Desicritics Author: Vivek Bharat

Godhra-Gujarat Seven Years Later

Vivek Bharat — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:12:08 EST

The English language media in India has never attempted to sincerely fulfill its duty as the standard bearer of free speech in a democracy. Its reluctance to provide a platform for a differing view at odds with its own preset agenda which reeks of bigotry at times is obvious when it pertains to Hindutva. A perusal of English newspapers in India leaves one with the impression that what happened in Gujarat in 2002 was a one-sided massacre of Muslims by Hindus; a hyperbole promoted by selective reporting and bolstered by biased opinion rants. With the 2009 Lok Sabha elections around the corner, there appears to be a subtle attempt to resurrect this disinformation campaign through a rash of articles that recall the horror of Gujarat 2002 through a skewed lens.

Whenever the phrase ‘the victims of Gujarat 2002’ is mentioned in English language newspapers, it invariably refers to the 790 Muslim victims of the Hindu-Muslim riots that ravaged Gujarat in 2002. Forgotten are the 254 Hindu casualties that occurred during the same fracas. Forgotten are the 59 Hindu men, women and children who were roasted alive at the Godhra station on February 27, 2002 in an act of heinous sectarianism that sets a diabolical standard.

Before I proceed further let me make one thing clear. I condemn unequivocally both the Godhra incident as well as the riots that followed. No modern society can tolerate such a display of barbarism and still call itself civilized. My gripe is not with highlighting the plight of the Muslim victims; every act of injustice regardless of the religion or creed of the victim needs reparation. I am concerned with the double standards that our Indian society espouses .The Muslim victims of the Gujarat riots have endless number of proponents each weaving story after story vastly exaggerated for sensational effect that fill volumes of newsprint and occupy endless hours of television time. In contrast the Hindu victims have few advocates and even these scarce voices continue to be stifled by the English language media in India which denies them a just platform for their grievances. I feel compelled to raise my voice to inject a sense of balance in this uneven playing field.

There are some points that I wish to reiterate about the Gujarat riots:

1) Godhra was a deliberate act of evil that was meant to provoke. It did. Without Godhra there would never have been a Gujarat 2002.Whether the Hindus should have exhibited a greater degree of restraint or not is certainly debatable. I would have preferred a massive non-violent protest. However it does not alter the irrevocable fact that Godhra was categorically the epicenter of the communal earthquake that rocked Gujarat.

2) This was not a pogrom by any stretch of imagination. Focus on the death ratio of 790 Muslims to 254 Hindus: it sounds like a riot with sizable casualties on both sides. To comprehend the meaning of a pogrom one needs to scrutinize the death toll in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984: greater than 3000 Sikh deaths to zero Hindus. This fellow countrymen is a pogrom orchestrated by the so-called secular Congress party.

3) Anti-Hindu violence during the Gujarat riots was not only widespread but ugly as well. Hindus too were also the victims of police inaction. I quote not from any parochial source but from a report by the Human Rights Watch.

a) “Hindus have also suffered greatly from the violence in Gujarat. In addition to the fifty-eight people killed during the torching of the Sabarmati Express in Godhra on February 27, 2002, over ten thousand Hindus have also been made homeless as a result of post-Godhra violence……”
….Sanjay Pandey, "Riots hit all classes, people of all faith," Times of India, March 18, 2002

b) “In Ahmedabad, violence broke out on March 17 when Dalits in the Danilimda area were attacked by Muslims. On March 19, it was Modasa, a town in Sabarkantha district. A police officer's son was stabbed and two communities went berserk.... The stories only got more macabre. In Himmatnagar, a young man who went to a Muslim-dominated area to do business was found dead, with his eyes gouged out. In Bharuch, the murder of a Muslim youth led to mass violence. Next the Sindhi Market and Bhanderi Pole areas of Ahmedabad, hitherto calm, were attacked by mobs. This phase, really, was one of Muslim mobs attacking Hindus.”
Udhay Mahurkar, "Gujarat: End of Hope," India Today, April 15, 2002

c) “A resident named Harki Bhen added: Kerosene bottles were thrown in through the roof. They threw it through the windows and the openings in the walls. We called the police thousands of times but they told us, "Sir is out". In the morning the mosques began announcing that Islam was in danger, that there was poison in the milk. This is their code word. We are the only Hindus here, poison here means us. The rioting lasted between 2:15 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.”
Human Rights Watch interview, Harki Bhen, Ahmedabad, March 23, 2002

d) “Human Rights Watch visited Mahajan No Vando, a fortified Hindu residential area situated within the Muslim dominated area of Jamalpur, on March 23. Mahajan No Vando was the site of a retaliatory attack by Muslims on March 1.
According to residents, approximately twenty-five people were injured in the attacks and at least five homes were completely destroyed. Residents closer to the periphery of the fortified compound and its entrance also suffered extensive property damage. Muslim residents attacked the compound from the higher Muslim-owned buildings that surrounded it using light bulbs filled with acid, petrol and crude bombs, and bottles filled with kerosene and set some Hindu-owned houses on fire. According to the residents, who had collected and saved the remnants of what was thrown in and showed them to Human Rights Watch, "There was acid in the glass bottles and in the light bulbs that were thrown in. They used solvent petrol, kerosene, and acid. They filled some Pepsi bottles with them."
Human Rights Watch interviews, Mahajan No Vando residents, Ahmedabad, March 23, 2002

