Secularism is being used as an euphemism for anti-hinduism
Unity in Diversity is a unique culture of this ancient land Bharat, which is not found in any part of the world. We celebrate diversity; we welcome debate; we welcome dissent; when we don’t agree, then we say let us agree to disagree. We take a stance: “I do not agree with what you say but still I will protect your right to have your say.” However, of late, too much emphasis is laid on diversity, which often deteriorates to the level of mutual hate and sometimes takes anti-national colour. In fact, diversity is being used as justification for anti-national stance, to argue as fundamental right and freedom of expression.
This is a dangerous trend that has potential for slow but sure dismemberment of our nation. This has to be avoided at all costs because nothing is greater & bigger than “Desh (Nation) & Dharma (Soul)”. Political parties are adept in stoking passions among the people to garner votes; it has been the in-thing in our polity since decades. However, what is worrisome is the attitude of a section of the judiciary on the issues of national symbols, national anthem, national institutions, national icons and festivals celebrated by the Hindus.
History has been distorted by the brigade consisting of pseudo-secular and pseudo-intellectuals led by the first Prime Minister of India Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. An embodiment of hypocrisy and double-standards, it was this English-outlook, anti-Hindu mindset man who guided the course of intellectual discourse in the aftermath of Independence.
One such distortion that crept into our history is about Tipu Sultan, the ruler of Srirangapatna in Karnataka. Children were taught in the classrooms all false and wrong things about this man–that he was magnanimous, noble and able administrator. But when ‘real and genuine’ historians dug out the records and documents, it was shocking. According to Dr M. Chidananda Murthy, a noted writer, historian and intellectual with great repute, Tipu Sultan was a religious bigot, a tyrant, who converted lakhs of Hindus into Islam at the point of sword. He was anti-Hindu and hence he was not a just and impartial ruler. He made Urdu and Persian languages compulsory and hence he was anti-Kannadiga; his last-minute decision to fight against the British was to save his kingdom and not with any noble intention of serving the motherland.
Two instances from “real and genuine” history bear testimony to his anti-Hindu stance. He is reported to have killed as many as 5000 Kodavas (people inhabiting Kodagu district); he is reported to have massacred as many as 2000 Nambiars in Kerala (Malabar), and on a Diwali day, he had ordered the killing of 1001 Iyengar Brahmins at Melkote, the temple-town in Mandya district. In protest against this, Iyengar Brahmins in Melkote do not celebrate even today!
The Congress government in Karnataka, headed by chief minister Siddaramaiah, is hell-bent on celebrating Tipu Jayanti on November 10, thus disrespecting the sentiments of millions of Hindus! For a political party, the compulsion is understandable; it wants to garner the solid Muslim vote bank.
The issue in question is the argument in some quarters that they have every right not to recite national anthem. And the judiciary has accepted their argument! Every sane and sober man in this country want to know why the judiciary did not ask the petitioners what their problem is in singing national anthem? It doesn’t belong to any particular religion; it has been accepted by the Parliament and incorporated in the Constitution. What objection anybody can have in singing national anthem?
And the most valid question that the millions of Hindus ask: Why the Hindus and Hindu festivals are always under attack? At unearthly hours, loud-speakers blare in high decibel level from mosques; it happens every day. Millions of sheep and goats are slaughtered during festivals. What happens to the waste? Has any responsible institution taken any action as precautionary measure to solve the issue? I think No.
People of Bharat wants the decision-makers of the land to be fair, objective, impartial, unbiased and professional with a holistic view of the issues after taking into consideration the practices, conventions, followed by the masses based on ethos, culture and tradition, which are in the interest of the society. One appeals and expects that let not the decision-makers get carried away by the cacophony of the pseudo-secular, left and kept intellectuals for whom secularism is a euphemism for their anti-Hindu stance.
Deepak Kumar Rath