Oct 2002
Jawaharlal Nehru has been called the ‘Architect of modern India’. We need to understand the mind-set of the ‘architect’ to get an idea of what the building should be like.
Architect of Modern India
“In a letter to [President] Dr. Raajendr Prasaad (November 17, 1953) Nehru wrote: ‘The Hindu is certainly not tolerant and is certainly more narrow-minded than almost any person in any other country except the Jew.’ This was the man in whom the overwhelming majority of people in India reposed their trust! It is not just Hindus that he despised, but also the Jews. No wonder his foreign policy was pro-Arab and anti-Israel – a policy that ill-served the nation.
But more seriously, India was led by a man who was irrationally hostile to the beliefs and aspirations of the overwhelming majority of her people. How can there be any nationalism under such a negative mindset? Even the rulers of East India Company [British] were not so hostile. Nehru of course camouflaged this hostility under what he called ‘secularism’. Secularism means separation of religion from government. But neither Nehru nor any of his successors dared separate religion and government. This would mean the end of government subsidies to minority religious institutions, the Hajj and other purely religious entities.” [Dr. NS Rajaram]
Hindus gave Nehru (for Muslims gave Pakistan to Jinnah) the reigns to rule the independent India and with that they gave him the title of Pundit, meaning the learned man! He was learned of course, but learned in the Western style and McCauley education system had done a thorough job on him. As McCauley had wanted “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indians in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect”, Jawaharlal born of a super-rich barrister Motilal, had taken perfect shape. Being intellectually inclined to the theories of Marx, he promoted his own version of ‘secularism’ and he practiced it with his own meaning attributed to it. Uprooted from his own roots, he also did his best to uproot rest of the Hindu society from its roots: Jawaharlal 1947-64, Indira 1966- 77 & 1980-84, Rajiv 1984-89, the family ruled India for 50 years after British left. Result of this has been unfortunate for the Hindu society, which remains in its slumber till today.
A Fraud on Secularism
“Somnath is a holy place to the natives of India since time immemorial. In addition to the famous Jyotirling temple, Prabhaas (the site of Somnath) is also the place where Shri Krishn left this world. And for this reason, Muslim invaders like Mahmud Ghaznavi as well as Muslim rulers like Aurangzeb destroyed it, seeing it as the symbol of the ancient civilization they wanted to uproot from the soil of India. (Ayodhya is another).
The Late Sardaar Patel who was then the Home Minister of India decided to restore the great temple of Somnath. Gandhiji advised the Sardaar not to use government funds, but to do the restoration entirely with private donations. So when the restoration was complete, it had been funded entirely by the devotees. This was a wise decision and strictly according to secular principles. But even this was too much for Pundit Nehru. …When it was announced that [President] Raajendr Prasaad was attending the inauguration of the Somnath Temple, Jawaharlal vehemently protested against going to Somnath [Quoting K. M. Munshi, Chairman of the Advisory Committee].
But the very same ‘secular’ Jawaharlal Nehru, who objected to Raajendr Prasaad attending the inauguration ceremony of the restored temple done entirely at private expense, introduced the Hajj Bill in 1959 to facilitate subsidize Muslim pilgrims visiting Mecca! It has now grown into a monster costing the government Rs. 93 Crores [Note: roughly US$ 30 million in 2002 values] this year alone (1997). And this does not include heavy losses incurred by the government owned Air India for diverting its planes to Mecca from its highly profitable European and other routes just when the vacation season is beginning.
The public is by and large is not aware of the magnitude of the government subsidy for the Hajj. In addition to the Central Government, many State Governments and even large cities like Mumbai and Bangalore run Hajj centers at taxpayers’ expenses. This is a bonanza for various operators, entrepreneurs and middlemen – all in all what Americans call a ‘boondoggle’ run in the name of Hajj pilgrimage.
This is still not the full story. The Andaman and numerous other smaller islands are served by only two ships – Akbar and Nankowri – that ply regularly from the mainland; these bring essential supplies to those living on the islands including servicemen and their families of the strategically important army and the navy bases. Akbar, much the larger of the two ships is also diverted for Hajj service. This results in acute shortages lasting months for those living on the islands including servicemen and their families. Prices skyrocket and it often costs as much as five rupees [note: ten times] or more for a single matchbox!