With accusations and counter accusations swirling in the air in the aftermath of the riots, it was essential to have an enquiry commission that would clear the air and ascertain the truth. The Nanavati Commission was constituted on March 6, 2002 by a decree in accordance with the Constitution and submitted its report in September 2008 after painstakingly interviewing 1106 witnesses and examining 46000 affidavits. The commission was chaired by GT Nanavati, a retired Supreme Court Judge with stellar credentials and unquestionable integrity. Moreover Nanavati’s track record as an investigator par excellence was supported by his successful one-man enquiry commission into the anti-Sikh riots that brought many a guilty to book

The Nanavati Commission made two important observations:

1) That the fire in coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express at the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002, was a “pre-planned conspiracy” of the local Muslims.

2) The report stated: “There is absolutely no evidence to show that the chief minister, his council of ministers or the police officers had played any role in the Godhra incident or that there was any lapse on their part in the matter of providing protection, relief and rehabilitation to the victims of communal riots.”

Certain sections of our media have tried to underplay the conclusions of the Nanavati Commission by invoking the assertions of the Banerjee committee. However, the Banerjee Commission sanctioned by Lallu Prasad Yadav in 2004 stands disqualified as a legitimate vehicle, being debarred by the Gujarat High Court which deemed it as ‘unconstitutional, illegal and null and void’. Additionally, the haste with which this commission submitted its interim report, within 4 months of its inception, raises serious questions about its depth and accuracy

There have been other self styled impromptu ‘tribunals’ orchestrated by private organizations with a preset agenda. These carry no legal brief, only murky the situation further and have no place in a functioning democracy. They cannot be taken seriously.

Effectively, to date, the Nanavati Commission remains the only valid commission of enquiry into this matter. A judicial enquiry commission headed by a Supreme Court Judge represents a powerful and impartial instrument of a democratic process. To negate the findings of one is to question the very basic tenets of our democracy.

When we accept the culpability of Jagdish Tytler emanating from the previous Nanavati commission and indemnify the criminality of Madhukar Sarpotdar on the basis of the Srikrishna Commission, why is it that certain sections of our society balk at the exoneration of Modi by the present Nanavati report?

This smacks of double standards. Findings must be respected even if we do not agree with them: for that is the basis of a mature democracy.

Ref:
Human Rights Watch Report, April 2002.

I Too Am Hurt Dear Father

Vivek Bharat — Mon, 6 Oct 2008 05:13:10 EDT

Reacting sharply to the attack on Churches in Karnataka, the Archbishop Bernard Moras of Bangalore fumed indignantly that Christians were deeply hurt. I, too, have been badly traumatized, dear Father, not once but repeatedly. Your compatriots have consistently trampled upon my sensibilities and those of millions of others like me for sometime now. The only difference is that I am a Hindu and in the broad framework of India's warped secular ideology, Hindu sentiments are dispensable to maintain this hollow but grandiose show of communal harmony that has been essentially built on the backs of the Hindu community. So, neither you or nor the authorities have bothered to take any corrective action to assuage the Hindu hurt. It does not even register as a cause for remedy on your moral radar.

Lest this be dismissed as the rant of a hate mongering Hindu fundamentalist (a label that is promptly assigned to anyone taking up the Hindu cause) let me place before you certain facts and analyze the sequence of events that lead to the present Hindu Christian fracas to put things in true perspective. Also at the outset, let me unequivocally condemn the violence that has accompanied this controversy for any defense of Hinduism is promptly blown up and misrepresented as a defense of violence. It is not.

The immediate provocation for the current imbroglio appears to be a pamphlet titled Satya Darshini (everybody agrees to that) that was being freely distributed among members of the New Life Fellowship sect of the Pentecost Mission in Mangalore and which contained derogatory references to Hindu Gods and Goddesses. The book, originally written in Telugu by one Rev Paravastu Sooryanarayana, has been translated into Kannada by Sriramreddy of Bangalore, and revised by Rev Samson S Malekar of Davangere.

The book replete with disparaging remarks about Hinduism, is basically a litany of hate. I reproduce below a couple of excerpts (translated into English) that reflect the ugly tenor of the publication:

Urvashi - the daughter of Narayana- is a prostitute. Vashitha is the son of this prostitute. He in turn married his own Mother. Such a degraded person is the Guru of the Hindu God Rama. (page 48)
When Krishna himself is wallowing in darkness of hell, how can he enlighten others? Since Krishna himself is a shady character, there is a need for us to liberate his misled followers. (page 50)

To brush this aside as an isolated example of vilification or dub it as an aberrancy would be naive. For this is a microcosm of the larger Machiavellian game plan that has been in play in this country for over a hundred years; a deceptive practice that has never been aggressively countered by the timid Hindu community until now.

