The biggest tragedy which has befallen the country's tribe of so called analytical and perceptive leftists is their unbridled exhibition of eagerness to interpret situations which fit in well in their pre-conceived notions. Their analysis of communal question, their brand of secularism and their unconcealed glee over the aggressiveness of minorities is always done from the stand-point of their political requirements. 

The three words, much misused and used as a mask happen to be secularism, rationalism and science-orientation and they are, more often than not, used for deprecating our religion and traditions. It appears that some of our English newspapers have ceased as instruments for collection and dissemination of news. The content and scope of the news today is a question of selection. And here we find news and comments which put majority community in poor light. 

After more than five decades of independence, our own scribes are having doubts about its being a nation and like a few Britishers of yester-years call it an aggregate of disparate peoples and above all unabashed assailing of Hinduism. The fever of secularism which has gripped such writers is decidedly one form of the cult of unreason. The idea of universal truth has been jettisoned; there is today secular truth, Muslim truth, Marxist truth and with the onset of polls there is a renewed rivalry in propagandist insanity.

These writers refer to Hinduism as deadweight of the past, frustrating all progress. Hinduism is hardly viewed as a powerful stream representing the quintessence of our country's wisdom. On the contrary we come across sneering comments that religion is being given a show of patriotic sanction.

We begin with a cynical Anglophile Nirad C. Chaudhary who would call India a functioning anarchy and for him today's 'abominable Hindu militancy' could never surprise. He finds that anarchy always remained 'cooped up within the bowels of Indian Society', ever ready to surface. According to him, democracy is 'the new dangerous factor' as retrograde Hindu masses would destroy sensible politics. Since in democracy 'social power is integrated into political power' Hindu factor will be a new danger. Nirad Chaudhary wails: "without democracy, Hindu fanaticism would not have affected policy". If not crazy, nothing would explain his shocking statement that "no one but a foreigner can bring peace", since India was never integrated at any time (Sunday Times of India, 30 December, 1990). In the same issue, Shri Chaudhary condemns Hindus for not being a peace loving race, "In reality few communities have been more war-like and fond of bloodshed than Hindus. This will not be believed since Hindu militarism lies buried under a mound of mythical notions about Ahimsa".

Those who engineer such myths which run counter to the very roots of our religion have to be exposed. The only way to do it effectively is to turn to facts. Those who are not tired of saying that our religion perpetuated exploitation, our ancestors bequeathed us merely deceit and false leads - such detractors have to be exposed today. Our ancestors worked and thought in the context of their times, within the value-systems evolved over a span of 5000 years and yet so relevant to us. They handed down to us timeless, deathless truths. We would not like to be maligned that our scriptures reinforced social stratification and defended irrationalism, obscurantism and caste-hatred. A continuous denigration of Hindus by lobbyists of other religions in the garb of preaching secularism has caused devastating results in the past and has gravely retarded the process of integration of minorities in the mainstream. Secularism of the popular brand has today overshadowed the national priorities by segregation of minority interests by giving them concessions and advantages. For this politics of secularism whose merits are in fact negative which cuts across all the manipulative exercises of every political party, power is of paramount importance because it determines the access to vote banks. In turn they continuously promise access to economic and cultural resources for all minority pressure groups. Hindus though in majority are appraised negatively by these political parties because in their large-heartedness they do not constitute vote chunks on the ground of religion. Thus these vested interests have a stake in Hindu-baiting and causing tensions by assailing Hindu sensibilities. They play on anxiety - misplaced or unfounded - of Muslims and blow up their alienation from the main-stream for preservation of their own vested interests.

The kind of politics practiced in our country has contributed to the strengthening of Muslim communalism. This communalism is obviously a creation of India's secular politics to the detriment of Hindus. In the name of viewing communalism as a structural feature of capitalism in its present phase of development, Marxists are adding to the tension by praising any bid to preserve Muslim identity. They forget their pet notion of class identity when it comes to Muslims. They only talk of and think in terms of denominational character. Thus political parties of various shades by their anti-Hindu policy have failed to reduce alienation of Muslim and by their pampering and patronising attitude aggravated their sentiments.

