Tarun Vijay can be described in many ways. But the book under review presents him primarily as an ardent advocate of the brand of Hindutva that a large section of Hindus, including the Bharatiya Janata Party, has been propagating since the demolition of the disputed monument in Ayodhya in 1992. If Vijay’s arguments here are irrational and confused, it is all because of the ideology that he professes to defend and propagate in the book.
In Vijay’s own words, “this book is an attempt to understand myself and to explain what I felt was a gross miscarriage of justice against Hindus and why we must stand united to say no to all that is happening against our will in the name of a fake secularism, if we want pluralism, mutual coexistence and appreciation for a different viewpoint has to survive on earth.” His premises are flawed and arguments illogical. If the Hindu temperament endorses tolerance and the principle of maintaining unity in diversity, then his entire attempt to arouse the Indian Hindus to fight against what he perceives to be unjust is out of place.
In any case, a majority community in any system must tolerate diversity and remain sensitive to the demands of the minority communities. That has been the bedrock of multi-ethnic, multi-religious Indian society. Vijay’s arguments suggest that the state and the people of this country should reject those values. He might even dub these liberal values as those of the “fake secularists” spawned by the Left parties in India. But doesn’t the Hindu dharma also advocate that the jyeshtha (the eldest) in the family has to recognise the wishes and demands of the kanishtha (the youngest) to ensure that the family stays intact and is seen as a fair institution? Shouldn’t that Hindu logic also have found place in Vijay’s arguments?
On the contrary, he turns this argument on its head while lauding what was decidedly a controversial suggestion from BJP leader L K Advani. At a recent conference of non-resident Indians, Advani had observed that all NRIs should have pictures of Ram and Sita etched on their minds just as Hanuman had got their images fixed on his chest. V S Naipaul’s wife, who was also present at that meeting, asked: Should the Muslim Indians living abroad also do the same?
That was a valid question. But Vijay saw in it the minority community’s refusal to be seen as part of the Indian heritage where Ram and Sita occupy a venerable place. To question that would be tantamount to refusing to accept oneself as an Indian, Vijay argues. In other words, every Muslim and Christian in India should accept Ram and Sita the same way as Hindus do. And if they don’t, the Hindu Indians, as Vijay points out, are justified in feeling that gross injustice has been done to them in their own country. Nothing could be more preposterous than that!
In his zeal to prove his thesis, Vijay points out how atrocities continue to be perpetrated on Hindu Bengalis in Bangladesh, how a Left movement in Nepal has dented Hindu pride by seeking to replace its constitution that had defined the country as a Hindu kingdom and how the Indian prime minister talked about Karl Marx, but forgot to mention Mangal Pandey in his speech in Parliament to celebrate 150 years of India’s war of independence.
Vijay is well-versed in India’s religious scriptures and Sanskrit literature, as is evident from the frequent references he makes to them to establish his case. But he often ignores the context. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is my family) is not a phrase that Bhartrihari coined in one of his famous couplets to describe the Hindu mind. He made that reference to explain what constitutes good conduct for any individual. That this was a Hindu trait is Vijay’s imagination and indeed that of many others.
Perhaps the only redeeming feature of this book is the author’s suggestion on what the government should do to save the controversial Sethu Samudram project. He argues that the objection is not to the project, but to the route chosen that will destroy a bridge that Hindus consider was built by Ram. So, the Manmohan Singh government can change the route and save the project!
SAFFRON SURGE INDIA’S RE-EMERGENCE ON THE GLOBAL SCENE AND HINDU ETHOS
I believe what rajiv says.There was no togadia when several hindus were slaughtered but who gave chances to hindu fundamentalism.The issue was given by Secularists themselves.
\"Ekum sat viprah bahuda badanti\" (Truth is one, wise men call it in different ways).Hindus follow this belief since time imemorial.With Mrs. V.S. Naipaul finds it so difficult for the indian hindus to relate Allah to Ram, perhaps its the discrimination within her, not with the hindus.Perhaps the very feeling that Allah is different from Ram prophecized by some islamic clerics is more dangerous in India than the prophecizes of the vedic dharma which preaches tolerance towards others.
What is Indianness ? It is tough to answer. I am an Indian Hindu ; I had tears in my eyes when the Babri masjid was torn down. At the same time I have shed tears of rage over the politicians who have kept quiet on the burning of the Hindus that led to the Godhra riots. It is because of these armchair secularists that we are having to accept people like Modi and Togadia who spout venom instead of lovely Hindu vedic chants....
Content Guide