To bolster my contention let me present to you other instances of unadulterated hate that have been the hallmark of missionary propaganda in India:

The Indian sub-continent with one billion people, is a living example of what happens when Satan rules the entire culture... India is one vast purgatory in which millions of people .... are literally living a cosmic lie! Could Satan have devised a more perfect system for causing misery?" (Gospel of Asia, Texas: reproduced from Arun Shourie's book, Missionaries in India. (Harper Collins 1998)

On a personal level, I have first hand experience with similar offensive remarks during my school tenure in a prominent Jesuit institution. In one instance, a Jesuit priest categorically remarked in front of a class of docile seventh graders that Rama would never qualify as a God. On another occasion, a reverend smirkingly questioned the veracity of immersion in the Ganges absolving one of his/her sins. Religion is an act of personal faith. Whether I dip myself into a river or not as an act of ablution is my prerogative and not for anybody else to comment upon. This is the line in the sand that religions in a pluralistic society like ours should abide by.

I still remember that morning in eleventh grade when I entered the Principal's office with a great deal of trepidation to explain why I had chosen an additional Mathematics subject for my ISC exam in preference to Biblical Scriptures that had been recommended by the authorities. Inwardly defiant but lacking the courage to speak up, I mumbled something about getting better grades. Acts of subtle intimidation like this one are all too common.

While the Bajrang Dal and its associates cannot be in any way excused for the present violence if proven guilty, there is something that must be highlighted in its favor. In 2006 when Satya Darshini was first released, the Bajrang Dal had registered a formal protest with the police. No action was taken.

When the Satanic Verses, a novel published in the UK can be banned in India in deference to Muslim sentiments and when The Da Vinci Code, a movie produced in the United States can be proscribed from our movie theaters to appease Christians, why couldn't remedial action be taken against a book derogatory to Hindus? The only answer that I can think of is what I have repeatedly maintained: Hindu sentiments are dispensable in secular India.

I have used these examples as a prop to pose some important questions that are relevant to the controversy at hand: While the respected Archbishop now seethes with righteous anger, I would like to ask the Reverend whether the Christian leadership has done enough to police itself? Have they taken measures to ensure that their religious zeal does not violate the sentiments of another? Have guidelines been issued to its proponents regarding the rules of a civilized society? Would proactive condemnation by the Christian leadership of such hate literature have preempted this spate of violence?

Hindus of India have another legitimate grouse against the Christian establishment: they are the recipients of an unfair largesse doled out by the government at the expense of the Hindu community. Money collected through Hindu temples is illegally siphoned off to support Churches and madrassas.
Here are some figures from the Karnataka State government to support this claim.

Of the 52 crore rupees entered into the government coffers by Hindu temples in 1997, barely 17 crores was earmarked for Hindu causes; the remaining 35 crores was diverted to finance Churches and madrassas and other government sponsored projects. A purview of figures for the succeeding years upto 2002 (for which information is available) exhibit a similar deceptive strategy. This practice probably has been in place since independence without the Hindus even being aware of it.

This travesty of justice pains me greatly, dear Father and irks me, as well. But who cares: Hindus in India are the children of a lesser God. Finally in 2006, the Karnataka High Court intervened and categorically decreed: "Devotees of Hindu temples provide money for temple purposes and it cannot be spent for non-Hindu causes."

In summary the picture is very clear. As long as the Hindu community stoically bears the load of insults heaped on it, as long as the Hindus do not protest the large tracts of land doled out to Christian institutions and as long as the Hindu community overlooks the crores of rupees siphoned from its temples to support Churches, the Christians are willing to co-exist peacefully with Hindus.

But God forbid if the Hindus register even a syllable of protest. Christians will raise a hue and cry and seek the support of extraterritorial agencies to muscle the government in order to persist with their unhealthy practices.

While physical violence in a civilized society is unacceptable and must be dealt with firmly, every effort should be made to aggressively counter those events that have the potential to engender violence. We would be better off if we nip in the bud the seeds of violence before they are sown. Prevention is better than cure. That is the premise of this article.

The path to Hindu-Christian amity as I see it is two-fold:
1. The Christian leadership must make a conscious effort to delete any derogatory references to Hinduism by any of its manifold churches and continuously monitor them for infractions. This to me is a simple proposition.
2. Desist from active proselytization. This is a much more complex area and will need another article to address this when I eke out some time.

We can start with the first step if the Christian community is really serious of co-existing peacefully with the Hindus.