Another interesting feature is a generous wink by the same intellectual to the identical situations in other religions. A Christian absurdity of belief in witchcraft or animals having no soul or purdah in Islam, is explained away as limitations historically inevitable for them. The obscurantism in Islam and Christianity becomes a minor aberration to them which need not be over-emphasised.

While referring to Hinduism these short-sighted intellectuals ignore the vastness and complexity of our philosophical traditions and underplay the fact that Hinduism has also been synonymous to the spirit of questioning for more than 5000 years. These intellectuals are shaken to the roots and become uncomfortable when their familiar and sycophantic stance to other religion is challenged.

The world's biggest power which brags of democratic traditions and claims to be an open society can at least never impress us. It has been for decades that US has exhibited its unconcealed predilection for a theocratic military dictatorship in Pakistan and has never chosen to support a secular democratic nation like India. More than a reflection on complexion of US polity, it is a sad commentary of India's own brand of secularism. It is power and articulation which determines the placement of nation and not its exhibition of pious intentions meekly.

The so-called liberal and secular intellectuals reared up in the traditions of minoritysm are victims of the inherent contradictions in their approach to Hinduism. It is partly due to their servility to ideas which lend them respectability but remained in their content anti-Hindu and partly due to articulation and manoeuvres of minorities which made them a good vote-bank. Obviously in such a situation they magnified the fears of 'Hindu hegemony' which according to them would 'sound the death-knell of both democracy and secularism'. It is these elements which strive hard in giving respectability to the alienation of minorities and are goading them to go back in their own shells. In fact such scribes are enemies of minorities preventing their entry into the main-stream. The fault certainly lies with the entire tribe of media-manipulators who act as tools in the hands of those who are dead-set to aggravate disaffection amongst communities.    

The intellectual climate today is worked up in such a manner that it has become fashionable to show extra-sensitivity to the susceptibility of minority communities. The parrot-like repetition of Muslim identity in media has contributed to the formation of fascist streak in their organisation. This is hard, unvarnished truth.

We should not forget that minority communalism always degenerates into separatism and it is here that it cannot be compared with the surge of Hinduism at all. It is because of this our brand of secularism has more rhetoric and less substance. The religious identities have to be made less abrasive and have to recede into the background particularly those who are tied to institutionalised religions. For those who are part of organised religion with central command, faith as a private matter is an anathema. They have already made political mileage by asserting and parading their religious identities and should not grudge when Hindus are stirred into action.

The nation-building process cannot be accelerated by appeasement or isolationalism any longer. Secularists are in fact turning into enemies of minorities because they resort to symbolism, window-dressing and showpieces in political system to deceive them. Minorities will certainly gain more besides peaceful and friction-free surroundings by acknowledging the role of majority community in nation's life by showing maturity, understanding and respect for them.

To sum up, we can say seeing things around that a common line of propaganda taken up by politicians centre round unbridled appeasement of minorities today. They unashamedly want that majority community should concede more privileges to minorities. Some of the scribes championing Muslim cause have become so much emboldened that they freely launch their all-out assault on the sensibilities of Hindus. In Mainstream's Feb. 9, 1985 issue, there is a rabid letter written by Syed Shahabuddin in the context of Muslim female education. Far from being apologetic for the community's obscurantism in the sphere of education for their womenfolk, he goes to the extent of saying that "the school culture should not correspond to the religious ethos of the majority community".

Syed Shahabuddin seems to be defending the indefensible. He takes exception to the fact that Muslims are being taught languages of region where they live. He is opposed to teaching of Bengali to Muslim boys and girls in Calcutta and Marathi in Maharashtra. He gives his verdict : "Compulsory imposition of regional language and ban on denominational schools would be undemocratic and unconstitutional". According to him insular nature of education which Muslims receive in their denominational schools does not impede progress and he obviously does not attach much importance to the prospects of adverse effects on the process of national integration. 

It is ironic while Hindus are advised and expected to forget their majority status and secularists want them to be part of a secular-democratic polity, Shahabuddin can scream hatred for them and can freely demand that school books be purged of any trace of Hindu bias or prejudice since it is offensive to the sentiments of minorities.