On Hindu terror

L.K. Advani, Prime minister-designate of BJP protested during the course of Hindustan Times Leadership Summit today at the use of the term “Hindu terror”. Speaking like the pseudo-secularists his party ridicules everyday; he declared that terrorists have no religion. This must sound like music to many and some may regret that he had to issue such a clarification at all. Rajnath Singh, the President of BJP had similarly protested at the use of the term stating that a Hindu can never be a terrorist. One is reminded of a claim that PM Manmohan Singh made a couple of years ago that no Indian Muslim was involved in acts of terror worldwide. As if to prove him wrong, many indigenous name and organizations sprang up forcing him to eat his words. The latest being the tech-savvy Indian Mujahidin (IM), which not only took responsibility for several serial blasts across Indian cities but also revealed shockingly that those driving the engine of Muslim hate were not products of some non-descript madrassa but a highly educated and well-paid executive of an MNC. One can only hope that Advani and his likes do not have to face the same fate as more and more skeletons toss out of cupboards of Hindu terror every day. The Hindu hate machine has even penetrated the army, which prided itself on its secular values and sense of discipline. Remember the photographs of Abdul Hamid, who martyred himself in the service of India, splashed across newspapers in the wake of Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 and won the highest bravery award, Param Vir Chakra?

Most Hindus also thought that violence was inimical to Hindu ethos. When you had saints who walked barefoot for fear of hurting insects and renounced materialism in all its forms in order to attain nirvana, how could they even think violence, leave alone preaching it? And it was not just Hindus who thought of our faith in such glorious terms. I still recollect interviewing for our college magazine, Stavak, the noted cartoonist of Indian Express, Abu Abraham, at his residence in early seventies. During the course of the interview recorded on a bulky spool tape recorder lying in ruins with me, Abu, a conservative Christian revealed that he had not baptised his two daughters. They were given Muslim and Hindu names, Aysha and Janaki, and the parents read over different scriptures to them. The idea was not to burden them with the faith of their parents but to give them a choice of choosing a faith that gave them maximum solace. Abu went on to say that he had not come across a more liberal faith than Hinduism. After I had clicked a few photographs of Abu with my Russian Zorky camera, I and my friend from AIR, O.P. Dutta left his place in a bit of daze wondering whether we in our twenties could even conceive of such values. I just checked on the net and learnt with dismay that Abu passed away in his native Kerala in the winter of 2002. R.I.P. May his ideals continue to inspire our nation!

The overwhelming question is how is it that the liberalism of the same faith that evoked the envy of several non-Hindus created men who could torch people alive, rape women and destroy mosques and churches? There is a school of thought that violence by Hindus is retaliatory and caused by relentless appeasement of minorities for electoral gains. This is not an invalid assumption. Critics of post-Godhra riots rarely if ever referred to the torching Hindu karsevaks in the coaches of a train. Political parties like the SP rake up the Batla House encounter case with an eye on Muslim votes. Not to be undone, Congress indulges in the same kind of double-speak it accuses others, especially the BJP of, when it also demands a probe into it. Did the BJP ever sought justice for hundreds of innocent men and women hounded out of buses, segregated and shot at point blank range in the fields of Punjab? Isn’t it also guilty of appeasing Sikhs and Akalis? Is pseudo-secularism of Congress and the Left being matched by BJP’s pseudo-communalism? And what about attacking Christians, burning their homes and destroying churches? Haven’t the self-appointed guardians of Hinduism negated the provisions of our Constitution, which guarantees freedom of faith? If the argument is that missionaries are inducing tribals in order to convert them, which may be true, the rites of purification and home-coming being performed by Hindu groups as a pre-condition for allowing the victims to return to their hearth and homes are also involuntary. In any case, most Indian Muslims, Christians and Buddhists are converts from Hinduism. How many can one possibly re-convert back and with what benefit? The only gain can be electoral since such a drive is meant to consolidate Hindu votes. It is clear that using brute force against minorities is a political and not a religious agenda. Has Advani ever taken up the cause of Muslims accused of being terrorists and tortured to extract confessions?
Several Hindu groups of various hues and colours no longer feel shy of embracing violence in thought and action. What is unfortunate is that it is being done in the name of a religion, which has been universally acknowledged as the most liberal faith. One may call it by any name but the repercussions for the country’s unity and diversity will be tragic. Therefore it is important that we, as a nation, learn to respect the rule of law. India must come first and remain foremost.
***