'A State has to run its affairs in accordance with the hopes, aspirations, ethos, ideals and culture of the nation. It should represent the nation before the world, promote the image of the nation and welfare of its members, and spread the glory of its national culture.'
India is a wretched land of constitutional discrimination against the Hindus in overwhelming majority in our nation. The first hallmark of an independent nation is that it would have an independent State, and would be recognized by other countries as a nation. Its State has to run its affairs in accordance with the hopes, aspirations, ethos, ideals and culture of the nation. It should represent the nation before the world, promote the image of the nation and welfare of its members, and spread the glory of its national culture. Such a State would create consciousness of national honor, national pride and national heritage in the young and old generations.
Such a State would never permit the rights and status of its nationals to be inferior to those of any minorities, aliens and non-nationals. The grim tragedy of post independent India after 1947 has been that none of these characteristics of the State hold good for the Hindus in overwhelming majority.
As Abhas Chatterjee puts it with magisterial clarity and conviction: 'Forget about other countries, the Indian State itself has not yet recognized Hindus as a nation. And since the State power in India has itself never taken any such initiative, the question of other countries recognizing Hindus as a nation does not arise at all.'
Thanks to the vicious policy of minority vote bank politics pursued for 60 years after 1947, the Indian Constitution in effect gives less rights to the Hindus than to the minorities in several matters. For example, under Article 30 of the Constitution, minorities have got the most precious right of running educational institutions in accordance with their own cultures and values, but Hindus have been denied this right. In my view, this is State-sponsored, State-guided and State-imposed discrimination of the vilest kind. Does it not patently show that the Indian State is more liberal in advancing the cause of propagation of alien cultures like Christianity and Islam than the propagation of Hindu culture? According to the Indian State, Adi Shankara, Ramanuja, Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh, Gauthama Buddha, Maha Veera and all the Vedic saints, sages and seers, on account of their birth and belief, should enjoy a 'second class status' compared with Prophet Mohammed or Jesus Christ.
In some of the States in India, a particular non-Hindu community is numerically predominant. In such States, the State government has been granted special rights under the Indian Constitution. Article 370 applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir is a case in point. Similar provisions have been made applicable to Nagaland under Article 371-A and Mizoram under Article 371-G.
In all these specially favorite areas of the Union Government, Laws made by India's Parliament would not be applicable unless their own State Legislatures endorse them. In other words, States with a preponderance of the minorities will have greater autonomy in day-to-day administration than the States where Hindus are in absolute majority.
Even the preamble of the Indian Constitution does not contain any vital Hindu idea. It enumerates no principles based on Hindu ethos and ideals. Ideas of the French Revolution like justice, equality, fraternity and liberty have been grafted on to it in a soulless manner. They may be good ideas in themselves, but what is the inspiration behind them? Are they not Western ideals rooted in the Western ethos? They do not reflect the national ideals of Bharatvarsha as a Hindu nation.
Swami Vivekananda kept on exhorting us that the ideals of our nation ought to be 'Dharma' and 'spirituality', 'renunciation' and 'service', 'tolerance' and 'harmony'. 'Satyam vada', 'Dharmam chara' (speak the truth, abide by Dharma) has been basic theme of Hindu culture from the dawn of history.
Let me now go to the Laws of the land, and the policy of the State.
In most of the States in India, Minorities Finance Corporations have been formed. They are meant only to assist the minorities. The basic pre-condition for getting a loan is that 'he must not be a Hindu.' You may be a learned yet destitute Hindu, a starving Hindu struggling to earn a rupee, but you cannot be financed. Get converted tomorrow to Islam or Christianity and you will instantaneously get the loan. This is pseudo-secularism at its noblest, purest and loftiest level!
The Government of India and many State governments have passed a 'Minorities Commission Act' to make a special arrangement for the judicial protection of those who are 'not Hindus.' The Commissions that have been formed in pursuance of these Laws grant representation to followers of alien creeds but not to a Hindu, i.e. to a follower of 'Sanathana Dharma' who wishes to call himself a Hindu. Abhas Chatterjee rightly concludes in this context: 'It appears that the Hindus neither need solution of their social problems, nor the protection of their collective community rights.'
It is a well-known historical fact that the Moplahs of Kerala carried out a brutal massacre of Hindus in Malabar in 1921. They plundered thousands of Hindu homes and burnt Hindu villages, they raped Hindu women and destroyed Hindu Temples. They are the honored sons of India today! Some of those Moplahs as are still alive are being honored by the government of India as freedom fighters and given a monthly pension for reasons even Gods do not know! The Moplahs are never known to have fought the British on any other occasion.
Blessed by the Central government, the State governments of Assam, West Bengal, Bihar and Delhi have been willingly permitting millions of Bangladeshi Muslims to infiltrate into our country during the last several years. They are given indirect encouragement and protection, showing a keenness to give them full benefits of citizenship by issuing rations cards to them, entering their names in voters list and so on. The Supreme Court of India has recently indicted the government of India and the concerned State governments for pursuing this anti-national policy.
Over the last few years, there have been several incidents in Punjab and Jammu, in which some passengers were segregated and dragged out of buses to be lined up on the road side and shot to death. We should remember that in each of these incidents, the victims of the butchery, persons killed like stray dogs, were Hindus and Hindus alone. And they were killed because they were Hindus. Are Hindus free in their own native land? The entire Hindu population of the valley of Kashmir has been languishing outside the State in make-shift tents.
What has the government of India done to stop this planned genocide of Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir? Will Ram Vilas Paswan who wants a Muslim to be a Chief Minister of Bihar have the political/moral courage to simultaneously declare that only a Hindu can be a Chief Minister in Jammu and Kashmir?
I am firmly of the view that there is no State today, at any rate not in India, to protect Hindu interests in the international arena, to raise voice for the Hindus. If Jews are unjustly treated in any part of the world, the State of Israel, representative of an independent Jewish nation, immediately raises its voice. Some years ago, when Jews were killed in a bomb explosion in Argentina, the government of Israel took less than half an hour to announce that it will not spare the murderers. Government of India is not able to give physical protection to the devout Hindus going to the Amarnath Temple in Jammu and Kashmir, within our own nation, who are brutally attacked or killed every year. At the same time, the government of India accords a higher priority to the allotment of more funds to the Muslim Haj pilgrims than to the security considerations of the Hindus!
I consider Abhas Chatterjee as one of the makers of the modern Hindu nation for having come out with this great vision statement:
'We have seen that the present Constitution of India is not based on Hindu ideals and ethos. Its provisions have been framed disregarding Hindu values and Hindu cultural and social traditions. It is always the preamble of a nation's Constitution which proclaims what is its national identity, what are its national ideals and goals, what is its national culture, for the weal of which society has it been formed. The present Constitution of India appears to be screaming at the top of its voice to announce that the India it talks of represents neither the Hindu nation, nor the Hindu religion, nor the Hindu culture, nor the Hindu society. 'By no stretch of imagination can you consider it a Constitution for the Hindus or of the Hindu nation. A Constitution that ignores Hindu ideals, which gives the nation less right than to its minorities, which does not recognize Hindus as a nation cannot be our Constitution. In my opinion, those who regard the present Constitution of India as their own, no matter how big leaders they may be -have not yet comprehended the concept of the Hindu nation.'
Page : 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8