Hindu-Muslim composite culture on display in Pakistan


Hindus in Pakistan continue to be given lessons in Hindu-Muslim composite culture, secular syncretism and South Asian “brown” identity:

They came after dusk and chanted into the night sky “Kill the Hindus, kill the children of the Hindus,” as they smashed religious icons, ripped golden bangles off women’s arms and flashed pistols. It wasn’t the first time that the Hindu temple on the outskirts of Pakistan’s largest city was attacked, and residents here fear it will not be the last.

A Hindu girl goes missing and then resurfaces days or weeks later married to a Muslim boy. During court hearings to determine whether the conversion was voluntary, students from nearby Islamic schools called madrassas often flood the room, trying to intimidate the judges by chanting demands that the conversion be confirmed.

Maharaj says he’s tried to intervene in roughly 100 cases of forced conversions but has only succeeded in returning a girl safely back to her family once. If a girl decides to renounce Islam and return to Hinduism, she could be signing a death warrant for herself and her family…

Now why would anyone even complain about this? Why should Hindus feel bad that their deities are smashed, the women in their families are molested, kidnapped, raped and forcibly converted? After all, these fortunate women are being liberated from their oppressive patriarchal traditions and given a fulfilling role as mediums for cultivating more secular South Asians. Without a doubt, only the crass communal and fascist will find any reason to complain. They need to be taught that this is all about secular syncretism and composite culture. This about secularism in South Asia.” Or so, the professional secularists would have us believe. Make no mistake, given current demographic and political trends this is waiting to happen in our own backyard in India.

Ajmer Dargah chief, Zakir Naik and Digvijay Singh on Narendra Modi


The Ajmer Sharif Dargah chief Syed Sarwar Chishti recently made a statement saying that if Narendra Modi becomes the Prime Minister it would not be “surprising if all Muslims become terrorists.” We have had the Islamist televangelist Zakir Naik proudly proclaim that “Every Muslim should be a terrorist”. The professional secularist and Congress party henchman  Digvijay Singh has already endorsed Zakir Naik for the greater good of secularism in India [sic].

All that remains is for Syed Sarwar Chishti, Zakir Naik and Digvijay Singh to get together and publicly proclaim their unequivocal support for Narendra Modi as the future Prime Minister of India.

Churmuri suffering from Romnesia?


It is pathetic to see Churmuri’s contrived analogies between American and Indian politics, in what can only be described as a sorry attempt to cover for the most corrupt, farce of a government, in post-1947 India, “led” by a spineless man who continues to lie about his home address to get into parliament. For at least one good reason, Obama’s successful re-election should be welcomed by the nationalist spectrum. GOP coming to power would have meant a blatant US government supported thrust to convert heathens in India, as we saw during the Bush years. Of course that still goes on even when the democrats are in power, under the cover of “secularism”, but it is not as brash.

Well wishers of Hinduism would do well to realize that be it democrats or republicans, both are unquestionably on the side of the American religious majority and their geo-political interests. Unlike in India, being “liberal” in the US doesn’t imply the need to spew bile on and work against the interests of the religious majority. To those unaware it may be revealing to know that a well known American politician who calls herself liberal has publicly spoken in favor of her Christian faith. This same liberal politician also sent letter of support to a farcical conference in the US by fanatical neo-converts where ludicrous theories such as “Hinduism is derived from Christianity” were spouted. Liberalism in the US is more to do with race and economic policies. That both so-called Indian right wingers and “liberal” establishment stooges draw comical false analogies between American and Indian politics, out of touch with ground realities, only goes to show their shallow understanding and how Western paradigms as one-size-fits-all are inaccurate.

It is pertinent to mention that the editor/contributor of Churmuri, Krishna Prasad, is also the editor of a (Delhi-Sultanate leaning?) magazine that not too long ago (in a tit-for-tat most likely on being nudged by the powers that be of the Sultanate?), brought out a feature calling Obama the “underachiever” who uses “lofty rhetoric” and whose “sheen is gone”. But now that Obama has been re-elected, Mr. Editor can’t stop singing paeans to him. Looks like Churmuri is suffering from an advanced case of Romnesia.

