Nehru instinctive approval for anything Islamic and, hence, 'cultured'- a fatal flaw in Nehru's character: he worked with a simplistic "Muslim = good, Hindu = bad" formula. He was wrong.
It is clear that for Nehruvians 'secular progressive' means 'apologist for mischief by Christians, Muslims and Marxists'.
Nirad Chaudhuri thought it epitomized the Allahabad brahmin's - Nehru instinctive approval for anything Islamic and, hence, 'cultured'." This concerns the arbitrary anointing of the so-called Nehru jacket and tight trousers as the 'national dress of India', But it points to a fatal flaw in Nehru's character: he worked with a simplistic "Muslim = good, Hindu = bad" formula. He was wrong.
Postscript by Rajeev Srinivasan
Dear readers, thank you for the overwhelmingly positive response to my previous column "Hindu pilgrims massacred". Several hundred emails came in, and I obviously cannot reply to them all individually. A number of readers asked me to publish my columns in the mainstream Indian print media. Well, I have tried, but they won't print my stuff, as I am not a 'secular progressive'. I tell painful truths, which they would rather ignore.
Several people asked me to lead or take part in movements or organisations that are working hard to arouse the world's conscience regarding the mistreatment of Hindus. I am delighted to see so much action, and I will give my full moral support. In general, though, I am a polemicist, a pamphleteer, rather than one who takes an active role in organisations.
Several Christian Indian readers wrote suggesting there was a qualitative difference between the murders of the Hindu pilgrims and the attacks on Christians. Their refrain -- startlingly uniform considering these people were from many parts of the world -- was that the former was an attack on Indians by foreigners and the second was by Indians on Indians. (Film-buff readers will forgive me if I am reminded of "lithe and fierce like a tiger" from Costa-Gavras' Z.)
I disagree -- there is no difference.
For one thing, I only talked about Graham Staines. He was no Indian, but a white Australian.
Secondly, it is clear now that most attacks on Christian Indians were executed by the Muslim sect Deendar Anjuman with funding from Pakistan. Therefore this is an attack on Indians by foreigners, just as at Amarnath it was an attack on Indians by foreigners.
Third, the Hindu pilgrims and Staines were both deliberately targeted on account of their religion.
For one thing, I only talked about Graham Staines. He was no Indian, but a white Australian.
Secondly, it is clear now that most attacks on Christian Indians were executed by the Muslim sect Deendar Anjuman with funding from Pakistan. Therefore this is an attack on Indians by foreigners, just as at Amarnath it was an attack on Indians by foreigners.
Third, the Hindu pilgrims and Staines were both deliberately targeted on account of their religion.
Dear readers, do not buy into the easy 'secular progressive' lie that some 'Hindu fundamentalist' group is running around attacking Christian Indians. If this were indeed the case, the consequences for Christians would have been far more grave. The same 'secular progressives' became extremely quiet as soon as it turned out that there is evidence it is Pakistan-funded Muslims attacking Christians with the intent of causing communal disturbances. (Yes, that is evidence, not 'evidence' as rediff.com's own story had it.) It is clear that for Nehruvians 'secular progressive' means 'apologist for mischief by Christians, Muslims and Marxists'.
By the way, have you ever wondered why we say 'Indian Muslims' and 'Indian Christians', but 'Hindu Indians'? Nobody other than me says 'Muslim Indians' or 'Christian Indians': it sounds a little odd. The truth of the matter is, we expect Muslims and Christians to have primarily a Muslim or Christian identity, and only incidentally hold an Indian passport. But we don't say 'Indian Hindus': we say 'Hindu Indians', because we expect Hindus to be Indians primarily and Hindus incidentally. The very terms expose our biases and expectations. And perhaps the truth?
A few readers asked why I only blamed Nehru, who is after all, dead and gone. I must quote Shakespeare: "The evil that men do lives on after them." It is also true, alas, that the BJP bunch don't seem any more competent at dealing with our two evil neighbors. Are we just dumb? Are we a tired and defeated civilization? I don't think so, but I wonder. Sooner or later, the baleful Nehruvian influence will disappear, and we will move forward.
For those who thought that I was a bit extreme in suggesting there was apartheid in India against Hindus, consider the following. Hindu pilgrims get massacred in Amarnath, but the Indian government spends Rs 1.2 billion in subsidising the Haj pilgrimage. "India is perhaps the only country that provides subsidy for Haj Pilgrimage", said the report, from Yahoo/India Abroad. It continues, saying that India sent 112,000 pilgrims last year, second only to Indonesia's 155,000.
Reader Balwant, among one or two others, was upset at what I thought of Nehru. They are entitled to their opinion. But let me quote Swapan Dasgupta in India Today: "Nirad Chaudhuri thought it epitomized the Allahabad brahmin's instinctive approval for anything Islamic and, hence, 'cultured'." This concerns the arbitrary anointing of the so-called Nehru jacket and tight trousers as the 'national dress of India', when it is anything but: there are very many ethnic costumes in India. But it points to a fatal flaw in Nehru's character: he worked with a simplistic "Muslim = good, Hindu = bad" formula. He was wrong.
Rajeev Srinivasan
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment