Skip to main content

Hindu Tolerance



With unconditional respect to Durga Prasad Dash, I must say that his basic premise is wrong. “Are the non-aggressive, tolerant attitude of Hindus…” He starts.  Wrong, Sir. You are assuming that Hindus were non-aggressive and tolerant. 

Hindus were no less aggressive than any others.  We don’t need to go to the pre-Christian Ashoka who killed thousands of people in order to expand his kingdom and would have conquered China or Burma if the logistical situations hadn’t been as bad as they were.  I guess the Ashoka pillars in Kandahar didn’t appear there by a peaceful miracle.  No Sir, the Hindu kings were as belligerent as any others.  Kingship is all about conquests.  Even Lord Krishna would agree.  I’m sure, Durga Sir, you’re familiar with the vile things he did in order to win the Kurukshetra War.  I’m also sure you know about the wars and battles fought by our kings and princes throughout our history even before the Muslim invaders and the Christian colonisers came in. 

Durga Sir, those were the days of conquests.  I’m sure you know that England was conquered by the French in 1066.  In the same century the Muslims conquered North India.  Today in England, most of the landed nobility and the aristocracy are of foreign extraction though they may not admit it very openly.  We don’t have to go so far back in history, in fact, to understand conquests and annihilations.  Look at America.  Whose country was it before the Europeans invaded it as recently as the Taj Mahal was being built in our own Agra?

Conquest was the hobby of the ambitious in those days, Durga Sir.  They had no internet and its entertainments like blogging or Facebook.  Not even a democracy like we now have in which we can vote for somebody and get somebody else as our leader.  As Tennyson’s Ulysses says, it’s of no “profit” for an ambitious person to sit “idle” in the palace with “an aged wife” and a “savage” people. So they went around conquering.  Our very own Bharatiya kings did it too.  But our guys didn’t venture out too far.  Instead they killed those in the nearest kingdoms.  Like the Marathas making their killing in Gujarat or the Cholas in the Southeast Asia.

No, Sir. We were not at all tolerant.  Maybe we were incapable of venturing out beyond Kabul as Ranjit Singh managed to do.  But we always knew how to suppress people.  Our caste system, our Sati system and our devadasi system are enough to prove our intolerance, our cruelty which is more heartless than the conquests of the aliens.  The aliens subjugated the ‘others’.  We subjugated our own people.

The worst tragedy is that we continue to do the same thing even today.  Durga Sir, you put the Kashmiri Pandits in the same brackets with Sadhvi Pragya and Col Purohit.  My innards threw up when I saw this topic in Indipsire and I never imagined you had put it up.  I voted for it just to see who the blogger was who dared to insinuate so much.  I apologise to you, Durga Sir, for being so blunt.  I know no other way.  My emotions are deeper than those of the gau rakshak, the anti-Romeo squad as well as other new gen thugs in India.

Durga Sir, when you claimed that the Hindus in India are “victims of apathy, conspiracy and forced displacement in their homeland,” I was appalled.  What are you saying, Sir?  This country belongs to you.  It always did.  The Hindus were and still are the majority here.  Who displaced whom?  Teesta Setalvad says in her autobiography that nearly two lakh Muslims were displaced from Gujarat in 2002 when our beloved PM was the CM there.  Check the history of independent India, Durga Sir, and you will see how many people of which category were displaced from where.  A lot of Dalits have been displaced too.  Will you accept them in your fold, Sir?

I was shocked by the hashtag you gave: #hindusvictimised.  My god!  It has always been a country of the Hindus, hasn’t it, Sir?  80%.  And what have they made of the country?  Who are they blaming now?  The paltry 20%?  How silly, Sir? 

Okay, Sir.  Now you have a leader who can be another medieval conqueror.  Is such a conquest that you really want?  He did that in his own state.  Look at the condition of that state now.

I’m sorry, Durga Sir, if I hurt you.  I think you are intelligent enough to understand me.  If you don’t understand, you are welcome to shoot me.  I’ll stand before you bare-chested.


Comments

  1. Hindus were never victimised. The minorities are victimised. Religion do not bring in any attitude but groupism under the pretense of common faith brings in intolerance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for saying this loud. I always viewed myself as an Indian. I never cared for religious identity. But now I wonder what India is making me. I'm feeling ashamed of my country.

      Delete
  2. if hindu victimised then after cruel Mughals,Tughlaqs,Britishers why they survived today as 80% population, Durga's idea has left the nation divided in us vs they

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this divisiveness has an ulterior motive: to make India a Hindu Rashtra. Who will benefit by that is the next question.

      Delete
  3. Well, I don't know much about the history but in present, the case is not the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very few people will agree with you :(
      A lot of people, too many in fact, many of whom are well educated, think that India is at its best now.