Hindutva as a euphemism


It is common for not only Hindus themselves but even those opposing Hindus and Hinduism to conflate Hindutva with Hinduism. While in the former case it is more born out of ignorance, the latter is almost always born out of the need for a euphemism to clumsily mask a motivated hatred for all things Hindu. For instance to give just one example, one person in this comments thread gives the example of Paul Courtright and in a blanket statement paints all those who raised their voices against his fraudulent scholarship as Hindutva. To my knowledge, those that I know of, who raised their voices against Courtright did so in a very erudite manner. Indeed one only needs to look at Vishal Agarwal and Kalavai Venkat’s elaborate expose in Invading the Sacred of Courtright’s outright mistranslations, manipulations and even blatant concoctions to force fit into his perverse fantasies and diabolical agenda. Instead of a civilized reply to the scholarly takedown, all we got was the boogey of Hindutva. And we still do. But of course, we shouldn’t be surprised to see those dedicated to suppressing the survival and revival of Hinduism, dedicated to criminalizing Hinduism, be it a Courtright, Kumar or Karim, use the euphemism of Hindutva to further their agendas when in fact, more often than not, it is Hinduism itself that they target.

Supposed devout Hindu origins doesn’t preclude being dharma shatru


Sagarika Ghose, Deputy Editor at CNN-IBN, where her husband Rajdeep Sardesai is Editor-in-Chief, recently made an interesting remark on twitter.

[https://twitter.com/sagarikaghose/statuses/236016756722905088]

Ms. Ghose’s tweet provides some food for thought. We won’t go into the politically loaded allusion to “minorities”. However we certainly need to consider a few other other important points.

  1. Does being a devout Hindu (self-proclaimed or otherwise) preclude one from performing actions detrimental to Hindu society and Hinduism?
  2. Does any public self-proclamation of supposed devout Hindu origins preclude one from any critical inquiry into whether and how their actions may be inimical to Hindu interests.
  3. Who defines the yardsticks for being a “true” Hindu? We can safely assume Ms. Ghose has taken upon herself to save Hinduism from the evil, ugly Hindus. Except perhaps those with devout origins such as herself and her political, ideological fellow travelers. So, no doubt, she in this case gets to define the yardstick and characteristics for being a “true” Hindu. This however, is somewhat tangential to the focus of this post, so we will put it aside for another time.

The answers to the first two questions can be found in a historical inquiry. An inquiry which unequivocally reveals the fact that some very critical, if not the biggest, blows to Hindus were delivered from within. In what can be described as a twist of delicious irony, Ms. Ghose unintentionally actually only adds to what we have long held. That the biggest enemies of Hindus are Hindus themselves. Indeed, Hindus did not lose to non-Hindu invaders and colonizers. Hindus lost to Hindus themselves. Peering into history reveals how at some very critical junctions Hindus were put on the back foot not due to Muslims or Christians, but due to traitors who were Hindus. There should be no doubt that traitors like Silhaditya, Veerbhadra Tiwari, Ambhi Kumar, Jaichand Rathore, who betrayed their country and community for petty personal reasons would have, just like you-know-who, most likely called themselves proud or devout (origin) Hindus. Then there were also another class of devouts who took employment from the marUnmatta-s. As Sarvesh Tiwari rightly notes,

such Hindus were joked about by mullAh-s, as kAfIrs spreading the reach of Islam.

The marUnmatta Badaoni proudly reports of one such traitor [1],

through the generalship of Man Singh, the meaning of this line of mulla Shiri became known, “A Hindu wields the sword of Islam”

This situation hasn’t really changed much since the time of Badaoni. In more recent past, we had Subhash Chandra Bose, who spared no effort to ally with staunchly anti-Hindu elements, including rabid Jihadis.

Indeed, as Sarvesh Tiwari, in his stirring series on Bose, says

Bose is really an uncomforting case in point, that even deeply religious Hindus, of excellent intellectual gifts, untiring patriotism and great leadership acumen, can remain utterly gullible to the Islamic propaganda and keep causing self-injury to the nation.

Of course, we should not flatter those merely projecting their political and ideological drivel on sundry social media fora by comparing them with someone like Bose. But nonetheless, as we have seen, supposed devout (origin) Hindus have historically delivered critical blows to Hindu survival and revival.  Discerning Hindus committed to dharma surely are already aware of this fact and will no doubt be specially wary of those who self-proclaim their devout origins in public fora.

Update (19 Aug 2012): Turns out, Ms. Sagarika Ghose is not only of self-proclaimed devout origin, but is also self-proclaimed attractive and intelligent.

Notes

[1] Badouni, Muntakhabut Tawarikh II pp 238-39 (cited by JL Mehta in Advanced study in the history of medieval India Vol 2)