have possessed a well-informed and well-developed, intense and, fully conscious cultural pride. But one of the principal tragedies of contemporary India is that the majority of even the educated and otherwise affluent Hindus does not possess a deep and extensive knowledge of their culture-and do not give evidence of an intensely felt cultural pride. Lacking profound cultural knowledge and intense cultural pride, India"s intellectuals regard the fashionable ideas and ideologies from Europe and America as unquestionably superior to Bharat"s thousands of years old Hindu culture and wisdom. "
We still remain under forces that do not allow us to live our life and practice our religion freely in our own country. Our subjugators prefer the tolerant, docile harmless Gandhian Hindu. We are made to believe that an assertive Hindu is not the "real Hindu"; only the assertive Christian and the assertive Muslim is real - that being their natural state has to be so accepted!
It is unfashionable to claim oneself as a Hindu - doing so is equated to "being a fundamentalist". The same "stigma" does not apply to a Muslim or Christian - it is their religious right!
Hindus are being denigrated by their own media and politicians in the name of "secularism" which is equated with anti-Hinduism. In India, most of print and electronic media is controlled by foreign funded, anti-Hindu forces that are more than happy to denounce Hinduism and spread misinformation about Hindu religious icons and scriptures. Irrespective of truth and morality, it is "progressive" thinking to talk about minority rights and politically correct to voice minority concerns. Since Hindus have suffered for 14 centuries, suffering for the Hindu is but natural. Why talk about it?
Every attempt is made to divide Hindu unity, to disrobe Hindu pride, to denigrate Hindu saints and deities. Our religion is portrayed as superstitious, our tradition as old fashioned, our beliefs as non-progressive. Our history is distorted and our achievements are belittled. Our historical exhibitions are forcefully shut down, our processions are diverted, our celebrations are rescheduled and our meetings are disallowed to avoid "minority displeasure" and to promote "peace and communal harmony". Ram is abused as a drunkard and Krishna is vilified as a "characterless womanizer", while an invited Pope openly aspires to change the religion of our land and a resident chief Imam continuously delivers anti-national speech and open threats to the integrity of the country. Sankaracharya is treated worse than an ordinary criminal and not even allowed to cook his own food but Abdul Madani, the "main accused" in the Coimbatore bomb blast case, which left 58 dead, is provided all the facilities, including a regular masseur and Muslim terrorist inmates regularly make phone calls from their cell phone to Pakistan.
It is non-secular and communal to talk about Vivekananda"s nationalism, to sing Bankim"s Vandematram, to dream of Gandhi"s Ram Rajya, to reclaim our demolished temples of Rama, Krishna and Shiva, but it is perfectly secular and consistent with minority rights to portray Bharatmata and our Gods in nude, to refuse to hoist the tricolor in madrassas, to wave flags of our enemies in our soil and to preach that our religion, the Sanatan Dharma, that Rishi Aurobindo described as the "soul of India", as a dark mythology that guarantees a ride to hell and thus needs to be rescued in the name of the father and the son.
Terrorist groups are sympathized with as "victims of circumstances", their families compensated and taxpayers money is spent for their legal aid, duly endorsed by "secular" ministers; terrorist victims are brushed away as collateral damage and urged to maintain peace and harmony. Police and armed forces, who risk their daily life and safety for our protection, are vigorously scrutinized to detect even the minutest of flaws, by so called "human right sympathizers of terrorism".
Hindus are expected to shut their eyes, ears and mouth in reaction to all of these activities. Any protest against atrocities committed by non Hindus, calls for the wrath of media as "militancy", "fundamentalism" and "extremism".
Sadly, most of these so called secularists, politician and media intellectuals, who are totally anti-Hindu in their words, deeds and thinking, are not believers of any other faith but are actually Hindu by birth and perhaps will have Hindu rituals at death.
Hindus are cornered, resentful and frustrated but they have still largely remained true to their Dharma of tolerance and nonviolence. Should they keep on doing so for eternity?
The vast majority of Hindus live a life of peaceful and non-interfering existence, contended with their small nucleus of family and friends, happy with their fate and faith, worshipping their Gods in their own way, in their temples or in the corner of their house, without any malice to other religions.
Their demands are also few - just a little bit of peace and noninterference in exchange, from the non-Hindu religions. Just an assurance from their elected leaders and government, that the country"s resources are to be used for the development of the entire population, without religious and other bias. Is it too unfair or adharmic to ask that in their, own, independent country, in which they are still the majority?
Hindus watch silently in the case of "Rama Sethu" and "Amaranth shrine" that their own leaders pamper all except the Hindus and crush the Hindu"s just rights with arrogant impunity. They see and realize that non-Hindu religions get their demands fulfilled and things done because they are much more organized, more forceful, more connected, more political, more aggressive and more threatening. On the other hand, there is a conscious effort of multiple forces to prevent Hindus from organizing.
Hindus have seen their land divided, their people uprooted before and they see again the shadow of infiltration by the same perpetrators, encroaching their country, with the support of their own leaders and government.
Hindu religious institutions are being governed by people, including non Hindus, contemptuous of their faith. The sacred donations they put at their deity"s feet are used, not for temple upkeep, but to fund mosques or for religious pilgrimages to Mecca and Jerusalem.
The country"s public resources, instead of being used for all countrymen, are diverted to provide "economic and educational packages" to the non Hindu community, while the Hindu poor and uneducated are left to mend their lot on their own. Muslim and Christian educational institutions run on government subsidies and discriminatively cater to their respective communities with total disregard to demographic representation. There is no such subsidy available for Hindu institutions.
