INDIA’S “SUCCULAR”(SIC) THINKERS,WRITERS,ARTISTES AND POLITICIANS:ABUSE OF THE WORD HINDU
So, one of our new secular ministers tells us that the Sindhu Darshan festival, started by the last government to celebrate the river India gets her name from, will be made less communal. Excuse me?
The word Hindu is being used as a term of abuse. Hindu fanatic, Hindu fundamentalism, Hindu nationalist, Hindutva. Mostly, that is how the word Hindu gets used and nearly always pejoratively.
It bothers me that I went to school and college in this country without any idea of the enormous contribution of Hindu civilisation to the history of the world. It bothers me that even today our children, whether they go to state schools or expensive private ones, come out without any knowledge of their own culture or civilisation. I believe that the Indic religions have made much less trouble for the world than the Semitic ones and that Hindu civilisation is something I am very proud of. If that is evidence of my being ‘‘communal’’, then, my inner voice tells me, so be it.
(source: This inner voice too needs hearing – By Tavleen Singh – indianexpress.com).
Jawaharlal Nehru considered the induction of Hindu women in Muslim harems as the cradle of “composite culture” (his euphemism for Hindu humiliation. Time and again, the negationist historians – Romila Thapar, Harbans Mukhia, Bipin Chandra, K.N. Panikkar, S. Goyal, Irfan habib, Asghar Ali Engineer, Gyanendra Pandey, R. S. Sharma, Sushil Srivastava – all professors at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU, the Mecca of “secularism” and negationism write that the medieval wars were not religious wars.
(source: Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam – By Koenraad Elst South Asia Books 1992 ASIN 0836458087 p. 37-51).
Some of the gems from so called “Authentic” Marxist historians (like Romila Thapar, R. S. Sharma and others) of India:
– Muslims were mere visitors to India. (When Romila Thapar tries to make gullible readers believe that Mahmud Ghaznavi only desecrated temples for their wealth she must know (assuming, as all her quoters do, that she is competent historian) that Mahmud is revered by the Muslims as a devout Muslim, that he calligraphed Quran text “for the benefit of his soul”, and that he actually refused a huge ransom which Hindus were ready to pay if he agreed to give back an idol, instead of breaking it. Mahmud preferred breaking idols to selling them, even if that meant foregoing wealth. So her theory of Mahmud’s economical rather than religious motives is at best an unscientific imposition of Marxist dogma upon the facts of Indian history, otherwise a deliberate lie.)
– Incest was common in Vedic period.
– Aurangzeb was a good king. His atrocities does not go beyond damaging some temples.
– Akbar was a GREAT king.
– Ram never existed. His temple was not there in Ayodhya.
– Aryan were outsiders who came to invade India.
– Jinnah was a secular person to the core of his heart who wanted Hindu-Muslim unity with Sarojini Naidu describing her as “Ambassador” of Hindu-Muslim unity.
– For special guests beef was served as a mark of honor” by none other than Brahmins.
– Sanskrit and Arabic are ancient languages of India.
Consider the status of the leftist historians who are now waxing eloquent about their ‘objectivity.’ Arun Shourie, in Eminent Historians, ASA Publications, 1999. Shourie skewers each of the individuals famously grousing now about their lovely textbooks being rejected: R S Sharma, D N Jha, Satish Chandra, et al. He shows them to be shady characters just short of being charlatans, scarcely the saintly academics they like to pretend to be. It is nothing short of astonishing that these are the people who have been allowed to mould India’s children for the past half-century. India’s citizens have clearly failed in their duty of vigilance. Why won’t India’s leftists then accept Naipaul’s opinions?
By denouncing Hinduism day in and day out, these ‘eminent historians’ deny the land itself. They leave the people no sense of self-worth. will a society bereft of self-worth do anything worthwhile? Will a people deprived of self-worth stand by any norms? Do our commentators not see that by the rhetoric they espouse not one leader of our reawakening – Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Tilak, Gandhi, Ramana Maharshi – NOT ONE is anything but a Hinduism monger?