References
1) The Katherine Mayos and Pat Robertsons of India. Part I. V. Sundaram. Newstoday September 24, 2008.
2) Hindu Temples in the Age of Pseudo-Secularism. Lies, Lies and More Lies. The Campaign to Defame Hindu Nationalism.p96-99. iUniverse. June 2007.

Indian Secularism and Free Speech: Not for the Hindu

Vivek Bharat — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:11:49 EDT

FACT is an acronym for Foundation Against Continuing Terrorism, an organization founded by Francois Gautier, a French journalist based in India who shares a deep empathy for the sufferings of the Hindu, both past and present. This compassion stems not from a blind fascination but is an informed considered judgment derived from a close reading of Indian history. Troubled by the inexplicable apathy of the Hindus vis-à-vis their own past torment, this Frenchman has taken upon himself the duty to educate Indians, through a series of exhibitions, about the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits, the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh and more recently the fiend, Aurangzeb.

‘Aurangzeb as he was, according to Moghul records” is the title of a collection of paintings highlighting the atrocities of this tyrant and has been exhibited to much acclaim in the cities of Delhi, Pune and Bangalore. FACT-sponsored exhibitions are not crude street shows but sophisticated exercises in true history telling anointed by the likes of Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, KPS Gill, N. Vittal and B. Raman. Whether we agree with their views or not we must admit that these individuals are upright citizens of our country who would think twice before associating themselves with dubious ventures.

The same exhibition was hosted in Chennai at the prestigious Lalit Kala Akademi, and was scheduled to run from March 3- March 9. But on March 5, a group of Islamic fundamentalists barged into the exhibition, objected to the show, created a ruckus and threatened to storm the place with hundreds of supporters after Friday prayers from the mosque nearby. A day later, the Prince of Arcot, Nawab Mohammed Abdul Ali visited the exhibition and claimed that FACT was misrepresenting history. In the words of Kanchan Gupta (Artistic freedom yes, but not with Aurangzeb, Daily Pioneer, March 9, 2008):

"He was particularly enraged by two miniatures -- the first depicted Aurangzeb's army destroying the Somnath temple and the second showed the destruction of the Kesava Rai temple in Mathura.

By Thursday, March 7, "higher authorities" in Tamil Nadu Government had issued instructions to the police to shut down the exhibition. Murali, (Asst Commissioner of Police) along with his men, stormed into the exhibition hall on Thursday evening and began taking down the paintings. "He was looking for the paintings showing the destruction of Somnath and Kesava Rai temples. He threw them to the floor," said a FACT volunteer."

This sequence of events raises the disturbing specter of how Islamic fundamentalists in concert with vested interests can suppress the dissemination of authentic history and thwart a basic tenet of democracy: the principle of free speech.

Aurangzeb was a confirmed bigot vetted by historians of every hue and persuasion. There is not a shred of evidence to proclaim his innocence or any shadow of doubt about the religious oppression that he unleashed against his Hindu subjects. But yet we have a Muslim community taking up cudgels on his behalf. This only serves to give you a glimpse into the mindset of certain sections of India’s Muslim population who remain in a time wrap of past Muslim glory which was marked by the destruction of hundreds of Hindu temples and massacre of thousands of innocent Hindus and who continue to revere religious despots like Aurangazeb.

The two miniatures referred to above are hardly controversial; the events depicted having been corroborated by Aurangzeb’s own words and the works of his own sanctioned chroniclers. As proof of the same:

a) "... The Temple of Somnath was demolished early in my reign and idol worship(there) put down. It is not known what the state of things there is at present. If the idolators have again taken to the worship of images at the place, then destroy the temple in such a way that no trace of the building maybe left, and also expel them (the worshippers) from the place. ..." (From "Kalimat-i-Tayyibat" by 'Inayatullah, a collection of letters and orders of Aurangzeb compiled by 'Inayatullah in AD 1719 and covering the years 1699-1704 of Aurangzeb's reign.)

b) “During this month of Ramzan abounding in miracles, the Emperor as the promoter of justice and overthrower of mischief, as the knower of truth and destroyer of oppression, as the zephyr of the garden of victory and the reviver of the faith of the Prophet,issued orders for the demolition of the temple situated in Mathura, famous as the Dehra of Kesho Rai. In the short time by the great exertions of his officers the destruction of this strong foundation of infidelity was accomplished and on its site a lofty mosque was built at the expenditure of a large sum..." ( from "Mas'ir-i-'Alamgiri" by Saqi Must'ad Khan. This work was completed in 1710 at the behest of Inayatu''llah Khan Kashmiri, Aurangzeb's last secretary and the materials which Must'ad Khan used in this history of Aurangzeb's reign came mostly from the State archive)

The Tamil Nadu government, by succumbing to the pressure of Islamic fundamentalists without ascertaining the facts has not only shown poor judgment but exhibited an eagerness to appease fundamentalists. More importantly, this brings to the fore the anti-Hindu agenda of the DMK run Tamil Nadu government that has repeatedly trampled on Hindu sentiments. Just a few months ago, the DMK supremo Karunanidhi let loose a vituperative tirade against the Hindu deity Shri Ram in the context of the Ramsethu controversy and the manner in which the assistant commissioner of police responded to his ‘call of duty’ in this matter is another example of the deep seated antipathy towards Hindus and Hinduism that some in this state harbor.

