The title of this post actually appeared in a news report. The statement is an important one but it will be buried in those corners where reality is usually buried. It is borrowed from Mark Tully, the British journalist who is as
much Indian in spirit as any other. It is a statement he made at a launch
function for his book ‘Non-stop India’ at Chennai on December 14. Here’s the
full quote from The Hindu’s report: “Excessive secularism, which feeds the fire
of people who like to present India as a country that does not respect its
majority, is just as dangerous as religious fundamentalism, Mr. Tully said”.
Why does it take a British journalist to state the obvious? The Indian
mainstream media does not even want to touch or discuss this issue at all. More
of this later.
Let me first pick on Ms.Cacofonix herself. In her latest article, “Our time starts now”, in the Hindustan Times (December 14), Sagarika Ghose laments
the inability of the ruling class to adapt to a fast-changing world. She then
asks if Indians are still afraid of change. The ruling class did change, didn’t
it? They introduced the concept of secularism, twisted it, misused it, abused
it, banked on it – all in the name of change and equality!
In an article concerning the recent FDI drama, Sagarika refers to
Kancha Iliah as a Dalitbahujan scholar and quotes him. “Kancha Ilaiah once said
that to radically change Indian society and attitudes, the Rig Vedic hymn, the
Purusa-sukta, should be publicly re-written. This is the verse that says
different castes were born from different body parts of Brahma. According to
Ilaiah, only a complete excising of such a hymn would rid India of the evils of
birth-based hierarchy”. She quotes him to argue that citizens should junk the
past. Well, what exactly does the Rigveda have to do with any of this? Kancha
Iliah is free to junk the Vedas and so is Sagarika Ghose. I wonder if Sagarika
would endorse the deletion of many so-called hateful verses from the Koran and if that
would be acceptable to muslims. This is how our so called secular media
discusses modern day Indian society with spurious arguments trashing Hindu
scriptures. Iliah’s argument may have been relevant to a discussion of caste
system or discrimination but has little relevance to Sagarika’s core issue at
hand. This is what Tully refers to as excessive secularism. This is nothing but
mindless, unrelated and pointless trashing of scriptures of the Hindu culture
even when it does not influence any public policy decisions.
In another post of mine about Shashi Tharoor’s idea of secularism I had
mentioned that in India secularism means don’t offend muslims. There is another
side to it too. The one that goes all out to please muslims, break or bend all
laws and rules applicable to other citizens for the muslims, dole out excessive
concessions to muslims for votes. This is what secularism has come to mean:
Appease muslims at any and all costs to the nation’s fabric.
Yesterday, December 13, was the 10th anniversary of the
attack on the Indian Parliament. The politicians and media are still debating
why Afzal Guru, the master-mind of the attack hasn’t been executed in accordance with the
SC order. Is the answer so hard to find? Quite simply, the Congress party is
unwilling to administer justice to a muslim perpetrator of mass murder. This
will not happen anytime soon considering elections to Uttar Pradesh and a few more
states are around the corner. Hmmm, that brings elections into focus. That also
means another round of excessive secularism. Salman Khurshid has announced
plans for a further reservation in Central govt jobs for muslims. This is
followed by Rahul Gandhi’s assurance to muslim clerics that Madrasas will be
kept out of RTE Act. This is being offered despite the fact that many madrasas
are funded by the govt. And the media? They are busy just announcing this as
grand election strategies instead of condemning such actions as politics of
appeasement, vote-bank and a blot on secularism.
 |
| Rahul Gandhi - The Secularist |
The consistent propaganda by the Congress, the leftists and the media
has reached such levels that unless you are willing to dress up in muslim garb,
wear a skull cap or join prayers in their dargahs you are not a confirmed
secularist. Celebrity journalists are even past writing about this horrendous
crime being committed by politicians by damaging the concept of equality of
citizens under a democracy. Reservations as a policy is now half a century old
and has produced very little progress among those whom it was intended for. And
then media celebs like Sagarika Ghose talk about change and modernisation.
People like Kancha Iliah talk about excising the Vedas. Take one look at Rahul
Gandhi, a man-child who has nothing intelligent to say or no real programme to
offer, but the media hangs on to his every word as if it were gospel. Has the
culture of slavery to the dynasty in the media changed? No, not at all. They
still crawl when asked to bend. Barkha Dutt frequently asks why muslims are
being stereotyped. Haha! Take that for intelligence of a journalist! You sport
a beard, sometimes without a moustache, a long flowing Kurta, wear a skull cap –
sure, I could mistake you for a Christian priest. Then all the black or white
burqas and veils, I could mistake them for Jain women, wouldn’t I? And when
such media celebs find time they are busy brokering cabinet berths so when will
they find time to talk about appeasement or secularism? That’s where a
journalist from outside sees facts for what they are; the dangers of excessive
secularism.
It took a Britisher, Richard Attenborough, to make a full length
feature film about Gandhi. It took yet another Britisher, this time journalist Mark
Tully, to point out the folly of excessive secularism. In the same report by
The Hindu I quoted earlier, there is another observation that Tully makes that
will be remain buried in a corner where truths are usually buried: “Noting that
even at the bitter height of Partition, India did not slip into becoming a
Hindu nation, Mr. Tully said Hinduism in fact had a lot to do with India's pluralism”.
