Sita Ram Goel and the struggle for survival against Hindu Dharma's besiegers
The following are the words of Sri Sita Ram Goel summing T up his involvement in the ideological struggle: "An ideological battle has to be waged in order to avoid the other battle, the physical battle. Societies which fail to fight an ideological battle, which refuse to repel ideological aggression, invite physical aggression sooner or later." (India's Secularism. Voice of India, 2020 reprint, p.69).
Before coming to this statement's essence, let's point out a minor yet much-discussed dimension of it, viz. that it provides a refutation to those who consider Goel a Hindu extremist and thence deduce that, in the Islam-related part of his work, he must be dangerously "Islamophobic", a veritable threat to the Muslim community's safety. The crusaders of superficialist Secularism who wield the "Islamophobia" sword think that there is a straight line from Islam criticism to anti-Islamic hatred, which they oddly call Islamophobia, "fear of Islam". This terms amounts to a Soviet-type pathologization of dissident opinions into a medical condition, i.e. alleging a phobia or "irrational, obsessive fear". This propaganda against Goel and like-minded Islam critics is wrong in two respects.
Firstly, it is generally wrong to emotionalize a critique into an expression of "hatred" or "fear". A teacher who criticizes a pupil's homework by indicating wrong answers or empty spaces in it with his red pencil, doesn't hate nor fear this pupil, and it makes even less sense to deduce that he "hates" or "fears" the substandard answers. He merely marks them as not deserving of the points he gives for correct answers. A lazy pupil who fails to get good marks for his homework may of course try to shift the blame for the substandard quality of his own work by telling his parents that "the teacher has it in for me", nay, "he hates me!" That's what this hate discourse against criticizing Islam amounts to: a dishonest excuse.
Secondly, the empirical fact is that Sita Ram Goel has never hurt a hair on the head of a single Muslim. He is a "radical" in the logical sense of "going to the root", "not being superficial", which is only remarkable in a climate where the opinion hegemons emphatically preach superficiality in ideological (including religious) matters. The word does not mean nor imply fanaticism, though the superficialists would like you to conflate these two. Goel has criticized Islam, a doctrine contained in the defining Scriptures of Islam and in its secondary literature, but that is a bloodless intellectual effort not harming anyone. The real, violent harm to Muslims comes from elsewhere.
Since the 1990s, a number of Western military campaigns have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, mostly by bombing safely from the air: in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Mali and Syria. Superficialists have tried to sell that as a case of Islamophobia and as proof that this really is a life-and-death problem, literally.
India today more polarized than it ever was? Or is this I polarization a recent phenomenon that emerged after the 2014 General Elections? Or were the undercurrents always there, and it is just that the legitimate expression to vent out this frustration has become more prominent in recent times, thanks to social media?
Across India's political, social, religious, and economic divides, answers to these questions vary both in degree and in kind.
It is believed (and rightly so) that the chariot of Hindutva is propelled by the wheels of economic well-being. Could this explain why the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), despite fulfilling its promise of building the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, performed worse than expected in the 2024 General Elections? This sentiment resonates even more deeply while reflecting on the collective anger, sorrow, and disillusionment felt by millions of Hindus upon the discovery of a damaged Shivalinga during the draining of the well at the Gyanvapi Mandir-contested as the Gyanvapi Masjid by Muslims. The pain was further exacerbated by the subsequent treatment of the Shivalinga, which was subjected to public ridicule.
For decades, a subtle but persistent narrative has been fed to the Hindu populace: that speaking up, reasoning, or demanding what is rightfully yours disturbs communal harmony and disrupts the country's peace. Simultaneously, claims of rising intolerance and a country polarized along religious lines continue to dominate public discussions.
One of the reasons for this 'polarized state of affairs is the lack of a thoughtful discourse that can dissect these complex phenomena in their varied dimensions. Without this, meaningful debate becomes difficult, and the possibility of a shared future of prosperity and mutual respect (not merely tolerance) fades.
A significant void exists in terms of an alternate ideological framework for the Hindu masses a framework that could guide a more informed and reasoned discussion.
Born after the economic boom in India, I belong to a generation with no clear memory or direct perception of the early post-Independence era or the Congress regime that dominated it for decades. What remains are fragmented accounts of the hardships faced by Hindus during that period-accounts that, in hindsight, represent only the tip of the iceberg.
However, even with the rise of the current dispensation, the sorrows of Hindus have not dissipated. At best, a safety valve has been installed a mechanism to ensure that Hindus do not succumb to the mounting pressures or get swept away by the relentless wave of challenges. Yet, this is far from a victory and, at best, marks only a slight improvement.
Hindu (948)
Agriculture (125)
Ancient (1105)
Archaeology (814)
Architecture (568)
Art & Culture (933)
Biography (731)
Buddhist (550)
Cookery (166)
Emperor & Queen (588)
Islam (245)
Jainism (325)
Literary (888)
Mahatma Gandhi (393)
Send as free online greeting card
Email a Friend
Visual Search
Manage Wishlist