What was even more striking was the total blackout of this incident from the mainstream English media. Except for the Daily Pioneer, none of the major Indian newspapers including the Indian Express, Hindustan Times, and Times of India thought it fit to report the event. The Hindu did print a few lines but that was to commend the closure of the exhibition: so much for these so- called bastions of free speech.

Compare this with the quantum of newsprint and number of editorials that followed when Hindu groups disrupted an exhibition at Baroda University last year: the contrast is striking and double standards all too obvious.

And what about those self-appointed champions of human rights like Teesta Setalvad and Shabana Azmi? Surprisingly I do not hear even a murmur of protest from them: another testimony to the fact that their activism is not a fair effort to promote human values but a devious conspiracy to target Hindus.

I cannot but infer that Indian secularism is warped. Indian secularism is discriminatory. Indian secularism is nothing but a tool to muzzle the practicing Hindu. It is a synonym for minority appeasement and Hindu bashing. Until we change this attitude and apply the same yardstick to one and all we cannot hope for a truly civilized democracy in India.

References:
1) Destruction of Hindu Temples by Rajiv Verma
2) Kanchan Gupta: "Artistic freedom yes, but not with Aurangzeb", Daily Pioneer, March 9, 2008

More Lies, Part 1

Vivek Bharat — Sat, 8 Dec 2007 09:45:05 EST

A reviewer is supposed to critique a book; not use it as a platform to launch a broadside against his ideological adversaries. Unfortunately, Krishna does just that in his review of Lies, Lies and More Lies. To put those allegations in perspective one needs to write a book; the precise raison d’etre for my book, the one under review. I will address three issues raised by Krishna which only serve to authenticate my contention that the campaign against Hindu Nationalism is rife with half-truths, hyperbole and even blatant lies.

1) Harsha’s Iconoclasm
2) Hindutva as an upper caste premise.
3) Demographic alterations of the sub-continent

The anecdote that he quotes at the outset is a classic example of a factual inaccuracy artfully camouflaged to bolster a shaky ideological viewpoint and another one of the litany of lies that have been propounded over the years to discredit or counter the claims of Hindu Nationalism. This fable owes its origin to Romila Thapar, the grand doyenne of the Marxist version of Indian history and is often quoted as an act of vandalism by a Hindu king against Hindu and Buddhist temples (Romila Thapar et al.: Communalism in the Writing of Indian History, p.15-16,). By some warped logic Marxist historians use this act to justify the temple desecration by Islamic invaders. I fail to comprehend how, exactly.

When Dr. Koenraad Elst attempted to test the veracity of this claim, he uncovered a different story. Dr. Elst, by the way, is a Belgian who holds a Ph.D from Leuven, Belgium for his thesis on Hindu Revivalism and has written extensively on Hindu Nationalism. I reproduce an excerpt from his well–referenced detailed expose, Harsha of Kashmir, a Hindu Iconoclast?:

Meanwhile, I have been able to consult both the Sanskrit original and the English translation of Kalhana's Rajatarangini, and that source provides a clinching testimony.

Harsha or Harshadeva of Kashmir (r.1089-1111) has been called the "Nero of Kashmir", and this "because of his cruelty" (S.B. Bhattacherje: Encyclopaedia of Indian Events and Dates, Sterling Publ., Delhi 1995, p.A-20). He is described by Kalhana as having looted and desecrated most Hindu and Buddhist temples in Kashmir, partly through an office which he had created, viz. the "officer for despoiling god-temples". The general data on 11th-century Kashmir already militate against treating him as a typical Hindu king who did on purely Hindu grounds what Muslim kings also did, viz. to destroy the places of worship of rival religions. For, Kashmir had already been occupied by Masud Ghaznavi, son of Mahmud, in 1034, and Turkish troops were a permanent presence as mercenaries to the king.

Harsha was a fellow-traveller: not yet a full convert to Islam (he still ate pork, as per Rajatarangini 7:1149), but quite adapted to the Islamic ways, for "he ever fostered with money the Turks, who were his centurions" (7:1149). There was nothing Hindu about his iconoclasm, which targeted Hindu temples, as if a Muslim king were to demolish mosques rather than temples. All temples in his kingdom except four (enumerated in 7:1096-1098, two of them Buddhist) were damaged. This behaviour was so un-Hindu and so characteristically Islamic that Kalhana reports: "In the village, the town or in Srinagara there was not one temple which was not despoiled by the Turk king Harsha." (7:1095)

So there you have it: "the Turk king Harsha". Far from representing a separate Hindu tradition of iconoclasm, Harsha of Kashmir was a somewhat peculiar (viz. fellow-traveller) representative of the Islamic tradition of iconoclasm. Like Mahmud Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb, he despoiled and looted Hindu shrines, not non-Hindu ones. Influenced by the Muslims in his employ, he behaved like a Muslim.
This is mentioned explicitly in the text which Romila Thapar cites as proving the existence of Hindu iconoclasm. If she herself has read it at all, she must be knowing that it doesn't support the claim she is making. Either she has just been bluffing, writing lies about Kalhana's testimony in the hope that her readers would be too inert to check the source, or she simply hasn't read Kalhana's text in the first place. Either way, she has been caught in the act of making false claims about Kalhana's testimony even while denouncing others for not having checked with Kalhana.

