View From The Right: Who is a Hindu?

View From The Right: Who is a Hindu?

The editorial in Organiser claims that the “self-proclaimed 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 constructs for vested interests.

Shashi Tharoor, Shashi Tharoor interview, Narendra Modi, Pm modi, hindu pakistan comment, Mob attacks, Shashi tharoor mob sttacks, Tharoor hindu pakistan remark, India news
Shashi Tharoor outside Parliament House. (Express Photo by Prem Nath Pandey/File)

The editorial in Organiser (‘The Pathology of Hindu Hatred’) refers to Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s “Hindu Pakistan” remark and argues that the same people who created terms such as “Hindu terror” have coined phrases like “Hindu Pakistan” and “Hindu Taliban”. The editorial recalls that when RSS founder Keshavrao Baliram Hedgewar first said, “Yes, I say this is a Hindu Rashtra”, many people interpreted it as a reaction against the so-called minorities. But it was a simple assertion of the national identity, as defined by Gurudev Tagore in Swadeshi Samaj. The editorial asks why must some “self-proclaimed intellectuals” have a problem when the Hindu identity is “a socio-cultural legacy of this rashtra”? The editorial claims that the “self-proclaimed 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 constructs for vested interests. “They view Bharat from the western point of view, as taught to them by Mill, Marx and Macaulay,” editorial reads.

According to the editorial, “The Hindoos”, James Mill has said, “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.” The editorial says the so-called liberal intelligentsia bear the same “conceptual genes” of these Hinduphobes. The editorial claims that while Mill and Marx provided the theoretical basis and conceptual tools to sustain the Hindu hatred, the master executor of this hateful thinking was Thomas Babington Macaulay, who drafted the policy of English education and imposed it by crushing native languages and knowledge systems. It blames the “children of Mill, Marx and Macaulay”, who wear the tags of “secular”, “liberal” intellectuals, for communalising the discourse.

Fretting over sharia
The announcement of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) to set up sharia courts across the country has drawn sharp criticism. An article in Panchjanya criticises the AIMPLB’s plan and describes the move going against the spirit of the Constitution. The article says the truth is that India is a “Hindu bhumi” (Hindu land). Muslims in the country were Hindus in the past, who had to embrace Islam because of Islamic atrocities. “They (Muslims) are still in psychological confinement,” the article says, and adds that their situation
will worsen if India does not remain a Hindu land.

Lessons from Kargil
The nation will celebrate the Kargil Vijay Diwas on July 26. An article in Organiser says that the Kargil war offers several lessons. The author, General (Retd) V P Malik, says there is only a remote chance of a full-scale conventional war between the two nuclear weapon states, but as long as there are territory-related disputes, the adversary can indulge in a proxy war, a limited conventional war along the border, or both. He reveals that despite the political and public mandate “not to lose an inch of our territory”, there is a reluctance in India to adopt a pro-active strategy. “This invariably leads us to a reactive military situation. It is, therefore, essential to have credible strategic and tactical intelligence and assessments, effective surveillance, and close defence of the border,” the article argues. The general adds that the new strategic environment calls for faster decision making, versatile combat organisations, rapid deployment and synergy amongst all elements involved in the war effort, particularly the three services. “This is possible only if we have a direct, continuous, and meaningful dialogue between the political authority and service chiefs. A war in the new strategic environment requires close political oversight and politico-civil-military interaction. It is essential to keep the military leadership within the security and strategic decision-making loop,” adds the retired army chief.