September 19, 2017

Project Pull Down Hinduism (PPDH)

Project Pull Down Hinduism seems to be an effort of various disconnected individuals working with an single minded agenda of equating the exceptions of Hinduism with the norms in Abrahamic religion. Every article written as a critique of Hinduism from fence sitters has to be seen with a suspicion and the intent of the authors have to subject to intense scrutiny. The first test is to see if an intellectual has done critique of all ideologies or if his works are particular to only one ideology. Some kind of critique requires deep analysis but most of the critique does not need much study because the faults are very obvious. What most authors do is to trick the readers into believing that they are neutral critiques and positions themselves on a moral high ground and then do their works to PPDH.

Lets see how one particular author Tufail Ahmed in his “Abrahamic Hindutva: The religious fundamentalism that is a threat to India’s tolerant and pluralist civilisational order” does a wonderful PPDH. In order to appear neutral and having good intentions at heart the author start with mild salutations to the Hinduism and its ancient traditions in one paragraph and then the he explains his stand on the so called growing intolerance of Hindus  and the threat to the civilisational order.

“In the case of Islam, it was seen that politics to capture power transformed into theology, dividing Muslims into Shias and Sunnis. In the case of Hinduism, culture is transforming into Hindu theology.”

The Shias and Sunnis have a country for themselves and then they are working to destroy one another and cannot live in peace together as nations. We have not witnessed such a deep seated hate between any two communities in the so called Abrahamic Hindutva groups unless there is a communist or some church agents playing behind the scenes. The hate that exists is among some castes and is a localized problem but can the same be said of the Shias and Sunnis which is theological.

In Pakistan, you can be legally punished with death for blasphemy. In India, Hindu youths out to defend Hinduism are willing to kill you for transporting cows.

While the author is correct about blasphemy in Islam there is no such thing in Hindusim. Nobody will ever be killed for insulting any Hindu god. But in the Islamic nations and secular state of India the state itself punishes if anyone even criticizes the Allah or the prophet. In case of Abrahamic Hindutva a few private individuals are indulging in localized violence, but in the case of Islam the ordinary man is helping the state in punishing people for insulting their god and messengers. Cases such as West Bengal facebook post riots, Indian man in gulf giving statement against his roommate, kamlesh tiwari, etc are some examples of state indulging/supporting in violence on citizens. An act of state and an act of a few individuals are equated and only those involved in PPDH can alone do such comparisons. In the case of cow vigilantes only one side of the story has been told by the author but not about the case of cow smuggling and the mafia that acts by the smugglers. The author fails to recognize that the state has failed in imposing the rule of law owing to secularism and hence given rise to different types cow vigilantes. If there is a case of Abrahamic Hindutva it is followed by the Indian state owing to a pseudo concept called secularism.

Much like jihadis’ argument that each Muslim must take up arms because there is no Caliphate to authorise jihad, Hindu youths too think that India is no Hindu rashtra and therefore a Hindu should take law in their own hands.

Muslims in every country indulge in violence but Hindus donot become cow vigilantes in all countries or places even in India. The case of Hindu youth taking law into their own hands is still a matter of investigation and a lot of research is needed to conclusively prove the statements of the author himself. Whether each and every case of cow vigilante is an act of aggression has to be studied because no individual or society can keep calm when their property is being stolen. There is no proof that all the cow vigilantes and the violence that happens is done only by the Hindutva groups and the violence involving cows can be done by the cattle mafia too. Whether the author has already concluded that the violence in the name of cow is done only by Hindus? If this is the case the author is simply fitting his imagination into a particular PPDH narrative. Hindus are not trying to establish Hindu Rashtra but only reclaiming what has degenerated into a secular bigoted rashtra. If at all there is any trait of Abrahamism in Hindutva then the author and his ilk would have been rotting in jails or left the shores of this country in the worst case. One average painter has ran away because he couldnot face the law and not because of the mobs.

“Since Islam has ruled parts of India for up to 1,400 years, it has impacted our ways of living. For example, the concept of divorce among Hindus came originally from Islam and even now India’s predominantly Hindu ethos disapprove of divorce.”

Islam has been conclusively defeated by Hindus for 1400years else India would have been another Islamic nation. This point has to be accepted and because of the secularism the Hindus have been losing control of their own nation and no Hindu could accept it to happen and every one would put his efforts to restore the glory of the nation. Hindus might have learnt divorcing from Islam but islam did not learn anything about giving respect to women from Hindus. What is happening to women in the so called Abrahamic Hindutva is much better than the state of women in the Islam.

However, the apex court’s definition of Hindutva is deficient because it fails to explain the theological reasons that give birth to cow vigilantes.

Whatever may be the definition of Hindutva, the cow vigilantes are not supported by any religious preacher of the so called Abrahamic Hindutva and there is no verse that is quoted by the vigilantes. The vigilantes are not doing it for the sake of some god nor on the basis of religion. Even before the BJP government has formed there are fights over cows only because they are mostly stolen. Cows are owned by people and nobody would keep quiet when their possessions are taken away. This is the basic thing which the authors and his ilk fail to comprehend because of the lenses they use. The PPHD is the basis of all such articles. By saying the theological reasons that give birth to cow vigilantes, the author implies that the constitution is itself at fault and the author also fails to tell us that the secular state has failed in its obligation of protecting the property of individuals.