Summing up, I wish to re-emphasize that Dr. Elst is a Ph.D and that he attempts to confirm his findings through two separate sources (the Sanskrit and English version); a testimony to his capability and sincerity. Apart from being factually challenged, Krishna’s anecdote suffers from a fatal logical flaw. Explain to me how the desecration of Hindu temples by one ‘Hindu’ King justifies the widespread desecration of Hindu temples by Muslim invaders? The germane question, however, is this: Is there even a single substantiated case of a Muslim shrine being desecrated by a Hindu ruler? I have asked this question, again and again. I am still waiting for an answer.

(Stay tuned for part two next week)

Lest We Forget: Godhra February 27, 2002

Vivek Bharat — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:06:58 EDT

The Tehelka expose compels me to jolt our readers into reality by reminding them of the heinous and barbaric cardinal event that triggered Gujarat 2002. Godhra must be the focus whenever the riots are discussed, for without Godhra there would be no riots. To gloss over Godhra or marginalize the event indicates a lack of seriousness in addressing this burning issue. Below is an excerpt (a graphic recreation to convey the Hindu feeling; not a purely factual report) from the chapter titled, “Hindu Anger’ from my recent book, Lies, lies and More Lies. The Campaign to Defame Hindu/Indian Nationalism:

It was 7.30 am on February 27, 2002 as the Sabarmati Express (named after Gandhi’s legendary ashram) pulled into Godhra, a middle-sized town predominantly Muslim in population in the Western Indian state of Gujarat. The train was carrying Hindu pilgrims (or activists) made up of elderly Hindu women sporting large, round spots on their foreheads, young children and men returning from Ayodhya, the birthplace of the foremost deity (Shri Ram) among the Hindu pantheon and now a disputed place of worship between Hindus and Muslims. Many Hindus believe that, in the late sixteenth century, Babur, the founder of the Islamic Moghul Empire, tore down a temple that existed at Ayodhya and replaced it with a mosque (that is not in use today). Now Hindus wish to regain the land and rebuild a temple at the same spot; hence the dispute.

On the railway platform, it was business as usual just like what one comes across in the thousands of train stations across the vast expanse of India: tea vendors selling cups of sweet, milky tea, hawkers parading their array of snacks and small boys with sheaves of early morning newspapers moving form compartment to compartment. The train paused at Godhra for three minutes before resuming its journey to Ahmedabad.

What happened next was anything but usual. The train abruptly came to a stop five minutes later. A crowd of over two thousand Muslims materialized suddenly as if out of nowhere. Before the passengers realized what was happening, the doors were systematically bolted from outside, the train was doused with cans of petrol and set aflame. Shrieks of burning women and children could be heard above the war cries of the mob outside, as the train was converted into a blazing inferno. The depleted emergency services just did not arrive in time or were prevented from reaching the hapless victims by the mob that chanted gleefully from the sidelines. When the embers ceded a few hours later, sixty charred bodies lay motionless among the rubble.

India had not seen such an exhibition of sectarian violence for nearly 50 years. Whatever the provocation, it did not merit such a barbaric retribution and nothing can mitigate the callous nature of the crime. To the Hindu activists or pilgrims, who hoped to one day build a temple to Ram at Ayodhya, it was déjà vu. More than ten years ago, Mulayam Singh Yadav, the then Chief Minister(governor in American parlance) of Uttar Pradesh and who draws his political strength from an anti-Hindu pro-Muslim bias had ordered his police to mercilessly gun down a similar group of pilgrims. Forty unarmed Hindus died in that episode.

As the news of this macabre incident spread throughout the country, the anger welling up amongst the Hindu believers was almost palpable. Surprisingly the sense of outrage which should have been universal was selective and muted. The vulgarity of the silence was resounding. There was no instant condemnation from the Muslim community, and when it did come a whole 24 hours later it was too late. On television talk shows across the country, political leader after leader, including those from India’s mainstream Congress party subtly hinted that the Hindus had it coming as if to justify this ghastly act, prompting even Vir Sanghvi, the editor of a leading newspaper (The Hindustan Times) and a harsh critic of the Hindu resurgence movement to ask: "have we become prisoners of our own rhetoric that even a horrific massacre (of Hindu activists) becomes nothing more than an occasion for Sangh-Parivar(read Hindu) –bashing?”

