It has been for quite sometimes that the fourth Estate in our country has been posturing as infallible, omniscient and judgmental on issues which are quite sensitive to majority community. It is employing its privileges with abuse. Those inimical to Hindus are acerbic in their condemnations, condone willful distortions in reporting and exhibit viciousness in presentation and are sometimes guilty of tailoring facts. They are sometimes hostile; at other times they would tell us what good Hinduism should be like, which is rather different from what Hindus think of it. A section of press first resented ‘modernisation’ then ‘tolerance’ pitting against it supposed bigotry and then got scared about its ‘ semitisation’. It was however invariably an anti-Hindu theme with suitable variations.

The intentions were obviously to weaken and debilitate them from within and to deny them a respectable place in country’s polity as a group, as a constituency. Even votaries of American media who imitate it in content, language and style would not touch even with a barge pole what Time, Newsweek or New York Times would write quite frequently about Muslims and where they are frequently portrayed as anti-liberal, devoid of secular values or as emerging threat to civilization. Yet a section of English press does not flinch in abusing Hinduism at every available opportunity, maintaining a pro-Muslim Stance. There are a large number of columnists who have jettisoned accuracy, impartiality, fairplay and sensitivity while writing about majority faith. Such journalists who regard themselves as a cut above ordinary mortals, in their arrogance and venom spouted against our faith act as villains. They appear to be monstrously alienated and their self hatred, with negative overtones for their own religion, is quite revealing.

Those who talk of ‘semitisation’ do not specify which features of the semitic religions were objectionable. They are presumably doctrinal exclusivism and the consequent intolerance towards others. But there is much in semitic religious traditions which is admirable, religious seriousness and solemnity for example. A healthy self-respect and fellowship of believers are their other virtues.

Our religion is not static but continuously evolving its ideas, institutions and practices. It has capacity to discard, without a tinge of guilt, obsolete practices or those which turn out to be deleterious to the interest of society. Its freedom from doctrinal exclusiveness enables it to be truly universal in outlook. But this taken too far can lead us to embrace amorphousness or want of seriousness. A relevant ‘semitisation’ of Hinduism might indeed be a very good thing for Hindus who must face the challenges of modernity without losing their bearing. Sensing this capability of Hinduism, secularist scribes are alarmed because in it they see ‘defensive’ imitation of adversary. What is vital for Hinduism today, a healthy self-regard and spirit of fellowship, is being perceived as threat by others. Religion is major thread which binds Hindus together spread over the length and breadth of the country but that alone is sought to be severed by every available method. The current political resurgence has beyond doubt made Hindu nationalism respectable. What Dr. Radhakrishnan did for Hindus on the literary- intellectual plane, the mantle of restoring the self-esteem of entire community has been passed on to Shri Advani who happens to be politician. The assertive search of ‘ Hindus’ for self –identity does not require legitimacy from those whose own credibility in national life is a victim of confusion and self-doubt. Hindu nationalism is the original, subaltern perception of Indian nationalism and it is maligned by secularists as a quest for Hindu hegemony over other communities. Hindus would never imitate by converting in to a tightly organised structure with a clear ideological structure like Christianity or Islam but its pervasive influence on the way of life of a vast number of people, if better organised, will achieve the same purpose.

The Hindu society is no longer a fragmented or fractured structure. The anxiety of those who always assailed it for its contradictions is almost doubled when they sensed that it could turn into a monolith against the Muslim vote banks and play a bigger role in the national life. Those who are worried at the modernist idiom being progressively Hinduised can do nothing but pouring venom on this new resurgence.

It is the widespread concern that true love for the country is at a discount in today’s politics, which has goaded the search for symbols of unity and integration. As a reaffirmation and assertion of these aspects of modernity, and not as a religious symbol that Hinduism is making great impact. It is in this context, resurgence of Hinduism cannot be isolated from the broader question of the re-discovery of Indian nationalism. It is this search which will dominate the political agenda in the days to come. The secularist offensive is derailed today and the polemics is converted into abuses heaped on Hinduism, treating it as a faith of the underclass. Any party which will provide moral fibre and idealism will in the long run over come all present failings, if there are any.