Double speak is the Forte of the Nehruvian Secularist ‘

Dear Sir,

Reference Vir Sanghvi’s ” Much ado about nothing ” – (TNIE-ZEITGEIST – 21 NOV).

In his anxiety to ‘secularly balance’ his Article, he ends up equating ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ with some ‘Nehruvian secular myth’ called ‘Hindu Fundamentalism’!!
His thesis is that the ‘Islamic Fundamentalists’ in the form of the
‘mullahs’,  by their Fatwas, give a handle for the ‘Hindu
Fundamentalists’. Q.E.D.!!  A typical ‘Nehruvian Secular Construct’.

Could
Vir Sanghvi amplify on what exactly he has in his mind by the term
‘Hindu Fundamentalist’ or ‘Communalist’? My study of open source
literature on this subject reveals that ‘fundamentalists are
literalists, who rigidly hold to their beliefs, and insist that since
their religion alone is TRUE, the other religions should not be
tolerated ‘.  Also, fundamentalist groups insist that theirs is the
ONLY TRUE GOD, and that other Gods or names for God are WRONG. Thus,
Islamic Fundamentalists insist that the only TRUE GOD is ALLAH, and
will not accept Hindu names like ‘Brahman’, or, ‘Ishvara’.

The
foregoing raises the question: “Are Hindus of one faith only”? They are
divided into Shaivites, Vaishnavas, Shaktas (worship of Goddess),
Ganapatas, Smartas and a number of other groups. Where are the
‘literalists’ then in Hindu society? What common fundamentalist
ideology do these disparate Hindu groups follow? How do such diverse
groups maintain their harmony and identity under the ‘Hindu
Fundamentalist’ banner?

The answer to this ‘Nehruvian Secularist
waffle’ like Sanghvi,
is given by Dr.David Frawley (Acharya Vamadeva Shastri) in his
excellent “Arise Arjuna: Hinduism and the Modern World” (pp-41) :

“ 
Hindus are called Fundamentalists for organizing themselves
politically. Yet, members of all other religions have done this, WHILE
HINDUISM IS BY ALL ACCOUNTS THE MOST DISORGANIZED OF ALL RELIGIONS.
There are many Christian and Islamic parties throughout the world, and
in all countries where these religions are in a majority, they make
sure to exert whatever political influence they can. Why shouldn’t
Hindus have a political voice in India? The Muslims in India have their
own Muslim party and no one is calling them fundamentalists for
organizing themselves politically ” .

Again. ” There are
those who warn that Hindu rule would mean the creation of a theocratic
state? Yet, what standard Hindu theology is there, and what Hindu
theocratic state has ever existed? Will it be a Shaivite, Vaishnava, or
Vedantic theocracy? What Hindu theocratic model will it be based on? Is
there a model of Hindu kings like the Caliphs of early Islam to go back
to, or like the Christian emperors of the Middle Ages? What famous
Hindu king was a fundamentalist who tried to eliminate other beliefs
from the land or tried to spread Hinduism throughout the world by the
sword? Does Rama or Krishna provide such a model? Does Shivaji provide
such a model? If no such model exists, what is the fear of a militant
Hindu theocratic rule based upon?

Frawley concluded: “
To routinely raise such negative stereotypes as fundamentalists or even
fascists, relative to Hindu groups, who may only be trying to bring
some sense of unity or common cause among Hindus, is a gross abuse of
language “.

And yet, the very same Vir Sanghvi, wrote an Article:  “One-way ticket”
in The Hindustan Times of Feb. 28th, 2002: ” There is something profoundly worrying in the response of what might be called the secular establishment to the massacre in Godhra. … There is no suggestion that the karsewaks started the violence … there has been no real provocation at all … And yet, the sub-text to all secular commentary is the same: the karsewaks had it coming to them. Basically, they condemn the crime; but blame the victims … Try
and take the incident out of the secular construct that we, in India,
have perfected and see how bizarre such an attitude sounds in other
contexts. Did we say that New York had it coming when the Twin
Towers were attacked last year? Then too, there was enormous resentment
among fundamentalist Muslims about America’s policies, but we didn’t
even consider whether this resentment was justified or not. – -There
is one question we need to ask ourselves: have we become such prisoners
of our own rhetoric that even a horrific massacre becomes nothing more
than occasion for Sangh Parivar-bashing?”

The contrast between the two Sanghvi Articles is striking, to say the least!!

Wouldn’t it be, therefore, fair for this reader to conclude that :

‘ Double speak is the Forte of the Nehruvian Secularist ‘ ?  Vir Sanghvi, for example?

VANDE MATARAM

Responses