Nobody tried to reach out to the shocked Hindu community or assuage their feelings. In the face of such insensitivity, Hindu anger exploded into an uncontrollable rage that spilled out onto the streets resulting in a mad violence that should not have been. The anger was justified; the killings that followed were not.
Comment:

Pause for a moment to assess the gravity of this situation. Around 60 men, women and children are maliciously burnt to death and the response is one of mute acceptance or even tacit approval. Is this the response of a civilized society?
It doesn’t shock me when a thuggish element brags of violent murder. But how can I live with the depravity and perversion of thought emanating from our so-called leaders political and intellectual? This is a question every right thinking Indian must ask himself or herself.

The finger of accusation points fairly and squarely at the so called secular intellectual elite for whom every Hindu misfortune is nothing more than an opportunity to curry favor with the other minorities and crown themselves with a halo of false righteousness.

Moreover there are glaring deficiencies and inaccuracies in the Godhra section of the Tehelka expose.
1) Prem Shankar Jha clearly indicates in an article in Outlook that the rumor of a Muslim girl being abducted by karsevaks was false and based on a fictious e-mail (Outlook. March 25, 2002).
2) If the attack was spontaneous, where did the mob get enough fuel to set a complete train bogey on fire.
3) Surprisingly I find no spy cam videos of the alleged perpetrators of the Godhra incident. Even if no incriminating evidence were to be found, it would assure me that Tehelka was sincere in its attempt to unravel the truth.

In light of these deficiencies I am forced to conclude that the Tehelka expose is nothing more than a hatchet job which by its selective focus projects a sensational but skewed picture of events solely designed to malign a specific group, all on the eve of a crucial election.

Lies,Lies and More Lies: Anti-Christian Acts

Vivek Bharat — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:25:44 EDT

When I was finalizing the title for my recently published book, Lies, lies and More Lies: The Campaign to Defame Hindu/Indian Nationalism, my friends and family warned me that the title was too brusque. I maintained that it was harsh but true and refused to budge. Now when I read articles like the one posted by Madhu Chandra (Church Set on Fire in Uttar Pradesh, India, Sept 22), I am more convinced as to the appropriateness of my title.

While we cannot condone any act of physical violence against anyone, and the perpetrators must be disciplined, it is important that events be presented in their entirety. Half-truths and one sided accounts are not acceptable. Below are excerpts from other news sources that tell a different story:

The couple, who claim to “heal the suffering”, used to come to Barauli every Sunday. The protestors were said to be enraged by the couple’s alleged attempts to convert the local Hindus. (DNA)

However, another resident, V.V. Pradhan, claims that the couple has been luring the poor with tall promises if they convert to Christianity. "He promises them jobs, admissions in school for their children and several other facilities if they adopt Christianity. If this is not luring the illiterate, then what is it?" he asks indignantly.

The Supreme Court of India makes a clear distinction between ‘freedom of religion’ and ‘conversion’. In a landmark judgment on Sept 2, 2003, the court said, it must be remembered that Article 25(1) “postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one's own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, that would impinge on the freedom of conscience guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike.''
The entire incident must be investigated thoroughly including the charge that the pastor was luring people to convert by material inducement as this clearly violates the Indian Constitution.

This report by Madhu Chandra is reminiscent of the rash of articles of doubtful veracity that appeared in the Indian press in the late nineties aimed at defaming the Hindu Nationalist movement. Immediately after the BJP came to power at the center, Indian newspapers reported on a series of so-called anti-Christian incidents perpetrated supposedly by Hindu extremists. Close scrutiny, however, revealed that these incidents were deliberate falsehoods spread by vested interests to further their political agenda.

Take for example the incident in Jhabua, MP in which 4 nuns were brutally raped. Even before any details of this crime were available, the major newspapers had conducted a trial, established the criminal guilt of Hindu extremists and communicated this message to the country and the world at large by splashing this news across their front pages.

It was finally left up to Francois Gautier, the correspondent in South Asia for Le Figaro, France’s largest circulation newspaper, who personally went to Jhabua, to unearth the truth. This is what he wrote in the Hindustan Times (Feb 1, 1999):

“This massive outcry on the “atrocities against the minorities” raises also doubts about the quality and integrity of Indian journalism. Take for instance the rape of the four nuns in Jhabua. Today the Indian Press (and the foreign correspondents— witness Tony Clifton’s piece in the last issue of Newsweek) are still reporting that it was a “religious” rape. Yet I went to Jhabua and met the four adorable nuns, who themselves admitted, along with their bishop George Anatil, that it had nothing to do with religion. It was the doing of a gang of Bhil tribals, known to perpetrate this kind of hateful acts on their own women. Yet today, the Indian Press, the Christian hierarchy and the politicians continue to include the Jhabua rape in the list of the atrocities against the Christians.”