In addition, those living on the islands that cannot afford plane travel are completely cut off from the mainland. As a result, many poor workers including army men are helpless when they have to attend any emergencies that require them to go to the mainland. This has often resulted in suicides. The suicide rate in the Andaman is among the highest in the world, especially during the period when shipping is not available due to Hajj.
The British encouraged Hajj but did not provide subsidies. … The British motive in encouraging Hajj was profits for her shipping companies. But the ‘secular’ Nehru, like modern Aurangzeb reintroduced his own version of Jizya (tax on non-Muslims) in the form of Hajj subsidies to be paid for by taxpayers.
Munshi, probably India’s foremost constitutional lawyer had told Nehru in a famous letter written more than forty years ago: In its [secularism’s] name again politicians in power adopt a strange attitude which, while it condones the susceptibilities, religious and social of the minority communities, is too ready to brand similar susceptibilities in the majority community as communalistic and reactionary.
Actually Munshi had predicted episodes like the Ayodhya demolition also. In the same letter he told Nehru: These unfortunate postures [in the name of secularism] have been creating a sense of frustration in the majority community. … While the majority exercises patience and tolerance, the minorities should learn to adjust themselves to the majority. Otherwise the future is uncertain and an explosion cannot be avoided.” [Dr. NS Rajaram]
Legacy of the Architect of Modern India
Sometimes in January 2003 Asian Age carried a news item that one of the Muslim councilors had sanctioned a large amount for renovation of a mosque. Wonder why we do not see such news items about sanctioning any such amount to Hindu temple from government funds? Instead we read the news that government takes away the income of several large Hindu temples. Is this what secularism means, different treatments based on different religion? Or is this all politicized secularism for protecting vote banks?
Another question arises as to what happens to the earnings of mosques? Where do they go? Government would not dare touch them. Do these monies go to support madrasas; madrasas that teach Muslim children from their very child to hate kefirs non- Muslims; madrasa that focus on Islamic scriptures and Jihad? Do these monies go to produce potential terrorists of future? The Free Press Journal of 12 February 2003 carried a news item on page 3 columns 1-5 that only 120 out of an estimated 20,000 (less than 1%) madrasas in Uttar Pradesh have agreed to take the financial help from the Central Government. With that they have refused to introduce regular curriculum with Science, Mathematics, etc that is followed by other schools. Are these madrasas a law unto themselves that they should have their own curriculum focused on hate-oriented religious teachings? Is this the meaning of democracy? Is this the meaning of secularism? The best part is that the number of such madrasas is not small, that in a single state of U. P. alone we have currently 20,000 madrasa. Wonder what would be the total number of madrasas in the whole country and how many children would be graduating from them with anti-nationalistic feelings imbibed in them? One wonders how Congress government could keep its eyes closed for 50 years that it ran the country after British left? Has the Congress government been working in national interest in all these years or, have they been planting all over the country numerous ‘human bombs producing machinery’? Is nationalism the last thing that such governments put on their agenda? They have given the nation the legacy of an evil that cannot be eliminated now.
So much in love with Self-Image
“When India became independent on August 15, 1947 the proper thing would have been to have an Indian as the head of state. Instead Nehru begged Mountbatten to continue as Governor General. And this after Mountbatten had botched the Partition of India on a monumental scale. It showed a profound lack of confidence in himself, and in his people to run the country.
This was only the beginning. During the Pakistani invasion of Kashmir, General Thimmayya was on the verge of driving the invaders out. But under a delusion that he would be admired for his magnanimity, Nehru called a halt to the operation and brought in the United Nations on the advice of Mountbatten; this was against the advice of Sardaar Patel and others in his cabinet. It was again a monumental failure of leadership: he placed his wish for personal grandeur above the nation’s interest. …When the Chinese attacked in 1962… Instead, just as he had turned to Mountbatten during Kashmir crisis, Nehru turned to the U.S. Ambassador John Galbraith for advice! …This is a little known fact about the Chinese invasion of 1962: its forces were highly vulnerable to air attacks. The Chinese Air Force was pinned down on its western front, fearful of an attack from the Soviet Union. Logistically also China was in no position to launch air operations against the IAF flying over the Himalayas.” [Dr. NS Rajaram]
The result:
Today Hindus pilgrims visiting Kailaash and MaanSarovar need Chinese Government’s permission. Dalai Lama has to live in India! And Pakistan continues to encourage and support terrorist acts in Kashmir with killings everyday of innocent Hindu civilians. Total number has crossed 40,000 as per a report I read. These Hindu lives seem to have no value apparently for those who are so vocal on other issues. And now we read about Bangladesh increasing its terrorist infiltration activities from Eastern borders of India, again with Hindu killing motives.
