............SHOULD HINDUS BE APOLOGETIC?
............Sadhu Prof. V. Rangarajan
....Founder Trustee, Bharatamata Gurukula Ashram
Srinivasanagar. Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore 560 036
The English word 'apology' is vague and ambiguous. In one sense it means "a formal spoken or written defense of some idea, religion, philosophy, etc.," and in another sense it means "an acknowledgement of some fault, injury, insult, etc., with an expression of regret and a plea for pardon" and to 'apologize' means in one sense, "to make an apology; acknowledge, and express regret for, a fault, wrong, etc" and in another sense, "to make a formal defense in speech or writing". Apologetic, therefore, means either "defending in writing or speech; vindicating" or it may mean "showing realization of and regret for a fault, wrong, etc; making an apology". (Ref: Webster's New World College Dictionary).
Our Hindu leaders are equally confused when they speak or act 'apologetically'. The history of India saw invasions after invasions of Muslim marauders from across the border through centuries and thousands of our renowned temples, educational institutions and cultural symbols of the past were ransacked and pulled down, Hindu women raped and kidnapped and children mercilessly butchered. No Muslim ruler or moulvi or fakir had ever apologized, i.e., expressed regret for the atrocities committed on Hindus. During the infamous 'Goa Inquisition' under the Portuguese rule in Goa and other parts of India, millions of Hindus were forcibly converted, those who resisted were done to death, their women and children abducted and Brahmins were ether converted or banished from the Portuguese territory. Vatican never apologized for the sins perpetrated on innocent Hindus by the so called messengers of Jesus the Christ.
In the wake of partition of India, the Hindus including Sikhs were butchered or driven out of newly created Pakistan, their women raped and children murdered and there was a mass exodus of Millions of Hindus from that vivisected limb of Mother India which was a home for them for thousands of years before the advent of Islam. Mohammad Ali Jinnah did not apologize for the inhuman slaughter of Hindus who became 'Kafirs' in their own land in the 'midnight hour of freedom of India'. No Mullah or Moulvi expressed any anguish or regret seeing the plight of hapless Hindus. The country was divided because the Muslim League, representing the entire Muslim community in India declared that they could not live with Hindus and demanded partition. Muslims who decided to remain in Hindu India did not denounce partition nor did they abandon the Muslim League which was responsible for partition. Instead, they re-constituted the Indian Muslim League in Hindu India, with adoration for Jinnah and loyalty to Pakistan. And we had in our midst, a great 'Mahatma' who wanted equal citizenship rights and protection to be given to them at any cost. When the Hindus, who fled from Pakistan as refugees losing everything including their kith and kin, came into the capital of India and occupied the mosques and other places deserted by Muslims who left for Pakistan, our great 'Mahatma' wanted those places to be handed over to the Muslims who stayed behind in the Indian territory and the Hindu refugees to go, starve and die in the streets like stray dogs. What a great "self-sacrifice" of a great 'Mahatma' who offered the lives of millions of Hindus at the altar of Islamic Fundamentalism to uphold his great ideal of "Ahimsa"! When millions of Kashmiri Pandits were driven out of Kashmir which acceded to India, and Pakistan forcibly occupied a part of Kashmir, forcing India to go in for military action against the aggressors, India's Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, refused to give Rupees fifty five crores to Pakistan as agreed upon at the time of partition, until the aggressors vacated the occupied territory in Kashmir. However, our 'Ahimsamoorthy' Gandhi declared that he will go on fast if India did not pay the money to Pakistan. Now we can see such self-sacrifice only in cinemas where a hero who is the elder brother, makes a sacrifice of himself and his family for the sake of his younger brother, a villain! In the cinema, the villain brother repents and reunites with the hero elder brother, but it does not happen in actual life. Hindus were made fools in the vain hope that the Muslim brethren will repent and ultimately accept the great 'Mahatma' himself as a great 'Prophet'. However, when Gandhi died, Jinnah, in his condolence message, called him only a 'Hindu leader', though Gandhi was 'father' not only of Indian nation, but also of Pakistan. Even the British, while holding negotiations on granting of independence to India, considered Gandhi as the leader of the Hindus only and Jinnah of the Muslims in India. The Muslims in India also never accepted Gandhi as their leader. However, in the vain hope of emerging as the Holy Prophet of both Hindus and Muslims, Gandhi made the Hindus the scapegoats. The anger and frustration of the millions of Hindus displaced from Pakistan and the revolt of the patriotic, vociferous and dynamic sections of the Hindu youth who felt that Hindus were badly let down by Gandhi took to an unfortunate turn in the event of Gandhi assassination.
