In a secular nation?

Hindus in Hindu Rashtra(2023)
Eighth-Class Citizens and Victims of State-Sanctioned Apartheid
Author: Anand Ranganathan

I felt as if I were listening to him debate on Indian internet television. For the uninformed, a debate in the Indian context differs from the BBC's 'Hard Talk' or a conventional debate in which one person is given the stage to speak while others listen.

On these Indian shows, what we see on our monitors are multiple smaller windows, reminiscent of those in 'Brady Bunch' or ‘Hollywood Squares’, with everyone yelling at the top of their lungs simultaneously to make their point. With the rapid-fire speed of speech, often seen in speed debates, and the caustic choice of words, it is quite a spectacle. Everything is drowned out in the cacophony of each speaker's voice. Amidst all this, the anchor begins to argue at a higher pitch without turning off the guests' microphones. Sometimes, I wonder why the guests bother to attend at all. 

Anand Ranganathan has attended numerous such debates. His strong command of English and fluent expression of thoughts make him a standout in right-wing media. 

After listening to so many of his arguments on X, the book evokes a sense of 'déjà vu'. His premise is that Hindus in India are receiving a raw deal. After being overrun by foreign invaders from the West before the Common Era, India finally attained independence 75 years ago. Despite the change in rulers, he argues that Hindus continue to be treated as the stepchildren of the nation. The British governed this vast country using their 'divide and rule' tactics, which, regrettably, persist to this day. 

Ranganathan presents eight points regarding why Hindus in a Hindu nation are receiving a raw deal. Although India's Constitution declares the country to be secular, the State deems it appropriate to oversee the management of Hindu temples. For thousands of years, the temple ecosystem has served as a centre for worship, education, community living, trade, economy, statecraft, and even defence. Every invader understood that to dismantle India, they had to dismantle the temples. The law allows for the appointment of non-Hindus to the boards managing temples. In contrast, mosques and churches govern their own affairs. Court cases seeking the independence of Hindu temples have been ongoing for years.

Back in the 1990s, 700,000 Kashmiri Hindus were systematically driven out of their homes. Thirty years after the massacre, the state finds it more profitable to have them return as tourists for foreign exchange, but not to their ancestral homes. In contrast, Rohingya Muslims are permitted to settle in Jammu and Kashmir. Is the abrogation of Article 370 the right path to rectify the status quo?

The Waqf is considered the third largest landowner in India, after Defence and Railways. What began during pre-Independence times by the British to appease the Muslims has since expanded. Many prominent landmarks around Delhi, as well as Ambaini's house, are now believed to be Waqf land. Any property adjudged arbitrarily by Muslim law irrevocably belongs to Allah for all time. It reached a point of absurdity when a 1,500-year-old Hindu temple in Tamil Nadu is claimed to be situated on Waqf land, despite Islam being only 1,300 years old. The archaeological and physical evidence of lingams at the Gyanwapi Mosque serves as proof that it was constructed atop the grand Kashi Vishwanath temple. Even Aurangzeb, in his verified biography, Masir-e-Alamgiri, conceded to demolishing the aforementioned temple to erect a mosque. The 1995 Waqf Act solidifies the authority of the Waqf Board; however, these days, Parliament is attempting to amend this.

The Right to Education Act (RTE) of 2009 is said to be leading Hindu-run schools towards extinction. The Act dictates financial control, as well as the choice and quota of students and teachers, selectively applying these rules to non-minority schools; failure to comply results in closure. These restrictions compel schools to raise their fees, forcing parents to seek alternatives in schools run by minorities. Even in states where Hindus are a minority, the Act continues to operate against their interests.

The author highlights legislation that appeases non-Hindus but targets Hindus. For instance, bigamy is illegal under Indian law, yet it is permitted under the Muslim Personal Law of 1937, illustrating the double standards. Feminists advocate for equal rights but remain silent when the court permits Muslims to marry upon puberty. The corridors of power are intent on reforming Hinduism and addressing the social ills that characterise Hindu society, while the Abrahamic religions remain untouched.