Rise of Secularism in Europe
Dr. Rajaram has beautifuly described secularism and its abuse by our leaders, academics and media. Let us see what he has to say:
“Secular simply means unrelated to religion. This arose in Europe as a reaction to the theocratic authority of the Catholic Church. In the context of a state or government it means that law of the land does not discriminate on the basis of religion. That is to say, the law is the same for everyone regardless of religion. This is not such a profound principle. The importance of this arises because of peculiar history of Europe. Unlike Hinduism, which recognized religious and secular functions as separate from the earliest times, Christianity and Islam see worldly power as simply the ‘Secular arm’ of religious authority.
In medieval Europe for example, the popes claimed that there was no activity of the state, or even of individuals, that did not come under the control of the Church and its agents. Seven hundred years ago, Pope Boniface VIII asserted: ‘both swords, the spiritual and the secular, are in the power of the Church. The spiritual is wielded by the Church; the secular for the Church. The one by the hand of the priest; the other by the hands of kings and knights at the will and sufferance of the priest.’
Even the greatest scientists and thinkers felt the pressure of religious authority. Galileo was put in confinement for life for his discoveries, which contradicted Church doctrine. Giordano Bruno, another scientific thinker, was burned at the stake for ideas that were in violation of Church doctrine. This was the climate that gave rise to secularism in Europe.
The people and the rulers of Europe had to carry on a thousand year struggle to free themselves from this theocratic hold of the Church over non-religious (secular) institutions and activities. This is the historical and social milieu in which secularism evolved in Europe.
Secularism therefore essentially means negation of theocracy [a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god], breaking the hold of the priesthood on the affairs of the state. In particular it means: denial of the role of religion or any religious scripture in the affairs of the government.
Secularism in India - The Opposite in Practice
"In India, the situation as claimed by self-styled Secularists is the exact opposite of this. Interest groups are demanding religious law and religious practices to be enforced by the government in the name of secularism. Even worse, those demanding a form of government or a legal code that disregards religions are denounced as ‘communal’ and ‘anti-secular’. Thus, groups that want to hold on to a religious code and other theocratic practices claim to be ‘secular’, while those who would disregard the role of religion in government affairs are derided as ‘communal’.
One can appreciate that politicians don’t take the trouble to fully understand the words they use. What is unforgivable is the conduct of a prominent group of intellectuals calling themselves Secularists: they have used the word secularism to deliberately confuse the issues, and as a stick to beat the tolerant Hindus with while whitewashing the conduct of Muslims. When we see such deception and evasion carried on by these Secularists, a reaction like the Ayodhya demolition is inevitable. In many ways, Pundit Nehru was the Indian leader most responsible for this dishonest distortion of the meaning of the word secularism. …Just as the meaning of the word has been distorted to gain political advantages, history itself is being distorted to serve some special interests over Ayodhya.
The one thing that the dominant Congress and other Left parties seem to stress above everything is what they call ‘Secularism’; this is puzzling to an outsider, for the Indian government is emphatically NOT secular. It does not separate government from religion. The law is different for different religions. Muslim and Christian women have far fewer rights than Hindu women. Syrian Christian women in Kerala [Note: State that boasted highest literacy rate in India] can be deprived of their property rights by their male relatives with the connivance of the Church. Muslim women can be divorced with no support provided. It is shocking that such uncivilized practices are being defended in the name of ‘secularism’. The Indian brand of secularism is a living lie that penalizes the weakest segment of the society – the minority women."
Gravity of the Situation
"This brings up another serious problem with the Indian political scene: such unprincipled and even dishonest slogan mongering is used to build up vote banks by appealing to narrow communal feelings. It should be obvious to anyone that this fraudulent version of secularism has only one goal – to wit, to preserve minority vote banks by appeasing reactionary power brokers like the clergy. In order to preserve this disgraceful state of affairs, serious debate on issues is avoided. Anyone questioning such practices is dubbed ‘communal’. This is nothing more than a crude tactic for avoiding honest debate on serious issues. The press is no better. The newspapers analyze and interpret political scenarios strictly in terms of caste and communal feelings. What is interesting is that the people are not so casteist or communal as the politicians and the media make them out to be. It appears that the politicians and the media cannot think beyond stereotypes of their own making. But the people can."