Congress Party, which was losing its credibility and confidence of the majority of the Hindu population in India because of its Muslim appeasement policy and its hurry to come to power by even allowing the country to be partitioned, found a golden opportunity in the Gandhi assassination case to suppress and oppress the emerging Hindu nationalist forces which posed a threat to them. The staunch Hindu nationalist organizations like Hindu Mahasabha and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh who had been opposing Partition and the Muslim appeasement policy of Gandhi and Congress were deliberately implicated in the Gandhi assassination case. Veer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the most outstanding patriot and Hindu Nationalist leader and revolutionary who had the unique honour of being awarded two life sentences by the British Government and incarcerated in the cellular jail of the Andamans in the struggle for India's Freedom was also implicated because he happened to be the leader of Hindu Mahasabha and opponent to the Congress and Gandhiji's Muslim appeasement policies. Sri Guruji Golwalkar, the saintly leader and Sarsanghchalak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, was also arrested. However, truth won and these great leaders were acquitted. Yet, the Congress did succeed to an extent in damaging the image of the Hindu nationalist organizations by incessant propaganda that they were involved in Gandhi murder. The Congressmen have been carrying on this mischievous and vile propaganda against every Hindu nationalist organization and party like the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bharatiya Janata Party, which have all come into existence more than a decade after the death of Gandhi, calling them all "killers of Gandhi". In this the Congressmen and the anti-Hindu forces have taken for granted that the people of India, particularly the Hindus, would remain stupid blockheads for all the time to believe whatever they say.
More than five decades have gone since the vivisected country became independent. Congress has lost its monopolistic hold on Indian politics. Many new national and regional parties have come into existence. A Hindu nationalist party has at last come to occupy the centre stage, though not with an absolute majority. However, it is helplessly surrounded by the so called secular parties, regional as well as national, who have all inherited from the Congress the tradition of appeasement of minorities for cornering their vote bank. They support the BJP not out of love for the Hindu nationalism, the plank on which the BJP has built its base, but only to come to power which they could not do without hanging on to the Hindu nationalist party. However, they have succeeded in tying the hands and legs of the BJP by making it accept a national agenda in which there is no place for the ideals upheld all these years by the BJP and they have to carry out what their allies want them to do. In this coalition politics, Karunanidhi has the freedom to give his exposition on "Dravidathuavam", but if any BJP leader speaks of "Hinduthwa", it is violation of national agenda of the coalition! Under this coalition politics, BJP has to declare that their Hindutwa does not imply Hindu Rashtra as expounded in the past by Veer Savarkar and Guruji Golwalkar, but is only "cultural nationalism"! What a shame!! Should the BJP remain in power with the support of these anti-Hindu allies?
Recently, in Godhra, the Pakistan sponsored ISI agents instigated the Muslims to set fire to a railway train carrying Karsevaks returning from Ayodhya and 52 Hindus including innocent women and children were burnt to death. A violent reaction exploded and in the communal riots that followed, hundreds of people lost their lives. The anti-Hindu secularist forces lost no time to blame the Narendra Modi Government accusing it of engineering the riots. But the people of Gujarat taught a lesson to these political bastards by uprooting them and giving a solid support to Narendra Modi in the elections. His victory was not the victory of the BJP for its policies and government, but of the VHP behind whom the entire Hindu society of Gujarat had rallied round to render justice to the Hindus mercilessly burnt alive in the Godhra carnage and to throw out the Congress which was blindly supporting Muslim communalism to get the support of Muslim vote bank. Yet, some of the leaders of the BJP in the centre, who want to put on a secular image to keep the secular allies in good humour, unashamedly claimed that the elections have vindicated the secular credentials of BJP! During the recent Pravasi Bharatiya Divas congregation at Delhi, Lady Nadira Naipaul, the Pakistani Muslim wife of the renowned writer V.S. Naipaul, asked L.K. Advani, the Deputy Prime Minister of India, whether "Muslims, Christians and secularists" were safe and whether the minority communities were being discriminated against by the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government. Advani went to the extent of apologetically admitting that the Gujarat violence was "an aberration" of which "we are all sad and ashamed" and that India would never be a theocratic state. That Lady would not have the guts to ask Mian Musharaff why he is sending ISI agents and infiltrators into India to destabilize the country by creating riots and violence. And Advani should have had the guts to tell her that India is a Hindu Rashtra and in a Hindu Rashtra alone all people could enjoy equal freedom to practise the religions of their choice, not in a Christian or Islamic nation, for it is Hinduism or Hindutwa alone which accepts all forms of worship as various pathways to one Ultimate Reality and not Christianity or Islam. He should have been honest and bold to declare that the Hindu Rashtra ideal propounded by stalwarts like Veer Savarkar and Guruji did not mean a 'theocratic state' as seen in Christian and Islamic countries, but only implied the rule of Dharma—the eternal and universal way of life propounded by the sages and seers of Bharatavarsha for the emancipation of the entire mankind.
It is rightly said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Having tasted the office of power, who would hesitate to make compromises on principles to keep oneself in power? The BJP leaders have proved that they are not exceptions. However, the Hindu society is now awakened and they would not be deluded by neither pseudo-secularists nor by pseudo-Hindu-nationalists. What they need today is the leadership of a staunch Hindurashtrawadi political party. It is time that they have to tell the Muslim and Christian brethren in India that they will be as safe as the Muslims in the Hindu pad padshahi of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, as long as they honoured the Hindu principle that God can be worshipped in any name and form and one can practice any religions as one wants, but religion should not be misused to create Pakistans and Christianistans in Hindu India. Hindus need not be 'apologetic' in the sense of expressing regret for what has happened, but must become 'apologetic' in the sense of strongly defending their ideal of Hindu Rashtra and their resolve to make Bharatavarsha the land of the Hindus which it has been since times immemorial.