The author also has a bone to pick with India's fixation on glorifying the invaders of the land. He is particularly scathing about naming one of Delhi's main roads 'Aurangzeb Road,’ referring to a ruthless conqueror who found solace in destroying pagan religions, particularly Hinduism, upholding Islamic law over his territory, imposing jizya on non-believers, and forcibly converting Sikh spiritual leaders. The nearest train station to visit the remnants of Nalanda University is Baktiyapor, named after the invader who burned Nalanda, thus losing centuries of knowledge and wisdom. 

It appears that the actions of the courts show no hesitation in attempting to alter Hindu practices, such as in the Sabarimala case, where women of menstruating age are not permitted to enter the Swami Ayyappa temple. However, the courts chose to remain silent regarding other religions, as exemplified by the case of Nupur Sharma, who is blamed for the killing of an innocent tailor for commenting on the Quran. Ranganathan further illustrates the bias of the Indian courts against Hindus.

Even though the author is an engineer by training, he chose to dedicate most of his time to highlighting the plight of the second class of Hindus in a country where the majority are Hindu. He even states that there is a legislative, judicial, and constitutional apartheid against them. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

A giant awakens?

Awakening Bharat Mata: The Political Ideologies of the Indian Right
By: Swapan Dasgupta (2019)

History tells us of a time when Indian soft powers ruled beyond their lands. Indian (read Hindu) way of living was the only way to live to the East of the land irrigated by the Sindhu Saraswati river systems. The nearest advanced culture to them was the Persians. Now they had an issue pronouncing 'S'. They did not have 'S' in their spoken language but used 'H' in places occupied by 'S'. Hence, the people living around the Sindhu Valley became known as 'Hindus', and their way of living was Hindu.

The perplexing thing is that from an era when the whole world was imitating their culture whilst the rest of the world was in the dark ages, at the time of its independence, it was a nation quite apologetic to its way of life and its history. What gave?

Perhaps it was the repeated invasions and trans-generational traumas with a tinge of Stockholm Syndrome. Still, the bulk of Indians, during their independence from the British colonial masters, had a very low esteem of themselves. They tended to look at other civilisations as superior and scorn upon their own way of living. Maybe because they had missed the bus of the first and second Industrial Revolution and the mercantile type of economy ruled the world, the socialist-minded Prime Minister and his ruling party thought it was pertinent they should be followers, not leaders of the world. They even refused a UN Security Council seat. Government-sanctioned leftist historians reinforced Western false narratives. 

The 1991 Indian general elections must have been a watershed moment in the right-wing movement. Even though they did not win the elections, they sowed their idea of a Ram Rajya (Hindu nation) in the Indian psyche. Their election promises to rebuild the old Ram Mandhir in Ayudhya fascinated the population at large. Just about that time, archaeological excavations revealed that a mosque indeed built atop the site considered the birthplace of the much revered Prince Rama of Ayodhya.

With widespread news of corruption and mismanagement, the 2014 general elections saw the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), headed by the Indian Congress Party, lose to the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a coalition headed by BJP. BJP, on its own, secured a majority, surpassing the much-needed 272 seats.

The right-wing Hindu parties have always been in the bad books of the Indians. Ever since Godse, a Hindu nationalist, assassinated MK Gandhi, RSS, the social arm of BJP, and other Hindu parties have been painted with the same brush. The anglophilic apologists and leftist historians have created a centre stage for a dichotomy of anglophile 'intellectual elites' versus homegrown saffron politics.

In the late 1960s, Congress weakened, and a wave of anti-Westernisation swept through the nation. The public was uncomfortable with the outward display of modernity and the intellectual move towards the West. They started reminiscing about the alternative intellectual ecosystem initiated by Hindu nationalist bulwarks like Tilak, Aurobindo, Savarkar and more. The new BJP-RSS combo was not anti-Western and anti-technological development but would use technology to improve administration quality.

