The other day Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, while in the USA, made a statement that “ IUML” (Indian Union Muslim League) was secular. He further qualified by saying that there was nothing “non-secular” about it. It shows his political immaturity. He could have ducked the question by asking whether USA itself is secular? He could have qualified it further by asking whether a non-Christian can become President of the USA.
He seems to have displayed his special love for an organisation, which had led to India’s partition in 1947. Such remarks can only justify now defunct “Two Nation Theory” and further widen the gulf between the Hindus and Muslims. As a political leader, he has shown his preference or attraction for a particular religion. It may lead to further polarisation in the country.
Is Rahul Gandhi aware of IUML’s demand for imposition of “Shariah laws”? Does he think “Shariah Law” is secular? Does he even know what being secular means? His special concern for “Muslim League” is not understandable. One may also note that a few years back, as was revealed by Wikileaks, he had told US ambassador to India that danger to country was from “Hindu Terror”. And this man during Gujarat elections had become “ a JANEU – wearing Kaul Bahaman”. Is he deliberately playing a double game to polarise the society?
His maternal great-grandfather, Jawahar Lal Nehru, used the prefix of “Pundit” before his name. What was the need if he was secular? Or was it to hide something else? In fact former foreign minister of India, K. Natwar Singh mentions an incident in his book, “One life is not Enough”, that Indira Gandhi, Rahul’s grandmother, in an unscheduled move, had gone to Babur’s Tomb in Afghanistan and paid her obeisance there. It was done quietly and in an unannounced manner. What was the need for such a visit? She could have also visited Prithvi Raj Chauhan’s burial place, but she did not. What does this indicate or signify? These strange acts do raise a question as to, “why was this special love for Muslims within the family”?
I am not an atheist but I have no love for any religion. To me, all religions are a curse on humanity. God was invented to fool simple human beings; religion was created to divide the humanity into narrow fiefdoms. Religions are opium of the masses, which keeps them “Brain-Controlled”. Thus, the birth tag keeps them bounded throughout their lives and they fight, die and kill for it.
When I was born, I was told that I am a Hindu. When I was growing up, my grandma, who brought me up during my formative years, one day told me: “Rajinder, remember, people proudly talk about their religions; they kill and die for it but they never follow the tenets of their religion”. She went on: “Those who display their religion on their sleeves, they are the most non-believers. More noise they make about loyalty towards their religion, more it reflects upon their lack of faith”.
One day I asked my Grandma, if you are so much against every religion, why do you tell me that I am a Hindu? She stunned me by saying that HINDUISM was NOT a religion; it is a way of life. It is culture of the land, lying East of Sindhu River or Indus River (say Hindu). I was not impressed and forgot about it.
After my retirement from the army in 2006, I came across a book India: A History by John Keay, a British Historian and an Indologist. On page 10 of his book he describes that word HINDU is a corruption of word SINDHU, which in old Sanskrit meant a River.
According to him, on a tablet of King Darius I of Persia (Modern Iran), dated 518 BC, the word HINDU appears for the first time – where he got inscribed that his kingdom extended up to the western bank of River HINDU (SINDHU). As per John Keay, old Persians pronounced ‘S’ as an apostrophe.
Thus, old Persians considered all people living East of River SINDHU as Hindus – no matter whether they were Vaishnaivite, Shaivites, Sanatan Dharmi, Buddhists, or Jains – all different temporal sects – referred to as religions today. John Keay further says that when word Hindu travelled further West to Greece, it lost its H and became Indu, Indie or Indica – which later on transformed to India.
Foreigners gave both names, but both have a cultural linkage and not religious overtones. In his previous book Into India, he goes on to say that as late as 19th Century, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs were known to be part of Hinduism.
The word ‘Hindu’ was not a religious connotation but a geographical description as word ‘India’ is today. An Indian could be a Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Christian or a Muslim, a Sanatani, an Arya Samaji, or even following a Godman, such as Gurus like Sri Sri, Osho etc.
On reading this, I realised the significance of what my grandma had told me, in 1955-56. How right she was. I reckon she was a true secularist and not a kind of noise making liars, who swarm Mandirs and Masjids for votes.