In recent years, it has been seen that groups of Hindu youths have entered parks and shopping malls to prevent youths from celebrating the Valentine’s Day.

This is moral policing is a local issue and there is no sanction in the religion and such moral policing exists in every religion and region over one issue or another and it implies a failure of the state.. These are purely societal issues and human issues and mixing everything and linking it to Hindutva doesnot make one a neutral critique. The author does an intellectual hara-kiri and exposes that he is a part of PPDH when he equates a terrorist state of Pakistan and India. There can be no comparison between the two in terms of civil rights. The thing that the author misses to tell is that the activities of Bajrang Dal, VHP are only in a few malls and it is not an all India phenomenon and it has no sanction of the state. Those indulging in the violence might have been booked and if they are not booked, the author and his ilk are more responsible because they are the ones always crying rights using the alphabet soup of NGOs.

In the case of Hindu youths, it is seen that they view certain dresses like jeans and certain naked paintings as unacceptable. Groups like the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the student wing of BJP, have led campaigns for a ban on jeans for women in a Kanpur college. In 2014, the Hindu Mahasabha attracted headlines for demanding that women should not use cell phones and not wear jeans. Hindu Mahasabha also said: “Our culture is getting affected due to live-in relationship and hence a law prohibiting live-in-relationships should be enacted.

The only answer is PPHD at its best. There can be millions of campaigns made by million organizations and what one has to see is the effectiveness. Has there been a law regarding a ban that has resulted due to the campaigns which are done over million illogical issues? The author doesnot tell that us Islamic campaigns are successful and have led to serious restrictions on the life of the people. There are villages where cell phones are banned, women not allowed to come out without burqua, etc and the state itself is fearful of the Islamic leaders because of the violence potential. Can the same be said about the so called Abrahamic Hindutva groups?

While Islamic terrorists are inspired by the idea of a global Caliphate, Hindu terrorists, notably those associated with Abhinav Bharat, are motivated by the concept of Hindu rashtra.

This is the gist of the article and it is the reason why we have to understand the PPHD. While every Islamic terrorist kills humans, animals in the name of allah or prophet, no Hindu does it in the name of the god. The existence of Abhinav Bharat and the case of Saffron terrorism is a grand design to further the PPHD but due to the grace of the million gods, fate has favored Hindus and Tukaram Omble has to remembered every single time Saffron terrorism is mentioned by a few great individual belong PPHD. The question the author doesnot tell is that who is promoting the jihad in Islam and who is doing the same in the so called Abrahamic hindutva? If at all any violence erupts that can be only due to suffering in this country as second class citizens under the guise of secularism the Hindus are choked by the Abrahamic faiths. The author only tells about the various oral statements but doesnot tell about realizing the statements of the leaders of Hindus. The fundamental difference between the Hindus and Muslims is the violence potential and the doctrinal approval for violence. Even though Sanatana dharma says that violence for the cause of dharma is right, not many would take law into their own hands as they have belief in the manmade constitution while the same cannot be said of other religions.

Until that happens, Abrahamic Hindutva is a living threat to India’s civilisational order as known to our ancestors in the Vedic times.

The author repeats all the fake issues which have no basis in Hinduism and fails to differentiate between actions and plain words. There are no religious heads preaching and giving sermons about what a person can do and cannot. On the whole, the author doesnot tell whether the threat to the India’s civilisational order is due to the Abrahamic faiths or Abrahamic Hindutva or simply Hindutva. If the threat is only due to Abrahamic Hindutva then the article is useless because according to the author himself Abrahamic Hindutva is a mirror of other Abrahamic faiths. If the threat is indeed due to Abrahamic Hindutva then to keep the civilisational order safe the solution would be keeping the Abrahamic faiths at bay because they seem to be the inspiration for all intolerance. If Hindutva is a threat to the civilisational order than the author has failed to understand history of India and it is because of the varied definitions and varieties of Hindutva that this civilization has survived in spite of the several invasions. By not explicitly answering the source of the threat to the civilisational order the author has done his part of PPHD planting doubts and giving yet another lengthy article to send the secular Hindus into yet another guilt trip.

Without talking about the source of threat to the India’s civilisational order this is an article at best can be described as yet another hit job as a part of PPDH. But to the founders of PPDH, the Hindus have becoming thick skinned and are not going into guilt trip as before and this is the problem faced by agents of PPDH.

Picture Credit: News18.com


Disclaimer

About Vijendra Bhat 59 Articles
Currently working as an Assistant Professor in an Engineering College in Udupi district, Karnataka. Earlier Worked in Steel Foundry Industry for 6 years. Interested in the politics and revival of Bharat.
Contact: Twitter
  • Mayura Hn

    good one. when u r sure bad is affecting(influencing) good , then remove bad , need not to correct good.I believe people can differentiate between good and bad.