From: DXA4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Hindu Psyche and Nehruvian Secularism
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:03:54 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Following article will make an interesting reading on the subject of secular-
ism and Ayodhya dispute. It is written by Mr. M. V. Kamath, a veteran journal-
ist in his syndicated column. He has been chief editor of Illustrated Weekly of
India, and Resident reporter of Times of India at Washington. In this article
Mr. Kamath urges Hindus and Muslims alike to come to terms with history.

Dinesh Agrawal...

****************************
Nehruvian Secularism has Meant Self-denial of Hindu Identity

By. Mr. M.V. Kamath

There has been a great deal of talk in recent times over the Babri Masjid issue
about Hindu fundamentalism and communalism, the evil of Vishwa Hindu Parishad
and the exploitation by the BJP of Hindu sentiments to cash in on votes. It is
necessary to remember that the Babri Masjid Ram Janambhoomi issue is not a
bogey suddenly raised by the BJP for political purposes. That issue has been
around for over a century but had been moth-balled both by the British, and
Indian rulers in post-independence days, for reasons of their own. Two
questions need to be asked; why is the issue so emotive? And why has'nt it
been resolved in a hundred years?

The truth about India is that we are unwilling to come to terms with our past.

What is this 'past' that we have to come to terms with? It is the invasion of
India by alien forces professing Islamic ideology and religion and the subjuga-
tion of the native people. It is a past that has involved religious persecution
and enforced conversion and the destruction of temples. It is past that many
Hindus would happily forget if they can. But they find that they can't. It
keeps nagging at them. The hurt that Hindus have entertained for centuries
hasn't disappeared by the passing of centuries. Muslims (and may it be
remembered that over 90% of Muslims voted for the Muslim League in its cry
for a separate Muslim State to be called Pakistan) indicated in the clearest
possible terms that so far as they were concerned, they will never come to
terms with Hindus and will not live under Hindu majority rule. It was declara-
tion that the Muslims will not come to terms with their joint history with
Hindus. It was also an admission of fear that the sins of their ancesters
might be visited on them...

Jawaharlal Nehru who was in charge of the government for the best part of two
decades went to extraordinary lengths to project India's image as a secular
country denying to Hinduism its central importance in India. It suited Nehru
and his daughter and grandson. They could garner the Muslim votes, especially
in the Hindi belt where the Muslims vote could make all the difference between
Congress victory and defeat. And they could offer themselves as champions of
the minorities.

As long as the Nehru charisma lasted, Hindu opinion grit its teeth and maintain
ed an agonised silence. The riots during the years of independence were an
outward expression of an inner feeling of impotence that Nehru clamped down on
the people. The Hindu desire to the HIndu in their own country was effectively
clamped. It was an unhealthy state of affairs that could not possibly last...

'Secularism' of the Nehru brand meant for many Hindus a 'self-denial' of their
identity. Were Hindus afraid to call themselves as such without being condemned
as 'communal'? Many watched what was going on in neighboring countries like
Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere where the people
happily proclaimed their faith in their religion without fear of being dubbed
as 'communal'. To many Hindus it seemed as if only they as a people had to pay
the penalty for living in a multi religious and heterogenic society.

Many intellectual Hindus tried to rationalise their own cowardice by saying
that HInduism was, after all, a liberal religion, that its very strength lay
in its heterogeneity and that it should be forbearing and considerate towards
Muslims. Muslims, apparently had no such ambitions. They demanded and received
a separate Muslim-majority district in Kerala carved out of other districts.
Was that fair? When the Muslims in Kashmir push some 1,00,000 Kashmiri Pandits
out of their homes, how else is Muslim sentiment to be described?

Can a people, 2000 of whose temples had been razed to the ground in past centu-
ries be told not to feel hurt? It is not that the BJP or the VHP want to
'destroy' a mosque. The Babri Mosque, in the first place, is not any mosque. It
is supposedly built on a temple previously dedicated to Shri Ram. Can't Muslim
opinion have the decency and the essential grace to let the VHP have its way?

If some Muslims today resist the demand of Hindus that a temple should be
built on the Janambhoomi site it would seem that they want to force Hindus
to demolish the mosques so that they could then transfer their guilt on to
them. So the Hindus are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Nobody within the RSS has demanded demolition of all mosques.
*****************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian