@@INCLUDE-HTTPS-REDIRECT-METATAG@@ Editorial: The Pathology of Hindu Hatred

Editorial: The Pathology of Hindu Hatred

The term “HINDU” does not denote any religious sect or creed as it can be said of Islam or Christianity. The word ‘MUSSALMAN’ refers to a special religion, but not the word Hindu. Hinduism does not stand for any single faith or faith reached by any single prophet. Neither does it possess any permanent religious characteristics, nor does it owe its existence to a particular text. Hindus in India constitute a JATI or RACE which has evolved through centuries. Hindus of India constitute a nation. A HINDU is an ethno-social culmination of the history of BHARATVARSA. It has passed through several ages, crossed several stages and bears the stamp of several thinkers and their system of thought. Hindus have shared a long chain of socio-cultural legacy”

— Rabindranath Thakur, Swadeshi Samaj, 1905
While the attempts to create the abhorrence of Hindu Terror fallen flat, the same minds are behind coining the new terms like ‘Hindu Pakistan’ and ‘Hindu Taliban’. When the founder of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Dr Keshavrao Baliram Hedgewar first time roared, ‘Yes, I say this is a Hindu Rashtra’, he was well aware about the anathema of British educated, Bharatiya intelligentsia about the term ‘Hindu-Rashtra’. Many people interpreted it as a reaction against the so-called minorities, while it was a simple assertion of the national identity, as none other than Gurudev Rabindranath Thakur had defined in his Swadeshi Samaj. If Hindu is a socio-cultural legacy of this Rashtra that forms the basis of our assimilative mindset, then why some self-proclaimed intellectuals have problem with the same. The answer lies in their prism provided by their intellectual masters.
The self-proclaimed league of eminent scholars are neither interested in the tradition of acceptance nor want to celebrate the true ‘liberal’ ethos, they just want to perpetuate their Jaundiced consructs for vested interests. They view Bharat from the Western point of view, as taught to them by Mill, Marx and Macaulay.
The six volume text book The History of British India by James Mill written in 1817, was based on his role as the examiner of correspondence at the imperial East India Company. These volumes became the most important at Haileybury College, where the civil servants of the East India Company were taught. “The Hindoos”, Mill remarks, “are full of dissimulation and falsehood, the universal concomitants of oppression. The vices of falsehood, indeed they carry to a height almost unexampled among the other races of men.” Most of the British officers and leaders carried the same pathology of hatred towards the Hindu civilisation, which they found most difficult to crack, to sustain their project of ‘White Man’s Burden’. The so-called liberal intelligentsia bear the same ‘conceptual genes’ of these Hinduphobics.
Marx was just continuation of this phobia. The ‘great egalitarian’ thinker never visited Bharat but dared to say that “Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history, is but the history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on the passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society.” This flawed understanding of Itihasa of Bharat, without even knowing the basics Sanskrit texts, became the basis of Communist history. They convenient partner with bourgeois liberals whenever somebody utters the word ‘Hindu’.
While Mill and Marx gave the theoretical basis and conceptual tools to the Hindu hatred, the master executor of this hateful thinking through an institutional mechanism was Thomas Babington Macaulay, who drafted and ensured the policy of imposing the English education by crushing the native languages and knowledge systems. Being the great admirer of Mill, Macaulay spit venom against everything that is Hindu in the words, “The Hindus had an absurd system of physics, an absurd geography, and absurd astronomy”, forgetting the fact that on this ‘absurdity’ more than 5000 years old civilisation was built.
The real predicament with the communalising everything in Bharat is not rooted in religions or Muslim or Christian communities but lies in these children of Mill, Marx and Macaulay who wear the tags of ‘secular’, ‘liberal’ intellectuals. They do not (want to) understand the difference between Hindu Rashtra and Hindu as a theocratic State. At the same time, they shamelessly support the theocracy in the name of ‘Sharia Law’ or ‘Church Rule’ in the name of minoritism. If we really want to lead the national life with ‘Swaraj’ and cure the disease of ‘Hindu-Hatred’ then exposing and negating the fake intellectualism of these Abharatiya stooges is a must.