There is little doubt that the secular press in India is full of bias and is over-enthusiastic in defending Muslims, always portraying Hindus as bigots and obscurantists and as being members of a fractured, sinking and declining society. Thus the English press is not true friend of Muslims but mere appendage to political parties.

One can easily perceive anti-Hindu stance in a section of English press which even goes to the extent of denigrating Hindu myths and folk lore apart from their religious scriptures. They feel uncomfortable even with the prevalence of Hindu symbolism in the country. In the process media went overboard in portraying the Hindu organisations as the only villain of the piece. They forget that India is basically a Hindu country in a cultural sense and sentiments of 82% population cannot be trivialised by their reckless comments. The country will continue to have a secular constitution as long as Hindus want it. By pushing Hindus to a corner and by using vituperative language against them, the English press alone will be held responsible for endangering nation’s secular dream. Hindus are by nature extremely tolerant but English press is testing their patience.

More on the secular press. Just like the Godless Dravidian parties drove Tamils to embrace God and religion (the shriller the DK’s and the DMK’s atheistic rhetoric, the louder the devotional music from temple loudspeakers), the Congress and the Left with their votebank politics, ably assisted by  the secular media, have driven secular Hindus into the arms of parties (like the BJP) that profess to protect their interests. The media and such parties will refer to Hanuman as the monkey god and Ganesha as the elephant god, even if that hurts Hindu sentiments. Yet, they would not dream of ever referring, even in passing, to Virgin birth (the Bible) or divine revelations (the Koran) in less than glowing terms. And why is so little written about caste and untouchability practices among Muslims and Christians? The liberal media barely protested when Rushdie’s Satanic Verses was banned. But it raised a din when SIMI was banned. Can one truthfully say that the media treatment is even-handed?

Oppression of Dalits and burning of women for dowry are condemnable and must be prominently reported. But why not equally the undesirable activities of some of the madrassas and some Christian missionaries spreading canards and disaffection? The wonderful educational and medical services rendered by the more laudable of the various missions are nullified by the activities of the fringe orders among them. What rankles many is the pregnant silence of the secular media. Loud demands for the ban of outfits like the Bajrang Dal are seldom made against their Islamic clones.

As for the perception that Muslims are anti-national, this probably arises because of factors that go back by centuries. Although both Islam and Christianity are transnational in character, the former has embraced many local customs. Many Muslims see red when a lamp is lit at an inaugural function. Many of our forefathers have seen their temples destroyed by their Muslim rulers. This hangover had almost vanished, but has been resurrected by the secularists, assisted by extremists. Add to this the birth of Pakistan and behaviour of organisations like the OIC. Although India has the second largest Muslim population, the OIC will exclude India (because it is secular).

Though it is a fact that anti-Muslim prejudices can drive secular Muslims to despair, but anti-Hindu tirades similarly affect the Hindus. Historically, thanks to Islam’s transnational characteristic, some of its adherents do have adjustment problems. Certain aspects of Islamic practices may have been perfectly justified in the 7th century Arabia, but surely not today.

Coming to the prevalence of Hindu symbolism like lighting of lamps at public functions (which is characterised as Hindu; shorn of religion,  is an Indian custom). Let us accept that we are a predominantly Hindu country, not in the religious sense but as a culture. Many of the practices which are seen as Hindu religious symbols are cultural, and are what signifies the country as a nation.

To hold our practices to ridicule till they are endorsed by foreigners is an affliction most of us suffer from.