Secularists in our country have a strange understanding of social contexts and history. When it comes to writing on Hinduism, no opportunity is missed to drub, slander and ridicule the religion. Trever Fishlock's 'India File' quoted extensively by reviewers in our papers in 1984, can leave one aghast. Not only the light-hearted manner in which he wrote about Lord Jagannath, but hurting the sentiments of all those who worship the deity, he writes: "The great God Juggernaut was roused from bed long before I was. I dozed under the mosquito net in the South Eastern Railway Hotel, while Juggernaut was made ready for his big day. He is a grotesque monster, a white-faced legless wooden idol, five feet tall with glaring eyes and stumpy arms emerging from his head, which has a large diamond set in it. he lives with his black-faced brother and yellow-faced sister who are equally hideous."

It is shocking that such comments were extensively published in India by those intellectuals who develop cold feet, despite their display of rationalism when it comes to quoting Bertrand Russell, H.G.Wells or Durant on religions which hold capability to raise massive protests at will. In India we may quote Jules Verne umpteenth time who would refer to goddess Kali as "an ugly hag" without any fear of repercussions.

India's intellectual scene is fastly becoming barren. One can happily write a book or an article debunking Hindu pantheon or by elaborating on the endemic backwardness of Hindus. Who can stem this pervading cynicism? Can one dream of doing it without shaping the Indian consciousness? And can it be achieved by ignoring the majority community? Our country is more than 80% Hindu in its texture. It instills pride that this religion alone has acted as a Commonwealth of beliefs and faiths, held together by certain fundamental tenets. Differences, habits, practices, varying philosophies, even accommodation for agnostics and atheists are provided in the Hindu fold. That is what distinguishes it from other religions which, unlike Hinduism, maintain that all roads do not lead to the same divinity. They parade themselves as exclusive purveyors of their brand of divinity.

Today Hindus aim to shake off their torpor and look forward to a renaissance. It is neither revivalism nor a bid to trek back to fundamentalism. Anybody talking of rejuvenating Hinduism need not be anti-Muslim. Based on primacy of majority community, Hindu community has right to preserve its distinctiveness.

In the 19th Century India, Christian missionaries, armed with the patronage of British rule, in their zeal for proselytisation, had launched a tirade against our ancient customs. The abusive epithets they used for Hindu Gods like 'horrid Kali, scandalous Shivlingam, ridiculous Ganapati and lecherous Krishna'. This was received more in spirit of amusement than in anger as coming from ignorant outsiders. In fact our anger or bitterness was reflected in the debates at that time against reformist sects like Arya Samaj or Brahmo Samaj. For they were the people who in the name of progress and enlightenment were trying to recast the Hindu society in the alien mould of semitic religion. They were the real blasphemers because they were insiders.

Almost the same situation where insider Hindus in the garb of secularism are preaching hatred of different type, not the feeling with which well-meaning, passionate reformers of the 19th century worked, is causing revulsion in Hindu society. Theological accents worry them, hostility to pluralism of culture panicks them; return to roots and glorification of traditions make them hysterical in their opposition to Hinduism. The same intellectuals never tired while gloating how in eastern Europe people forsook communism and turned to their roots and traditions for salvation. Hypocrisy indeed!

Is not there someone who will see the truth and speak it? Is not there someone, somewhere who will take the first step across the raging blizzard of neglect of Hindus in their own land?