After much deliberation, Modi was put forward as the PM material for the 2014 election. His economic success story in Gujarat worked in his favour. The naysayers, including the Western media, were rapacious in putting him as the villain in the 2002 racial riots. The foreign press went on a rant that he was bad news for Indian harmony. His visa to the US, UK and EU was denied as he was deemed too controversial.

Tired of the Nehru-Gandhi dynastic brand of politics with ineffective leaders in the Nehru's descendants, in 2014, NDA with BJP as the majority was voted in to rule the biggest democracy in the world. The going on till the time of writing of the book, at the end of BJP's first term, has been anything but smooth sailing. Quickly, many day-to-day issues can be made out to be big deals, even though the general public is not too bothered by them. The politicians and their desire to create a mountain out of a molehill are the root of the problem. After all, historically, India has a reputation for embracing all cultures, including Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity and more. They had played host to many refugees.

A simple recital of a national independence hymn like Vande Mataram can become a national issue. Muslim leaders refuse to allow their people to chant this old anthem as it is considered not secular. Cow protection on one side and insistence on beef-eating as a birthright without compromise is another thorn in the Hindu-Muslim relationship. Even though the Indian Constitution bans cow slaughtering, occasional skirmishes and lynching continue. This is not a new problem. Even in 1966, Sadhus demonstrated in front of the Parliament to criminalise cow slaughtering unsuccessfully.

It is all right for a country to be ruled by Christian, Islamic or even Jewish ideologies. However, it seems Hinduism is not compatible with modern democracy. So says the rest of the world. The colonial masters even thought it was pertinent to emphasise in the Constitution that India is a secular country. In the mind of the right-wing Hindu politicians, Sanathana Dharma is secular. In the eyes of the world, Hindutva is a bad word, implying combative fundamentalism. In reality, it just denotes Hinduness.

In the understanding of the right-wing Hindu leaders, a Hindu is someone born in India, with the cultures of India, bowing to the nation of India. So, in their understanding, a Muslim or a Christian is a Hindu. It is wrong, say a Muslim to have allegiance with their religion and show reverence to an external force whilst turning his back to Bharat.

The book tries to clear many misconceptions started by the colonial masters and the subsequent Anglophile Congress leaders who just held the helm on their behalf. They try to allay the misinformation that RSS and BJP are anti-intellectuals or are lacking intellectual depth. They try to break the mould of slave mentality among the citizens and rewrite the distorted Indian history penned previously by leftist historians to maintain the hegemony of the colonial masters over their subject. 

A good read. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Good to know!

How I Became a Hindu (1982, Third Reprint,2008)
Author: Sita Ram Goel

Trigger Alert. Readers' discretion is advised. 

Sita Ram Goel, Ram Swarup, Koenraad Elst, David Frawley and publications linked to the RSS may not be hailed as literary marvels or considered literature pieces by the mainstream. Yet, the knowledge is there for all to scoop.

The mainstream always labels right-wing writers as rabble-rousers out to tip the serenity of public harmony. Everything they say and write is painted in the same stroke, as venomous. I decided to look at one of Sita Ram Goel's early writings.

For the uninitiated, Goel is revered as a formidable Indian historian, religious and political activist, writer, and publisher known for his influential contributions to the literature on Hinduism and Hindu nationalism in the late twentieth century. With his direct, unapologetic presentation of facts and provocative book titles, he has stirred the psyche of the Hindus and many Indians to look at India and its history with a new lens, the one previously tinted by leftist historians of the yesteryears.

Goel and his publication house, Voice of India, have had complaints issues against them for his writings on comparative religious studies, specifically Hinduism against Christianity and Islam. His research on Hindu temples in India was hailed by Hindus but criticised by the mainstream. He asserted that many of the iconic religious buildings in India were initially Hindu temples, the famous one being the Ayodhya Ram Mandir.

Goel is vehemently opposed to the idea of evangelism.

