What’s wrong with India being declared a Hindu Rashtra?

India is undergoing a baptism of fire as Muslims, other minorities and large sections of Hindus criticize the current government for ‘bigotry’ in the Indian state. The situation turned turbulent when the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) came to power in the Indian parliament with a splendid majority. This had never happened during the last 67 years when the majority Congress party ruled India.

Even when Atal Vajpayee was the prime minister, he led the government with a fractured mandate. Therefore, for the so-called secularists, the victory of the BJP, which defended Hindu thoughts and dreams, was like a red rag to a bull and these groups launched a huge orchestrated campaign of “intolerance”. The target was the BJP and its leader Narendra Modi: the target was to somehow topple the elected government or at least make things so much worse for them that they would be defeated in the next election and are currently unable to give an effective government.

In a debate in parliament, CPI leader Mohammed Salim accused Home Minister Rajnath Singh of claiming that India now had a Hindu prime minister. Mohammed Salim was very theatrical in making the accusations against him and was saddened to learn that Rajnath Singh denied the claims. One had the feeling that talking about Hindu Rashtra was a sin. Why should it be like this?

A retrospective look at history is essential for further discussion. Until the 10th century, when the Hindus ruled India, the only type of government in India was a Hindu Rashtra, as the Indian kings upheld the supremacy of Hinduism and ruled according to the rule of “dharma”. History records that despite being a Hindu Rashtra, there was freedom of worship and Jains, Buddhists and Muslims were free to worship their gods and idols. During this period, the Parsis, the followers of Zoroaster, also arrived and settled in India to escape the persecution of the Muslims in Iran.

From the 10th century the Muslims conquered India. It started in the north and a few centuries later the south was also conquered and Muslim dynasties began to rule there. William Duff, the eminent historian, has pointed out that this was the dark age of India and that more than 80 million Hindus were killed when an Islamic state was imposed on India. Hindus had to pay Jizziya (tax on non-Muslims) on their own land and were reduced to second-class status. Hindu girls were kidnapped and made part of large harems These are facts of history.

The sad part of all this was the collaboration of many Hindus with Muslims. Thus, Aurangzeb’s army had a large number of Hindus and his best general, Raja Jai ​​Singh, was a Hindu. He was the man who even defeated Shivaji and made him sue for peace. However, these privileged Hindus did nothing for the hard-working Hindu masses in a Muslim state. Even in the deep south, Tippu Sultan destroyed thousands of temples and churches and forcibly circumcised and forced Hindus to eat beef. These are facts that cannot be denied.

The sum total is that Muslim rule was a nightmare and apart from some construction of mosques and tombs, one cannot see what Muslim rule contributed. On the contrary, the French Jesuits and Catholics during this period have noted in their diaries that the Muslim rulers were in the habit of making great pyramids out of Hindu skulls. Even the so-called “great” Akbar is guilty of this nefarious practice.

Starting in the 19th century, the British entered the scene. For all the negative aspects of British rule that the Congressional government is wont to point out, English rule was a benevolent period. The population began to grow and the Hindus regained their rights after 900 years. Education spread and the country was united for the first time in 4,000 years of history as a single entity. The Muslims who had been defeated by the British obviously sulked as the Hindus marched forward. But then again, the British at no time had more than 100,000 clansmen in India and they ruled over a population of 300 million. How was this possible?

The reason was that many Indians (both Muslims and Hindus) collaborated with the British. The Indian rulers (Maharajahs and Nawabs) also sided with the English. The most important factor was a large mercenary army consisting of 95% of the so-called martial races, recruited from among the Indians who aided the English government. These are facts of history that are difficult to digest and one wonders what was the reason why the Hindus (who were the majority) accepted this dispensation. Perhaps, as VS Naipaul has pointed out now and by Frank Moraes before, it is in the genes of Hindus who believe in the acts of the almighty and a passive approach to life. Frank Moraes coined the word “meek and mild Hindu”.

Nirad C Choudhry, India’s most famous English writer in his famous book “Continent of Circe” has also touched on this aspect. The fact is that the Hindus were psychologically at a loss as to what to do after 900 years of Muslim rule, in which they had been counted into submission. When power was transferred to India, the Hindus for the most part blazed a trail of so-called secularism, actually appeasement of the Muslim minority in order to ‘plague’ them. This has been commented on by many writers.

In 1947, Gandhi accepted the two nation theory of Hindus and Muslims as separate nations and the state of Pakistan was created. Logically India should have been declared a Hindu rashtra. Somehow the Congress led by Nehru and Gandhi denied this aspect of historical truth and agreed to a ‘secular’ state. Unfortunately, this secular state in real terms meant a policy of appeasement and vote bank building. It was a diabolical plan. I have the authority of a prominent politician who is my friend stating that this policy had a deep background. The idea was to win 99% of the minority vote and even with 30-32% Hindu votes, the Congress would always win. But sometimes the best of plots go wrong and it happened that the dissident parties presented a regional bias and this plan failed in 2014.

The question is what is wrong if India is a Hindu rashtra? There was a Hindu Rashtra until the 10th century and having a Hindu Rashtra now does not mean that minorities will not have rights. However, it will correct the historical imbalance, where Hindus have suffered for 1100 years. I may be on a limb, but many agree with me. The biggest bastion is Congress and its allies such as the leftist parties and casteist parties like JD. I wonder how these can be defeated if they have allied themselves and are spreading the hoax of intolerance.