The larger Hindu community, already hamstrung by caste and tribe reservations, does not have demographically proportionate access to education and jobs, in their own country.
Hindus worries and concerns fall on to deaf ears. Hindu sentiments do not carry any values. Their newspapers and televisions largely follow the line of a shamelessly biased and distorted "secularism".
A Hindu action is "condemned" eternally; a Muslim or Christian action is "minimized".
A Muslim or Christian reaction is "justified"; a Hindu reaction is "thrashed and trounced" for days.
A Hindu saint is murdered, that is "normal" news. The Hindus react to it, that is uncivilized and barbaric.
When Muslims pelt stones on Hindu temples and processions, it is forgivable but when Hindus retaliate, it is punishable.
When they shout, "Allah is the only God" next to your door, it is their religious right but when Hindus chant "Jai Sri Ram", it is instigation.
Hindus of Kashmir were forced to leave their land and live as refugees in their own country - that hardly raised a human rights" concern. Hindu refugees from the time of partition are still not citizens of India but Bangladeshi infiltrators of recent times are welcomed with voter cards and ration cards and our ministers plead for their citizenship.
Hindus watch as Pakistan and Bangladesh continue to wage religious animosity, decimate their minority Hindu population, actively participate in terrorism and wage overt or covert war towards India.
Hindus read that their Jawans get killed regularly from cross border firing and feel their national pride shattered with each "peace talk" and each gimmick of "peace buses" and "Samjhauta and Moitri expresses".
Hindus see that their government, lead by their Human Resource Minister, Arjun Singh, has no hesitation in allotting funds for development of Madrassas and Mosque but wants to throttle the Ekal Vidyalaya movement, the single teacher schools that are the only hope of remote, tribal area children, because they teach "the Indian way (A for Arjun rather than A for Apple)" and because they are "communal" since they are run by Hindu organizations. (Hindus wonder whether Mr. Arjun Singh would like to disown his Hindu name or the name of his Fifth Guru and whether it would be more Indian to say, "A for Ali or Alexander", instead.) The is the same Arjun Singh who, without hesitation, approves the decision of Jamia Millia Islamia University to fund legal aid to two of its students accused in the Delhi serial blasts.
Hindus wonder why the Prime minister of their country, instead of ensuring constitutional equality, claims, "Muslims have first right to national resources", and are bewildered when their Prime Minister bats for their enemy with comments like "Pakistan too is a victim of terrorism" and ""Let us not brand Indians and Pakistanis as terrorists" or announces, "Terrorists and those who support them are enemies of the people of India and Pakistan"
Hindus worry when the Shahi Imam Bukhari of Jama Masjid aspires "We were rulers here for 800 years. Inshaallah, we shall return to power here once again"" and threatens "this country is in for another partition, so let us be prepared for nation wide riots and violence. "
The anti-Hindu political clout and media has no intention or courage to criticize such anti-national activities or to protest the riots and killing of Hindus on the pretext of Danish cartoon and death of Saddam Hussain. Whenever the minorities are "angry", they are justified to vent it by killing Hindus and looting their properties. The media conveniently forgets the unprovoked violence of the Moplah riots, the Direct Action Day, the Noakhali murders, the Partition related massacres and the extermination of millions of Hindus in Bangladesh.
The Babri masjid (previously known as Janmasthan Mosque, signifying the birthplace of Ram) demolition is repeatedly reminded as the justification of the country wise and subcontinent wise temple destructions and Hindu killings that followed but the burning of over fifty "karsevaks", mostly women and children, as the provocation for Gujrat riot, is conveniently whitewashed by a fake enquiry commission, as an accident. The centuries old mayhem of Hindu and Indian society is deliberately wiped out of History books, in the effort to "promote communal harmony". But the Gujrat riot, where, even according to the opposition Congress Government"s statistics, 25% of the fatalities were Hindus and scores died from police firing, is forced into history books as a "planned Muslim genocide", thus, ironically, testifying which community actually disrupts communal harmony the most.
If a victim has a Muslim name like Rizwanur, the media and political circus continues for weeks but hardly anybody raises a eyebrow about a Hindu called Shailendra Prasad, who is beheaded, on the order of a "Muslim village court" for marrying a Muslim woman, in communist ruled west Bengal. (Kangaroo court "executes" man for marrying outside religion.
The Hindus are continuously reminded that "terrorists have no religion" and "all Muslims are not terrorists"; hardly a consolation for the centuries of killings and destruction that still continues. Hindus want their sufferings to be acknowledged, to say the least. The Jews do not send suicide bombers to Germany for the Nazi atrocities but they sure want the world to keep on remembering their sufferings. The Hindus want the same for their much larger holocaust, because truth and not revenge, is also what they seek.
Despite being on the receiving end for centuries and even now, Hindus have so far still maintained their ethics. How many of Hindu Muslim conflicts are initiated by Hindus? How many Hindus bomb are blasted in a hospital or a busy market or mall, to cause death of innocents? If so called "oppression" was the cause of birth of a terrorist, how many terrorist have we seen from the 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits who were uprooted and forced to live in refugee camps for over a generation? If "lack of education" was the reason for becoming a suicide bomber, how do you explain the doctors and computer scientists, who are members of Indian Mujaheddin, involved in serial blasts?
Hindus remembers what Rishi Aurobindo had said about Hindu Muslim integration, "I am sorry they are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslim and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Otherwise, we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when in fact we have only shelved it."
Organized, united and assertive is what Hindus have to be, for therein lies their survival and the integrity of their motherland.
(To be Continued ...)
Feedback to author
References & Notes:
Author's Home Page
|
|
|
|
|