Author: Tarun Vijay
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: January 27, 2003
Out of my 466-word piece, Query
for Lady Naipaul (HT, January 11), Lady Naipaul chose to focus on the last
three words alone and made it to the headlines. I should have known that
nobody likes to be a Pakistani these days. Ironically, she adopted an old
communist practice: to sidetrack the main issue and label the person seeking
answers. Unfair, indeed.
She must be rest assured that till
she is in Hindustan, she enjoys full freedom to criticise, use as strong
or propagandist words as she likes, put questions on having Ram and Sita
- the greatest embodiments of all noble virtues - in our hearts and yet
be our most honoured guest. That's our tradition, inspired and strengthened
by the life and times of Ram and Sita.
But when she says she feels like
being in Pakistan, it seems a sad joke. An Islamic mullahdom would have
reacted completely differently to the kind of questions she raised. Maybe,
a second reading of V.S. Naipaul's Beyond Belief will help her.
We appreciate that she had the courage
of conviction to raise questions about Ram and Sita before Deputy Prime
Minister L.K. Advani, despite being a non-Hindu and a non-Indian, in a
public function. This is a question nagging us since centuries of Islamic
invasions.
A false secularism has been protecting
and encouraging separatism in the name of minority rights. Anything anti-Hindu
wrapped in a reformist attitude, modernism, Left-progressivism and space-age
ideas etc. is acceptable to a neo-colonialist mindset controlling a powerful
section of the media.
Recently, a columnist wrote that
Shahrukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai are getting space in NRI hearts rather
than Ram and Sita. What a comparison! Still no trishuls were drawn against
her. Try comparing Bollywood actors and actresses with the gods or the
great personalities of Semitic societies! Liberties are taken only with
Hindus because their tolerance is treated as cowardice. They are mocked,
laughed at, labelled with the most derogatory terms.
This attitude is slowly pushing
Hindus to a wall. They feel that unless they react against the Islamic
way, these 'seculars' and the Mullah-Marxist combine won't listen to them.
They are blamed for it. They are made to look apologetic to get back temples
of the highest reverence demolished by foreign invaders - because the Mullah-Marxist
combine has made it difficult for Indian Muslims to divorce the hate psyche
of the invaders who happened to belong to the same faith. So, a faithful
has to support a religious fellow, even if he is an invader, a 'bad' foreigner.
Why is it so? Why should an Indian
Muslim be made to feel more affinity with an Arab - who is a complete stranger
to him - than his own blood brother, simply because of a difference in
the way of worship? This is the question no Leftist or an Islamist will
bother to raise.
Lady Naipaul touched the subject
winning our gratitude. And the question was, why should an Indian Muslim
be made to feel apologetic if Ram and Sita finds a place in his or her
heart? Agreed, Allah is great and merciful, but is there a need to put
him in 'competition' with the believers' forefathers? Is this not the mentality
which breeds separatism and allows jehad to grow?
A Hindu need not be converted to
Islam to celebrate Id. Similarly, a Muslim need not feel apologetic to
have Ram and Sita in his heart while offering his daily namaaz. Is this
too much to expect? After all, what kind of society do we need to build
a multi-religious nation? What binds us together and what are the elements
of separatism? Does a change in faith require changing territorial loyalties
and transplanting ancestors?
We respect Lady Naipaul because
she has supported Sir Vidia, whom we admire for his literary genius and
his deep affinity towards India. It's unfair to say, as Lady Naipaul has
alleged, that we are looking for a 'mentor' in him. It simply shows a complete
lack of understanding and even a basic knowledge about the Hindutva school
of thought on her part.
We have our mentors in Swami Vivekananda,
Hedgewar and Deen Dayal Upadhyaya. Our admiration for Sir Vidia is definitely
not to engage him as our advocate or defender. It happens only with the
communists and the apologists for semitism who declare: If you are not
with us, you are against us.
Hindutva is quite capable of defending
itself and does not solicit any apologist or a hesitant 'convert' as a
show boy. Rather, Lady Naipaul should stop being an apologist for Sir Vidia's
views. Her presence should concur with his heights of thought without compromising
or degrading his position by dragging him in internal or communal polemics.
We may have a debate on many of Sir Vidia's ideas, but we like him for
being just what he is.
There is a story in the Mahabharata
where Yudhishthir faces the rest of the Pandavas who are sick of climbing
the Himalayas. He is asked why he loves this huge mass of stones and rocks
which gives him nothing in return for his admiration. Yudhishthir replies:
"I love the Himalayas for what it is. Its greatness, beauty and a mesmerising
charm that surpasses any wish to have a return gift."
(The writer is Editor of the RSS
publication, Panchjanya.)
