This is the second article in this series on explaining the problems with emergence of a real Hindu party. Read Part 1 and Part 3.
The media and intellectual environment has been so anti-Hindu in India that most issues which pass off as pro-Hindu issues hardly pass the smell test when looked at carefully. Given this hostile environment, it is no surprise that entire generations of Hindus have been brainwashed and converted into such meek cows that they have lost the mental faculty to challenge and question the narrative which goes around as pro-Hindu.
The benchmark criterion to decide whether a policy is pro-Hindu or not is to look at it and ask the question: are Hindus the only beneficiaries of this policy? If a policy helps all Indians then it cannot be pro-Hindu, so call it a nationalistic policy. Similarly, all policies which bring Hindus to a level playing field with other religions are again not pro-Hindu as they only correct historical bias against them, so call them secular. Using this criterion we can now look at some long-standing issues to understand whether they are pro-Hindu issues or not.
- Uniform Civil Code: It does not help Hindus explicitly in any way. Hindu civil law is almost modern and Hindus will hardly gain anything if Muslims cannot divorce their wives through triple talaq or have four wives. It is a secular issue and if India really is a secular country, as the libtards claim, then they should support implementation of UCC. Implementation of UCC will not really help Hindus but it will definitely bolster the secular image of India by dismantling religion-specific civil laws.
- Article 370: J&K as a region is important for national security given that it can connect India to Central Asian republics and also provides a connection between India’s two big rivals, China and Pakistan. It is in India’s interest to integrate J&K completely into the country and wrest back PoK. So again, repealing Article 370 does not help Hindus alone and is an issue of national importance. Any person opposing it is helping Pakistan and China against India and weakening India’s security environment.
- Right to Education Act: Hindu institutions are taxed under this law while minority institutes have no obligation to give quotas to SC/STs or follow the stringent requirements of this law. Minority institutions are thriving thanks to this law while thousands of Hindu schools have closed down. So again, repealing this law will put Hindus on par with other minorities. It is therefore a secular issue and not pro-Hindu in any way. In any other country with a basic framework of law, this discriminatory tax on schools operated by the majority would have been quashed by the courts on first hearing. It was in fact quashed by the courts before Congress brought in the 93rd Amendment to strangle and kill Hindu schools.
- Temple Control: Money from Hindu temples is siphoned off and used by greedy governments while they pay Hajj subsidies to Muslims. Churches and mosques are free to receive all donations they can and use their own funds in whichever way they deem important. Hindu organizations, on the other hand, are helpless against this state intervention and watch meekly while government takes away their donations. So freeing temples and putting them on par with other religious institutions is not a pro-Hindu but a secular agenda, requiring the state not to rob money from temples and hand it out as Hajj subsidy.
- Jallikattu ban: This is an assault on local traditions while minorities are allowed to mutilate small children under freedom of religion. A secular state has no mandate to dictate how religious festivals should be organized. Freedom to practise one’s religion and celebrate festivals in ways one deems important is not a place for government intervention, which again makes it a secular issue. If Muslims can slay thousands of meek goats on Bakrid, it reeks of hypocrisy when courts challenge healthy Jallikattu bulls under the pretext of animal rights.
Some of the above-mentioned issues have been paraded around as pro-Hindu issues, but a careful look demolishes the whole narrative. Most gospel truths about pro-Hindu policies are taken at face value by gullible Hindus, while actually they hardly help Hindus in any way. It is like asking a runner to start 20 metres behind everyone else in a 100-metre race. When this runner demands to start at the same position as everyone else, the thekedars in the racing fraternity rule against him, citing that they cannot put him on par with other runners as it gives him an undue advantage, completely ignoring the initial bias.
Given the above-mentioned policies don’t explicitly help Hindus, what can be classified as pro-Hindu policies?
- Ram Temple: This is a long-standing issue and important for collective Hindu consciousness given the importance of Lord Ram in Hindu history. Hindus are the rightful owners of the land in Ayodhya. One random mosque hardly counts for Muslims and they don’t think twice before demolishing one in the Islamic nation of Saudi Arabia. It is Muslim iconoclasm which stands in the way of showing a big heart and allowing Hindus to build the temple of one of the most important Hindu icons at his birthplace. In case government decides to solve this issue in favour of the Hindu temple using its legislative powers, then it can be classified as a pro-Hindu issue. However, current litigation in the Supreme Court just makes it another property dispute rather than a pro-Hindu issue.
- Ban on proselytization by non-Hindus: A policy which disallows missionaries from converting the local population would fall under this category. Banning conversions for all religions does not make it pro-Hindu. Only a policy which bans conversion out of Hinduism while allowing Ghar Wapsi can be called pro-Hindu. Under the current Constitution, covert policies can be implemented to stop missionaries. For example, in tribal belts under the garb of protecting local culture, missionaries can be denied entry into the whole region while allowing Hindus to target Christian converts. This is not explicitly pro-Hindu but covertly achieves the same agenda.
- Birth-control restrictions on Muslims: To maintain demographic superiority of Hindus, it is very important to reduce the current boom in Muslim population. Any policy which explicitly or implicitly reduces Muslim births while having no impact on Hindus can be called pro-Hindu.
- Force minority institutes to implement reservations: Reservation benefits are restricted to Hindus in most cases, so if minority institutes are forced to educate SC/STs, it will increase opportunities for Hindus while reducing them for minorities. If a 50% quota can be implemented in minority institutes, it can be called a pro-Hindu policy as it will educate Hindu masses while minorities foot the bill. This is not a big tax given minority institutes will still get a chance to preserve their culture, but at a small cost of educating backward Hindus.
- Throw out illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh and give citizenship to minority Hindus from Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The above examples clearly show that many other similar policies can be designed with explicit benefit for Hindus. But it is essential for Hindus to push back on unnecessary tags awarded to policies which do not pass the pro-Hindu criterion. Policies that do not exclusively help Hindus need to be declassified and placed under secular or national policy headings. Implementation of pro-Hindu policies will only be feasible after Hindus dismantle the narrative and repeal anti-Hindu policies. But the first step is to stop classifying secular policies under the pro-Hindu basket. This brings us to the million-dollar question: is there any political party which can really claim to be pro-Hindu?
Read Part 1 and Part 3 of this series.