It is only the competitive politics of this country, which has dwarfed Hinduism as a religion. When did the religious connotation come to be associated with Hinduism – a way of life? I will go into this detail some other time. But now, I only wish to point out that SECULARISM and TOLERANCE are in-built in every culture. If Hinduism is not to be taken as a religion, then it is the most secular and tolerant philosophy of life.
I have eaten beef as a young man. My parents did not question me or made me an outcaste. I have no objection to my son relishing it. He remains my son. This does not make him a Non-Hindu or a Non-Indian. Today, I do not relish Non- Vegetarian dishes; it does not qualify me as a ‘Radical Hindu’. This is the beauty of being a Hindu. As the legend goes, there are 33 crore (330 million) Gods available in this culture of Hinduism – you can choose whom you wish to worship. There is NO absolutism of God. Moreover, Hindu Culture does not brand non-believers as ‘Kafirs’ or ‘infidels’.
Now I come to the title of my post, where I asked who was more secular? Hindu majority, if you consider it as a religion, is a myth created by the advocates of TWO NATION THEORY, which led to the partition of the subcontinent. It was the religious-minded Muslims leaders who created this myth of Hindu Majority, coaxed by Britishers. Where is the Hindu majority? You have Jats, Rajputs, Gujjars, Kshatriyas, Khatris, Brahmins, Vaishyas, Harijans, Dalits, Kurmi and so on. Ever community or grouping has one’s own Gods and Goddesses. Besides there are so many temporal sects mushrooming amongst all these sub-sects and the basic philosophy of these sub-sects is Vasudevaya Kutumbakum (World is a family).
All this brings out that Hindu culture is NOT only tolerant but most secular too. It is in-built in this culture. However SECULARISM of Muslims of India is a necessity in a dominating Hindu culture. Their tolerance and SECULARISM is only an outward mask but inside they are most communal. They do not tolerate others Gods.
Why is ISLAMIC TERRORISM a danger to the humanity? Because Islam believes in the ABSOLUTISM of their “Allah”. No wonder Muslims in India join DALIT AGITATION not because they support them but because they get pleasure out of a chasm being created by the Hindu Culture, which according to the people, fed on TWO NATION THEORY, is a religion.
Fear so created about HINDU MAJORITY rule the minds of innocent Muslims, who believe these scheming politicians. Truly speaking, the rise of VHP, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena etc. is as a reaction to this thought process of Muslims. In fact, word ‘Hindu’ is the equivalent of the modern word ‘Indian’.
I therefore feel proud of my Grandma who had given me this vision and who really believed in this concept. I may not be a practising HINDU as it is being interpreted today, but I proudly say that I am part of this grand culture called HINDUISM. If you agree with me, say proudly that you are as good a HINDU as an INDIAN should be. Let politicians try their best to divide it by Reservations and vote bank politics but it will not survive, as it did during 600 years of Muslim rule and 300 years of Christian rule. Say with pride: We are all HINDUS WHO LIVE IN INDIA. Follow your temporal practices but do not disown your ancestral identity.
Is India Secular? When I view things in a right perspective, I get a negative answer? Adding the word ‘Secular’ in the preamble to the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment does not make India ‘Secular’. It is a fanciful dream of those who brought in this amendment. A scholar, Ashwani Anand, gives out four factors, which make India ‘non- secular. These are:
- Different laws for Hindus, Muslims and Christians.
- Government control of temples but not of mosques or churches and gurudwaras.
- Different laws for minority schools and ‘majority’ schools.
- Subsidies for Hajj but not for Amarnath Yatra.
Secularism would imply separation of State and the religions. But in the vote bank politics of India, religion plays a vital role these days. State very much interferes and discriminates against Hindus. Why is the policy of ‘reservation’ only for ‘Dalits’ amongst Hindus? It is a clear-cut involvement of the state. Thus, how can India be secular?
-An ex-NDA and Wellington Staff College graduate, Col Rajinder Singh is a renowned author and security analyst. He has authored four books, two individually and two in collaboration. His best-selling books are Kashmir – A Different Perspective and The ULFA Insurgency. The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Raksha Anirveda