I think it is essential that everyone indulges in other alien ideologies to open their minds. Just the other day, a very dear childhood friend, for who I have only high esteem, who happens to be an unapologetic Muslim, asked me a daft question. He had earlier introduced a book on high-level science to me and my circle of friends. The author compared what the scientific world knows now to what is written in the Old Testament, Bible and Quran. He showed a fantastic similarity between the two. The daft question was how many scientists had converted to Hinduism after reading the Hindu scriptures. Of course, everyone knows that no one converts to Hinduism. One can scrutinise, embrace or reject some or all of its scriptures. One does not need to pledge any allegiance to be a Hindu. One can check in, check out or leave anytime they like.

Forget that knowledge from the cradle of Islamic civilisation originated from the Indian subcontinent anyway.

Like most people in the Indian-Hindu diaspora, Sita Ram Goel, too, grew up confused. They were fed myths and fables about the Hindu religion that seemed detached from reality. They soon became ashamed to be associated with Hinduism. In keeping with their friends and to speak the same lingo as the elitist circle, they looked at Abrahamic religions as their saviours. Goel grew up at a time when India was in its march to Independence. Gandhism initially made a lot of sense. Dogmatic beliefs and stickling to ritualism made him explore the Arya Samaj movement, which rejected idolatry practices. He again felt awkward when everyone around looked down at the Harijans and shunned away from their worship. As a student, he explored Marxism, Communism and Socialism. In his assessment, Leninism and Stalinism swayed far away from Marx's teachings. They are merely rebranding of Western capitalism. The final endpoint is material gain. In capitalism, wealth is controlled by the wealthy few linked to the ruling class. In Communism, it boils down to the same at the end. In Goel's mind, the Abrahamic religions are no different from Communism, as indoctrination is the mainstay. Goel fell very sick once. A Reverend took him in and nursed him back to health. Goel got disillusioned when the holy man kept pestering him to accept Jesus as his Saviour.

Living through the age of Nehruism, he noticed that Hindus have evolved into apologists. They have resigned themselves to the fact that they can be a punching bag to everyone, and yet be careful not to offend others. The Hindus, when they are the majority, they have to keep Christians and Muslims happy. Conversely, Hindus as minorities in Muslim-majority nations have to endure so much discrimination. But no one is bothered. As Muslims have a propensity to do street demonstrations, Hindus have been conditioned not to offend but to maintain the peace.

People in his circle have described Sita Ram Goel as an 'intellectual Kshatriya'. His pet projects include researching the history of temples and mosques built on top of pre-existing ancient temples, including the Ayodhya debate. To answer the question of how he became a Hindu, after experimenting with all philosophies and religious teachings, he found the Abrahamic teachings quite dogmatic and restrictive. The Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists and Capitalists are one and the same, rebranded differently. Sanathana Dharma, despite its man-made rituals and divisions between people, is actually more inclusive. A Sanathani can pray to his God in whatever way he feels fit. His God may or may not have a form. He may even be a non-believer of Gods and still a Hindu.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

A historical figure not often mentioned!

Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (Hindi, 2024)

Director: Randeep Hooda

It is funny how names like Savarkar, Bhagat Singh and Subash Chandra Bose escaped our consciousness when we were taught Indian history in school. We were only told of Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian Congress Party and their brand of civil disobedience. Gandhi's passive demeanour, recurrent fasting, and imprisonment eventually won India's Independence. Oh, right! Savarkar and the gang were branded as terrorists and troublemakers, destroying the order, culture and modernity the highly evolved superior race brought to the lost natives. 

Now, we are told of alternative narratives of events that may have happened during the 200 years of the Raj's rule in India. The victors control the narratives, but entertaining the other side of the story is worthwhile. Let us not forget that the immediate reason for the British's sudden exodus from Bharat was not just the bludgeoning British debt to India incurred during WW2 but the Indian Navy Mutiny that kicked out around the time of the trial of captured INA soldiers in 1946.

Savakar has always been and is still labelled a bad boy. He used the word 'Hindutva' way too often to make British and non-Hindus hot under their collar. Even in today's context, the mention of Hindutva brings forth the image of a saffron-donning warrior hoisting a flag with an image of a ferocious-looking Hanuman as a motif. In the eyes of those in opposition to the second-term ruling party BJB, this is a dog whistle for the battle for Hindu domination, a.k.a. Hindutva. 

