Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   

17. Perversions in the Report

17.1 As Beloo Mehra pointed out in his analysis, "even before the reader is made aware of the origins of Hindutva as a political ideology, he or she is asked to believe that it is "Hindu supremacist ideology" and has been responsible for much of the "communal violence" in India." The definition of Hindutva that is being applied in the Report is not what the proponents of the ideology say it is, but what the opponents say it is. What Hindutva is has been a matter for court decisions. Some of the proponents, in the electoral politics arena, have had cases against them for setting aside their elections. However, the Supreme Court decided in the favour of the proponents of Hindutva, and accepted that their definition can in no way be construed to be sectarian or communal. This has been reiterated by LK Advani, Home Minister, in the Parliament on November 18, 2002. He said:

· I will say our concept is the one which the Supreme Court wrote. Justice Verma in his judgement wrote: ''The words Hinduism or Hindutva are not confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India depicting the way of life of the Indian people. These terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people, and are not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith.'' We in the Government accept that the meaning of Hindutva is the one which the Supreme Court accepts and what Swami Vivekanandaji and others recognised. (The Indian Express, November 23, 2002.)

17.2 The inherent tolerance of the Hindus, an integral part of their ethos, is well accepted. The Jews, the Parsis, the Syrain Christians, and the Tibetians had to flee their own land because of persecution by the Christians, the Muslims, the other Christian sects, and the communists, respectively. It was only amongst Hindus that they were able to survive - not only in terms of keeping their own faith alive, but also in material terms. On December 19, 2002, the Holywood actor, Richard Gere, during his visit to India, said:

17.3 However, Hindus have resisted those who came here with an intention of destroying their culture and civilisation. The interface of Islam and Christianity in Indian history can be said, at the very least, to have been architecturally and spiritually harmful on a fairly vast scale. This is a continuing story, with the threat still persisting. Because of the strong resistance, Hinduism today is the oldest surviving civilisation.

17.4 The Report defines the gurukul system of education in India as "Hindu religious schools, equivalent of the Islamic madrassas." The gurukul system provides the students with a modern and secular education, even as it inculcates the traditional values of our civilisation. Perhaps the authors of the Report could give examples of terrorists that have been bred in this system. Only a perverted mind would do link the gurukuls with the Madrasas, which have become jehadi factories all over the world. For the authors of the Report, only some Madrasas, but all gurukuls, teach hatred.

17.5 Even as the authors have never criticised the jehadi factories that the madarsas are all over the world, they have brought down an ancient system of education down to the level of the madarasas. The authors also allege that the 'Hindu madarsas' are operating not only in India, but also abroad.

17.6 One of the comments that the authors of the Report frequently make is that the Sangh is a secretive organisation. Given the extent of the size of the organisation, as admitted by the authors, one would find it very hard to believe this charge. Only if the Sangh had complete control over all branches of the government, right from the panchayat to the centre, can such a state of disguise be maintained. And, experience all over the world has shown, that even this is not possible for a length of time. And the Sangh is today 77 years old.

17.7 Perhaps it would be instructive to read a quote from an article by a known Sangh-baiter, Amulya Ganguli.

· "If there is one aspect of the RSS-led Sangh parivar which evokes admiration, it is candour. In a day and age when false smiles and unvarnished lies are the politicians' stock-in-trade, it is always refreshing to hear the clear, if grim, articulation of their deadly plans for India from the saffron stalwarts, including another "epic war" between Hindus and anti-Hindus. What is remarkable is that even when they are aware that they may be revealing their secrets, or that they are embarrassing a government which is nearer them ideologically than any other will ever be, the high priests of Hindu rashtra are not bothered. Either they have complete faith in the ultimate success of their mission, or they are incapable of terminological inexactitude, the polite term for being economical with the truth. Irrespective of how provocative their statements may be, they have no hesitation in standing by them." ("The RSS game plan", The Hindustan Times, March 27, 2000.)

17.8 The Report alleges that the IDRF raised money for the Bangladeshi Hindus who are once again being driven out of their homelands, the 350,000 Kashmiri Hindus who are living as refugees in their own country for the last 13 years, and given a token donation for the victims of the World Trade Centre, because the perpetrators of the crime were Muslims. (At a polemical level, perhaps one should be amused that the authors of the Report do admit that the perpetrators are Muslims.) By the same logic, one would come to the conclusion that given that IDRF raised large sums of money for the Gujarat earthquake and the Orissa cyclone, these and other such events were actually not natural calamities, but were done by the Muslims! We guess if we are to take the Report with even a modicum of seriousness, we will have to take special precautions that we do not lose our sanity.

17.10 This is only a glimpse of the type of perversions that the authors have to resort to, as true revolutionaries as commanded by Lenin. A group called Friends of India are making their own analysis of the Report. They have taken the trouble to find out the antecedents of ten of the recipients, identified as being sectarian, of the donation from IDRF. One of them, Miraj Medical Centre, is run by the Church of North India. Janan Prabodhini receives funds from colleagues of the authors of the Report, namely Asha and AID, in the USA. The Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya Pratishthan is identified as involved in 'Hinduisation, tribal or education'. In actual fact, this institute runs a very large hospital in Maharashtra, along with some outreach centres in the surrounding villages. The donors to this institute include organisations like the Tatas in India. So much for the level of meticulousness that the authors of the Report claim.

17.11 Similarly, while discussing one of the in-house fund raising project of IDRF, namely "Martyrs for National Integration Fund" (MNIF), the authors of the Report have put the words 'terrorist war' in inverted commas. It would appear to us that this has been done because they do not accept that what is happening in Jammu & Kashmir cannot be classified as terrorism. Given that those creating a problem are receiving substantial material assistance from Pakistan (a fact admitted by Setalvad in her August 2002 speech mentioned above), the contention of the authors of the Report can only be defined as a perversion. They seem to have no appreciation of the tremendous sacrifice made by thousands of our soldiers, from all parts of the country, to keep our country intact.