Ashish Nandy in an article entitled ‘The Fear of Gandhi’ published in Times of India (April 27, 1994) stated, amongst other things, about marginalisation of Hindu nationalism, that their idea of a Hindu Rashtra is only an edited version of the modern nation-state which they want to capture in the name of ancient faith. While the entire patriotic fringe was labelled as Nathuram Godse’s successors, he also commented that Hindutva comically mimics 19^th century European nationalism. He further drew a dividing line amongst Hindu nationalists and how they show scant reverence for the plural culture of Hinduism as they carry in their views a deep hostility towards everyday Hinduism and ordinary Hindus.

Do the above comments make any sense except that they aim to cut the roots of people in their faith causing a schism on the lines which are not visible to us superficially but part of a scheme to destabilise the revivalist wave? Like all abrasive and cynical secularist politicians who only hurry to capture power, such views seek to unite such forces which call any reference to nationalism based on Hinduism, disintegrative and backward looking. It is an anathema to them. One can be modern, liberal and progressive at the same time imbued with the expressed love for his faith.

Another author, Anikendra Nath Sen playing up the diversities within the Hindu faith in one of his articles entitled “Multi-Ethnic India: Danger of Lapsing into Archiasm” says that Hinduism – be it described as a religion, a culture, or a faith – cannot be the answer to the problems of national unity. He ignores the spirit of continuous reforms taking place within the fold and finds it incapable of tolerating multi-ethnic entities within the state. All along historians have stressed the efficacy of Hinduism as unifying factor. The only way to arrest the current centrifugal tendency at work in our country is a reversion to Hinduism which is synonymous to nationalism. India’s salvation lies in a position where there is no guilt-ridden humiliating existence in a situation dominated by such forces which act as drum-beaters of secularism. Our nationalism is the only alternative to disintegration, reassertive and redefined. We have to view our collective identity in terms of majority which has a historical continuity, a common culture and a sense of geographical location, even by defying the motherland.

The anti-Hindu bias in the media, over the years, becomes more pronounced, more disgusting. Hindutva, whether ideological or organisational, refers to the very roots and can never be termed communal or one that threatens the unity. In no country the majority which helps earn the country its distinct national personality, is maligned and vilified as in India. If Hindus get united, India gets united and does not disintegrate as prophets of doom want us to believe. Those who foster or endanger majority alienation, by their intemperate language will only cause further aversion of Hindus to the distortions of Indian Secularism.