Not in Savarkar's mind, however. He chose the path of aggression against the invaders. The secret society 'Abhinav Bharat' was his brainchild. It became a nidus for many young spirit men to take arms to assassinate British leaders who wronged Indians. Savarkar looked at Hindutva as a political, geographic, and cultural movement linked to the region from the Sindhu River to the ocean that is Bharat, as it is considered their ancestral land. He used the concept of Hindutva to reel the masses, Hindus and non-Hindus alike, to chase out the invaders. Unfortunately, in modern times, it has taken an oppressive meaning to mean to oppress the minority, the weak and the downtroddden in the fringe of society.

Even as a student at Ferguson College in Pune, he was a rabble-rouser. Being a brilliant student, he managed to secure a place to study law in London with the help of local sponsors who were also quiet revolutionaries. It was in London that he blossomed. He landed in India House in Highgate, the hub for Indian revolutionaries. Famous icons like Madam Cama (who brought India's plight to the Socialist Forum in Stuttgart in 1907 and unveiled India's 'Tricolour' with the word Bande Mataram and logos representing significant religions of India), Madan Lal Dhingra (who assassinated the officers of the Secretary of State for India, Curzon Wyllie) and many other rebels had met Savarkar there. 

Early Tricolour -1907

In 1907, Savarkar wrote 'The War of Independence' in response to Britain's celebrations of the quashing of the 1857 Indian Rebellion. This mutiny also called the Sepoy Mutiny, caused the British to introduce tight gun control and draconian measures to curb Indian resistance. Savakar's book has become the handbook for future Indian freedom fighters who opted for Independence through armed resistance. Savarkar looked at the 1857 mutiny as India's First War for Independence. 

In 1910, Savarkar was arrested for multiple charges, including starting a war against the Crown and was deported to India by sea. When the ship docked at Marseilles, he attempted a dash to freedom but was rearrested and returned to the British after much deliberation. In India, he was sentenced to fifty years at Kala Pani in Andaman Island. The world passed him by. His brother was also jailed on the same island, but they never met till much later. The state confiscated his family property, and his wife, mother, and sisters lived as paupers. Savarkar's degrees were withdrawn. 

By 1921, Savarkar, after writing many petitions after petitions, was transferred to Ratnagiri prison on the mainland. He obtained restricted release by 1924.

He was ideologically opposed to many of Gandhi's proposals. He felt Gandhi and the Congress Party were too appeasing to the British demands. It was no wonder why none of the Congress members were ever jailed in Kala Pani. Gandhi's Sathyagraha movement was oppositional to his violent approach to clinching Independence. Savarkar suggested that Indian youths should partake in British Army training and combats, in contrast to the Quit India movement and Congress's refusal to enlist for war. These exercises, he thought, would be helpful in the Indian War of Independence later. Savarkar was also inimical of the Khilafat movement.

As the head of the Hindu Mahasabha, he allied with the Muslim League to successfully compete in many provincial elections. 

Be careful with whom you pose in a photo.
Here, Savakar (centre) is seated beside Godse
(dark half-jacket)

Savarkar is reputed to have helped to erect the Patit Pavan Mandir when Orthodox Brahmins refused to let Dalits into their temples. It now runs an annual Ganesh festival, which all castes attend.

After Gandhi's assassination in 1948, Savarkar's name was dragged in again. The assassin, Nathuram Godse, was a member of the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS and had allegedly had a meeting just before the said killing. The Kapoor Commission was set up to ascertain his involvement, but the decision was left hanging. Only in 2018 Savarkar's name was erased as the co-conspirator of Gandhi's shooting.

Savarkar died in 1966, soon after his wife's death. He fasted himself to death, refusing food, water and medicines as he felt his work on Earth was done.

The irony of all is that the man of passive resistance, Gandhi, died a violent death. In contrast, Savarkar, who advocated violence as the means to win Independence, died in a relatively passive way without giving a fight.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.