      Delete
    2. Well, I feel pity for them. Einstein said, "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

      Delete
  4. I am reminded of a famous saying - I disagree with what you say, but i will fight to the last for your right to say so. It is only good that many different opinions should come in any civilized discussion.
    So dear friend, I have a detailed response to the indispire topic on my blog https://durgadash.com/2017/05/03/dharmic-nature-of-aggression/.
    Thanks for putting forward powerful arguments in response to my suggested topic at Indispire.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read your post. As you have already said, perceptions vary, opinions differ but as long as we are genuine there is no problem because we know how to respect each other's difference.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ayodhya: Kingdom of Sorrows

T he Sarayu carried more tears than water. Ayodhya was a sad kingdom. Dasaratha was a good king. He upheld dharma – justice and morality – as best as he could. The citizens were apparently happy. Then, one day, it all changed. One person is enough to change the destiny of a whole kingdom. Who was that one person? Some say it was Kaikeyi, one of the three official wives of Dasaratha. Some others say it was Manthara, Kaikeyi’s chief maid. Manthara was a hunchback. She was the caretaker of Kaikeyi right from the latter’s childhood; foster mother, so to say, because Kaikeyi had no mother. The absence of maternal influence can distort a girl child’s personality. With a foster mother like Manthara, the distortion can be really bad. Manthara was cunning, selfish, and morally ambiguous. A severe physical deformity can make one worse than all that. Manthara was as devious and manipulative as a woman could be in a men’s world. Add to that all the jealousy and ambition that insecure peo...

Bharata: The Ascetic King

Bharata is disillusioned yet again. His brother, Rama the ideal man, Maryada Purushottam , is making yet another grotesque demand. Sita Devi has to prove her purity now, years after the Agni Pariksha she arranged for herself long ago in Lanka itself. Now, when she has been living for years far away from Rama with her two sons Luva and Kusha in the paternal care of no less a saint than Valmiki himself! What has happened to Rama? Bharata sits on the bank of the Sarayu with tears welling up in his eyes. Give me an answer, Sarayu, he said. Sarayu accepted Bharata’s tears too. She was used to absorbing tears. How many times has Rama come and sat upon this very same bank and wept too? Life is sorrow, Sarayu muttered to Bharata. Even if you are royal descendants of divinity itself. Rama had brought the children Luva and Kusha to Ayodhya on the day of the Ashvamedha Yagna which he was conducting in order to reaffirm his sovereignty and legitimacy over his kingdom. He didn’t know they w...

The Little Girl

The Little Girl is a short story by Katherine Mansfield given in the class 9 English course of NCERT. Maggie gave an assignment to her students based on the story and one of her students, Athena Baby Sabu, presented a brilliant job. She converted the story into a delightful comic strip. Mansfield tells the story of Kezia who is the eponymous little girl. Kezia is scared of her father who wields a lot of control on the entire family. She is punished severely for an unwitting mistake which makes her even more scared of her father. Her grandmother is fond of her and is her emotional succour. The grandmother is away from home one day with Kezia's mother who is hospitalised. Kezia gets her usual nightmare and is terrified. There is no one at home to console her except her father from whom she does not expect any consolation. But the father rises to the occasion and lets the little girl sleep beside him that night. She rests her head on her father's chest and can feel his heart...

Liberated

Fiction - parable Vijay was familiar enough with soil and the stones it turns up to realise that he had struck something rare.   It was a tiny stone, a pitch black speck not larger than the tip of his little finger. It turned up from the intestine of the earth while Vijay was digging a pit for the biogas plant. Anand, the scientist from the village, got the stone analysed in his lab and assured, “It is a rare object.   A compound of carbonic acid and magnesium.” Anand and his fellow scientists believed that it must be a fragment of a meteoroid that hit the earth millions of years ago.   “Very rare indeed,” concluded the scientist. Now, it’s plain commonsense that something that’s very rare indeed must be very valuable too. All the more so if it came from the heavens. So Vijay got the village goldsmith to set it on a gold ring.   Vijay wore the ring proudly on his ring finger. Nobody, in the village, however bothered to pay any homage to Vijay’s...

Dharma and Destiny

  Illustration by Copilot Designer Unwavering adherence to dharma causes much suffering in the Ramayana . Dharma can mean duty, righteousness, and moral order. There are many characters in the Ramayana who stick to their dharma as best as they can and cause much pain to themselves as well as others. Dasharatha sees it as his duty as a ruler (raja-dharma) to uphold truth and justice and hence has to fulfil the promise he made to Kaikeyi and send Rama into exile in spite of the anguish it causes him and many others. Rama accepts the order following his dharma as an obedient son. Sita follows her dharma as a wife and enters the forest along with her husband. The brotherly dharma of Lakshmana makes him leave his own wife and escort Rama and Sita. It’s all not that simple, however. Which dharma makes Rama suspect Sita’s purity, later in Lanka? Which dharma makes him succumb to a societal expectation instead of upholding his personal integrity, still later in Ayodhya? “You were car...