A dangerous ploy
Tarun Vijay | January 14, 2011 | Updated 19:48 IST
The assassination of Salman Taseer, the governor of Pakistan's Punjab province, should open the eyes of Congress, which is so gleefully using "Hindu terror" to woo the Indian Muslim vote. Once terror - in any form, colour or usage - becomes a political tool, it eats into the vitals of the state. Having run out of ideas, Sonia Gandhi's Congress has decided to play a dangerous game, one which defames the honourable reputation of Indians as a secular, peace-loving people.
Pakistan flourished on hatred towards Indian Hindus, and contempt for Indian Muslims who did not agree with the partition of their motherland. Its creation was not a secular exercise. It tried to adopt ideals it didn't understand, borrowing some from the Saudis and a bit from the boys of Kandahar. It's nowhere today.
The Congress is making a double mistake. By thinking that Muslims will vote for a party that has made Hindu-bashing a creed, the Congress is insulting Muslims as well. Muslims have a mind of their own. A recent example is Bihar.
Indira Gandhi banned the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), but she remained a Hindu, a believer in India's values. Indira was one of us. Sonia Gandhi is not. Only a foreign mind could use a phrase like "Hindu terror". The first time I heard of it was in a preface Bill Clinton wrote for a book by Madeleine Albright. There the term was used for Indian soldiers. Later Clinton withdrew the term. Sonia and her durbans have persisted with it.
If Hindus could have become terrorists in the name of their religion and civilisation, they would have done so after the Kolkata killings of 1946. Or the Mirpur massacre of 1947. Or when Kashmiri pandits were driven out of Srinagar and the Kashmir Valley.
The irony is that those who vehemently oppose tagging Islam with terror are eager to link Hindus with terror, seeking dividends either in elections or in the awards bazaar of the West. Those who join the "Hindu terror" chorus will probably be honoured in the Padma lists.
There are Hindus who are terrorists, in the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and among Maoists. But should we call them "Hindu terrorists"? Terrorists are, in fact, non-Hindu Hindus. They don't kill people to establish a Hindu Raj, but to have a Maoist regime, or to divide India. Those who have a face like Pramod Muthalik or commit adharma misusing the name of Hindutva must be condemned.
No Hindu in his senses would ever support acts of terror. A Godse or a Muthalik may be found, but only on the fringe of the community; just as there are Muslim and Christian terrorists on the fringe of those communities. Godse does not command the respect of India. Gandhi does. Gandhi is the Mahatma, the great soul, not Godse. Gandhi defines India. That's what Sonia must learn. Tagging Hindus with terror is murdering Gandhi, a nationalist Hindu, with a 'neo-Godse weapon of malintent'. To me, being Gandhi is to be the true Hindu.
Hindus do not seek enemies, but when they appear, they believe in the annihilation of those who challenge the rule of law, maryada, or righteousness. Ram is a hero because he refused to compromise with Ravana. Not a single god or goddess we worship is without a weapon. We fight evil openly with the help of dharma. That's what we believe in. Terrorism is an instrument of cowards and adharmic people. The Mujahids, the Kasabs and their cohorts are the ugliest faces of cowardice. Tagging Hindus with that tribe is not only sinful but seditious. +++