A few days later, the Home minister (secretary for Internal Security) released a list of the criminals, a list forwarded to him by the Congress (whose leader incidentally happens to be Christian) government of Madhya Pradesh. Twelve of the accused were Christians. Christian groups initially questioned this finding but when confronted with irrefutable proof chose to ignore it. And the newspapers? Yes, they reported it in some hidden corner of their paper. What about those things called truth and honesty? Does it matter? No. According to their warped sense of values maligning the Hindu groups is itself synonymous with truth.

About another incident that occurred in Kerala, Francois Gautier wrote: “In Wayanad in northern Kerala, it was reported that a priest and four women were beaten up and a Bible was stolen by “fanatical” Hindus. An FIR was lodged, the communists took out processions all over Kerala to protest against the “atrocities” and the Press went gaga. Yet as an intrepid reporter from the Calicut office of The Indian Express found out, nobody was beaten up and the Bible was safe. Too late: the damage was done and it still is being made use of by the enemies of India.”

Truth and honesty must be the foundations of our society. Let us be fair and above all let us speak the truth. Then alone can we build a truly democratic and secular India.

A Dialogue on Lies and The Campaign to Defame Hindu Nationalism

Vivek Bharat — Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:37:29 EDT

I would like to thank Dr. Bhaskar Dasgupta for his assiduous review of my book Lies, Lies and More Lies. While he makes a diligent and serious effort to analyze the writings in the book, he disappointingly fails to grasp the gist of the message and ends up repeating the same hackneyed misconceptions about Hindutva that have prevailed for some time now and in the process overlooks the changing nature of this ideology and its relevance to present day events in its new avatar.

The reviewer like many Indian writers is fixated on abstract cerebral notions that score high debating points but have little relevance to reality. Each of us may belong to several nations defined by ones culture, language and geographical location. But here I refer to the classical definition of nationhood that is important practically and not the abstract entity ruminating in ones mind: a group of people belonging to different religions, speaking different languages, of different ethnicities occupying a definite tract of land demarcated by boundaries and subscribing to a common principle that protects the mundane rights of one and all.

Firstly I would like to allay a cardinal misconception of the reviewer. The goal of Hindutva today is not to create a Hindu theocratic nation based on a strict religious identity but to ensure the success of a genuinely secular and democratic republic. Even Golwalker had negated a rigid definition of nationhood based on religious identity in his later years (ch 1. Ref 7) .The last para of my introduction reads:

The future of India as a genuine democratic pluralist society is inextricably linked with the fate of Hindutva. If Hindutva prevails, Hindus will continue to remain in majority in India and so will the principles enshrined in their way of life, namely genuine secularism and acceptance of all religions. And with this the foundations of a secular, democratic republic of India.

I do agree that the ethereal philosophy of the Hindu adequately explains the Hindu's lack of resistance to foreign invasion. Will Durant in The Story of Civilization concurs:

This is the secret of the political history of modern (medieval) India. Weakened by division, it succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life.

Naipaul further expands on this characteristic outlining its detrimental value: "I wondered whether intellectually, for a thousand years India hadn't always retreated before its conquerors and whether in its periods of apparent revival, India hadn't only been making itself archaic again, 'intellectually smaller, always vulnerable'. (A Wounded Civilization)

It is apparent that this attitude is ill-suited to the practical world and cries out for revision; hence the need for Hindutva.

The indigenous religions of India namely Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism share a special bond with Hinduism: one of complementation and not competition and therefore the lack of major conflict. Hinduism as it exists today has incorporated many important principles of these religions. The extraneous religions have instead pursued a path of competition in the form of conversions in the past but can change this in the future by eschewing prosleytisation (ch. 18).

Again when I refer to secularism, I do not wish to enter into a polemic discussion on the models of secularism existing in the present world. I am in quest of a secularism that is relevant to present day India. Rather than confusing, my premise is clear and simple: equality of all religions under the law; non-interference of the state in the affairs of all religions to prevent the illegal siphoning of Hindu funds to aid churches and madarasas as in the present system ( ch. 15: Hindu Temples in the age of Pseudo secularism)

The reviewer dismisses statistical projections as being historically wrong. Statistical projections apart from prediction have another important function; increasing awareness of the issue. Focusing on a problem prompts people to take steps to avoid the deleterious end point: therein lies its true value. While the Malthus theory did not pan out as outlined, one cannot deny that it made the world conscious of its impending problems, prompting corrective action in the form of birth control and increased food production. That is the reason for my population projections and I do clearly state that it is only a projection taking into account the present trend and valid if no major changes occur.

The proposal for a 'Demographic Status Quo' cannot be summarily dismissed without reason for no nation can survive if it applies varying laws to its different communities with regard to major issues. India's burgeoning population demands a birth control strategy; a uniform policy applied equally to all and not one of voluntary nature applied with discrimination.

PS. I am enjoying this discussion and am waiting eagerly for Dr. Bhaskar Dasgupta's second part of his review of the book.