Date: 3/10/2001
Who is communal?
http://pub6.ezboard.com/fhinduunityhinduismhottopics.showMessage?topicID=2017.topic
Courtesy: Kanayalal M. Talrega
When Hindus demand their legitimate right to establish Hindu Rajya in truncated Hindustan, as a logical corollary of Partition on the basis of religion, they are dubbed communal.
When they talk of abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir, they are called communal.
When they talk of abolition of Mohammedan law in secular country and demand uniformity of laws for citizens, which is the basic principle of secularism, they are accused of communalism.
When they urge upon the secular government to impose a ban on proselytising activities of the Christian missionaries and Muslim fundamentalists, they are condemned as communal.
It is a tragic irony that Hindus are criticised and condemned as fanatic and fundamentalist, when they protest that the makers of Indian Constitution negatively discriminated against the citizens on the basis of religion, which was against the fundamental principle of secularism!
In theory, they have declared the country as secular and accepted non-interference by religion in the administration of the state, non-discrimination between one citizen and the other on the basis of religion and equal status of all citizens before law as basic principles of secularism, but, in practice they have divided the whole population of the country on communal lines, a schism of minority and majority.
It is ironical in the secular country a Prime Minister wrote to all her central ministers and the chief ministers of all state governments to select Muslim and Christian candidates for the posts of Central Reserve Police Force, Provincial Armed Constabulary, state police services, banks, railways and public sector institutions.
The other Prime Minster went ahead and in his zeal of being a secular declared the birth day of Prophet Mohammed as a national holiday and but did not declare Ramnavami and Krishna Janmashthami as national holidays.
The seeds for the ironical secularism were sown much earlier. Gandhiji was a man of much merit. He was a dharma-bhakta (devotee to religion), Ishwar-bhakta (devotee to God) and go-bhakta (devotee to cow). His precept of non-violence and Hindu-Muslim unity was not bad in itself.
But, it could be effectively implemented when both the parties were willing to act. Gandhiji's one-sided sermon of non-violence and Hindu-Muslim unity given only to Hindus weakened the valorous spirit of Hindus and emboldened the fanatic Muslims beyond limits. His disciples misconstrued and misinterpreted "non-violence" and began to look upon "strength" as violence. Consequently, Pt Nehru sought to impose an irreligious and negative secularism on the country.
Pandit Nehru disregarded the sentiments of Hindus and refused to ban cow slaughter. The ruling Congress led by Pandit Nehru inserted Articles 27 and 28 in the Constitution, under which they imposed a ban on Hindus to impart religious education to their children in government-aided educational institutions, while under Article 30(1), Muslim and Christians were allowed to impart religious education in their schools and colleges aided by the government.
Pandit Nehru vehemently protested against the inaugural ceremony of Somnath Temple at the hands of the President of the Secular State, but Dr Rajendra Prasad did not care for the protest of Pandit Nehru and inaugurated the temple. In fact, the Hindu culture was an anathema to Nehru. The pseudo-secular ruling leaders of the Congress bluntly refused to impose a ban on conversion of Hindus to Islam and Christianity.
On the contrary they deliberately allowed the minorities to propagate their religion under Article 25 of Indian Constitution. With the result, nearly 3500 crore of rupees flow in Bharat every year from foreign countries for converting innocent, illiterate and poor Hindus. Secularism means non-interference by religion, non-discrimination among citizens and uniformity of laws. The enactment of separate Mohammedan law is contradiction of secularism. If Britain, a secular country, has a common civil code, why can't Bharat have it?
In view of the burning desire in the hearts of pseudo secularists to enjoy power by hook or crook, they hurriedly surrendered to all the demands of Muslims and Christians. Besides, they, in the name of minorityism pampered other communities with all liberties at their command.
Even the norms set out by the United Nations prescribed a sect as minority sect if its percentage of population is below 10 per cent of the total population. Ironically, the percentage of Muslim population in India has gone well above 10 per cent but still they are called a minority community in India.
|_|_| ..|.. Rohit Vyasmaan HinduUnity.org
======================
[_private/ftarc.htm]