Uprooting the Soul of Hinduism
"Nehru’s brand of nationalism, based on this Big Lie called secularism, sought to exclude the overwhelming majority of the Indian population. It is in fact viscerally hostile to the hopes and aspirations of the majority. If the politicians of the ruling parties are behaving like the feudal lords of the Mogul Empire, the intellectual scene, the bureaucracy and the media are in the hands of the alienated products of McCauleyite education.
The one thing that these two disparate groups have in common is their aversion to India’s ancient heritage and culture. In the name of ‘secularism’ they are bent on uprooting Hinduism and its heritage from the soil of India. It has now become institutionalized as part of education of these ‘elite’ group created by McCauley to serve the East India Company. Its [India’s] prestigious institutions produce an elite that not only has no national awareness, but also is even hostile to any traces of nationalism rooted in Indian tradition and culture. Its goal is to uproot all traces of the Hindu tradition.
This elite is so hostile to nationalism that it does not even acknowledge the legitimacy of Hindu nationalistic aspirations. This hostility to nationalism rooted in the soil is what has brought Muslim separatists and the ‘Secularists’ together despite their very great difference in social and intellectual backgrounds. Thus we see a coming together of the interest of the Islamic and the Secularist groups – calling themselves ‘Secular Forces’.
Islam of course regards secularism – which entails separation of religion and government – as a great evil. The highest goal of Islam is to establish a world empire governed according to the rules of Islam, in other words, for the whole world to be brought under Islamic theocratic rule. This is what is being made part of ‘secularism’ in India, and this is the group that is now partner of the McCauleyite elite!
This came to the fore during the dispute over Ayodhya. The great fear of these two groups is the same: that Ayodhya could serve as a focal point in the rise of Hindu historical awareness, which might result in the loss of privileged existence for these two alienated elites. The common ground for these two groups is hostility to Hinduism – or anything that is rooted in the native soil.
As far as the McCauleyite elite is concerned, it is the fear of the rise of the nationalism, which has brought it into the arms of the Muslim Fundamentalist forces. It defends vociferously M. F. Hussein’s ‘artistic’ right to desecrate Hindu icons, but remains tongue tied when Salmaan Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen are threatened with death for blasphemy. It holds on to discredited history like the Aryan invasion of India because rejecting it would make India the home of a great and ancient civilization.
It attacks Natwar Jha and this writer for providing a solution to the puzzle of the Indus script because it means going to the Vedic sources to find the answer. All this, testimony to the greatness of India’s past, this elite finds intolerable. This record of behavior bears eloquent testimony to the influence of the McCauleyite education system as a denationalizing and devastating force. It produced a class that served British interests well, but one inherently incapable of independent thinking or leadership.
Recognizing the failure of Indian education system, the great scholar of Indian art and culture, the late Dr. Ananda Coomaraswamy observed: A single generation of English education suffices to break the threads of tradition and create a non-descript and superficial being deprived of all roots – a sort of intellectual pariah who does not belong to the East or the West, the past or the future. Of all Indian problems the educational is the most difficult and most tragic.
It was a system meant to produce faithful servants – not leaders or visionaries. Such an education also destroys all selfconfidence with the result they will never feel strong enough to challenge anything coming from their Western masters and hold their own; having been taught only to imitate and worship alien impositions, they carry with them the attitude that they can never be as good as those whom they seek to copy.
They compensate for this feeling of inferiority by trying to look down upon their countrymen, and clinging to status symbols of the colonial era. These status symbols are the only link with the past that has now disappeared. How can any nationalism come out of such a mindset, let alone national leadership?
A National Tragedy
But here is the real tragedy: it is this effete and decadent elite that dominates much of national life today. And like all insecure people its members react with irrational fear to any new knowledge that it perceives as threatening to its life of privilege. For example, a battle is now on to discredit new discoveries about ancient India that go to prove the Harappan Civilization to be Vedic, which shatters the version of history that this elite holds dear.
In the special issue of India Today devoted to the fiftieth anniversary of Indian independence, the Marxist, anti-Hindu historian Romila Thapar has openly expressed her wish that the efforts of ‘Hindu revivalists’ to show that the Harappan Civilization was Vedic must be resisted. (Like all ideologues, she does not acknowledge the existence of objective truth; truth exists only to serve the dogma.) How is this to be reconciled with nationalism?”