The Ugly H(indu) word

[Guest guest]

>OFBJP Admin

>vaidika1008 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com >[bJP News]: The Ugly H word >Fri, 2

Feb 2001 16:32:53 -0500 > >Title: The Ugly H Word >Author: Pritish Nandy

>Publication: Rediff >Feb. 1, 2001 > > President George W Bush, in his

inaugural address, > made so many references to God, the Bible and >

Christianity that even the American media sat up and > noticed it. No, no one

was in the least embarrassed by it. > But they noticed it and some of them

pointed it out, quite > approvingly. For in American politics such references

to > religion are not seen as anything wrong. A President who > flaunts his

faith is no zealot; nor is he a Christian > fundamentalist. He is a good,

decent, God-fearing man. > > Bush is not the first American President to be so

openly Christian. Many before > him have also rooted for a good, strong

Christian image. No one doubted their > motives. No one disparaged them for

doing so. Even when it won them votes, > no one accused them of religious

bigotry or political opportunism. > > Compare this to India. Think of what

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee > goes through every time he mentions the

dreaded H word. While many are > ready to applaud him when he talks about fresh

peace initiatives in Kashmir or > making friends with Pakistan, the moment he

says anything about being Hindu > or defends the cause of Hindutva, he is

promptly accused of revealing his true > colours as a khaki knickerwallah. The

very mention of his religious > antecedents, however gently, raises the hackles

of the Opposition and the media. > Forget President Bush; if Vajpayee were to

just talk about what being a Hindu > means to him, he would be flagellated as a

bigot who has emerged from the > closet. > > So strong is the pressure built up

by the secular lobby in India that even leaders > like Vajpayee, known for

their open-mindedness in matters of religion, are > now increasingly

embarrassed to acknowledge their Hindu roots. It is as if > being Hindu is

politically incorrect, something to be ashamed of. The moral of > the story is:

If you must wear khaki knickers, wear them under your white > dhoti so that no

one can out you as a bigot, a traditionalist, or simply as an old > fashioned

prig. Secularism today is synonymous with modernity. It is > synonymous with

human rights. With the spirit of liberalisation, the scientific > temper, with

globalisation as we aspire to it. > > Can you imagine Vajpayee in one of his

speeches referring to Ram as the > guiding spirit of our nationhood? Can you

see him repeatedly quoting from the > Bhagvad Gita or the Upanishads to

underscore a political point? He would be > torn apart. Even Vande Mataram is

labelled as a Hindu anthem today, not the > national anthem. The national

anthem is Jana Gana Mana which is ostensibly > secular. No speech by a prime

minister refers to anything Hindu without > promptly balancing it with a cross

reference to Islam or Christianity or > Sikhism. We are always anxious to show

the world how secular we are. If in > the process we are regressing from our

own faith, so be it. > > When President Bush refers to God or Jesus Christ or

the Bible, it does not > make him a bigot or a fundamentalist. So why should we

blame Vajpayee when > he sees the Ram Mandir as the collective dream of this

nation? His secular > credentials are well known. His abiding faith in the

peace process has been > repeatedly demonstrated and, even though he has been

let down again and again > by Pakistan, he has refused to give up hope in the

possibility of achieving peace > in Kashmir. All this, against the wishes of

some of his own supporters in the > NDA. Yet he has been brave enough to stick

his neck out and root for peace. > He knows that radical Islam is a dangerous

and destabilising force all over the > world but he never refers to it.

Instead, he has chosen to deliberately secularise > our semantics by referring

to it as cross-border terrorism even though the > whole world knows where this

cross-border terrorism comes from, who funds > it, and why. > > My question is:

Why must we deny Prime Minister Vajpayee his right to be a > Hindu? Bush does

not become a fundamentalist when he refers to Christianity > or the Bible. No

one argues that he is anti-Muslim or anti-secular simply > because he flaunts

his own faith in public. By the same argument, when > Vajpayee speaks of

Hindutva or the Ram temple, why should we brand him as a > fundamentalist? He

remains what he always was: a Hindu at heart, a secular > leader in office. In

fact, as we all know, the only way to be truly secular is to > be (first) a

good Hindu or a good Christian or a good Muslim. Unless you > respect your own

faith you are unlikely to respect the faith of others. > > The media and the

Opposition are repeatedly arguing that Vajpayee is > double-faced. That he

hunts with the hounds and runs with the hares. On one > hand he is the gentle

and liberal face of the BJP. On the other, he keeps using > the Hindu card to

further his own political ends. That he is actually a wolf in > sheep's

clothing. A Hindu bigot wearing the mask of secularism to sneakily woo > the

minority vote. > > This is a foolish argument. The prime minister has no reason

to be bashful of > the H word. It is possible to be a Hindu without compromising

one's secular > credentials. Like Gandhi. He was a good Hindu and a great

secular leader too. > There was no conflict of interest. In fact, it is just

the opposite. Those who > speak so passionately about secularism are the ones

who barter it away so > easily. In their pursuit of easy political goals.

Without realising the simple fact > that hypocrisy is no substitute for

political conviction.

>---- >

http://www.ofbjp.org

>---- >A

worldwide community of BJP's friends, supporters and activists: >Friends of the

BJP - Worldwide: http://www.ofbjp.org/fob

>---- > > Get

your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com