Nice fridge, mother-in-law! (Credit: Tata Tanishq)
The recent case of Aftab Poonawalla and his hapless Hindu 'begum' has caught the imagination of India (at least for a few days; we do seem to be noticeably terrible at keeping grudges). After committing to an interfaith relationship and quasi-marital live-in status, 28-year-old Shraddha Walker was brutally murdered by her so-called lover. Aftab cut her body into more than 30 pieces and dumped them across Delhi over the next few days.
This is, without doubt, a heinous crime and should be punished as such. There can be no doubt that this man is a subhuman creature. But over the past few social media cycles, I have been noticing a worrying trend among my Hindu friends and compatriots. They have by and large condemned the incident, yes (though that is a pretty low bar). But at the same time, most seemed more concerned with upholding their own secular image than expressing disgust at the offence. So all-encompassing was this fixation that I saw some begin sentences with 'I respect all religions, but...' or end them with '...but not all Muslims are like this'.
I do not doubt the veracity of either statement. But this provides merely a window into the self-defeating and problematic standards of tolerance we have created for ourselves as a civilization. No matter what happens, whether it be murder, genocide, forced conversion, abduction, or rape, a Hindu must first constantly reassure his poor and 'downtrodden' brothers-in-arms that he has no hate for them. He must first clarify that he still is in fact a slave to that slavish secularism and that he bears no ill will towards the ontological, epistemological, and theological framework that permits the very crime he decries. Far from 'hate the sin, not the sinner', his pendulum must swing all the way around to 'hate the sinner, not the sin'. Because quantifying what this particular sin is would become a bit too politically incorrect for our distinguished and dignified intellectual race.
What really drives home the sad and hilarious point is that the ideology we so profusely espouse and refuse to abandon (that of the 'secular civilization') was one bestowed ever so graciously upon us not by our own philosophers and saints, but by the well-polished boots of the colonial infantry and the starched collars of the missionary orders. The exalted philosophers of enlightenment, rationality, and modernity such as Locke and Kant did not even consider 'brown rubbish' like us humans to be treated equally (in fact, Protestant John Locke went one step further and claimed that even Catholics were not worthy of toleration). These values we so often parrot, whether they be the idea of the 'rational world' or of a 'secular state', are nothing but watered-down, bastardized, and universalized versions of Abrahamic and specifically Christian ethos.
The tragedy of the domesticated Hindu is that he has appropriated colonial preachings not as one version of the societal truths of Europe but as the equivocal, objective, and unchallenged truth. Whatever the white man approves of is good, and everything else is bad. Thus, in essence, the Western world is the gatekeeper of what is correct and true, of what is scientific and rational, and of what is contemporary and modern. What the Occident thinks is 'modern, progressive, admirable'. Everything traditional is 'regressive, backwards, uneducated, animalistic, irrational'. Far from being fascinated by the civilizational continuity and unbroken history represented by the beating heart of our customs and ancient rites, the Hindu seems to be more preoccupied with proving to our white daddies that we too are a 'civilized' and 'modern' nation.
"Indians are not fit to rule, they are fit to be ruled." —Winston Churchill
Many readers right now would be thinking I am referring to our most well-known and numerous export right now: the Indian 'librandu'. No doubt, I am referring to our pseudo-intellectual crop. But this is a problem that also plagues our so-called kattar Hindus. While one side is as eager as a well-compensated prostitute to abandon everything that makes us a civilization to receive but one head-pat from their foreign masters, the other is just as eager to 'prove' to them that all their ideals are reflected already in the ancient Indic ethos. The daddy issues of both sides, in other words, are on full display. In their own way, both are seeking the West's approval: the Indic wing by forcing them to recognize that Indians were already 'modern' and 'secular', and the other by bending over backwards to show that India is making a full-fledged effort to become 'modern' and 'secular'.
What either party does not realize is that by doing so, they have lost the game already. The moment we let our brainwashers and oppressors decide the truth of our experience, the goals of our society, and the definitions of our success, the civilizational battle has already been decided. The victory against the colonizer does not lie in beating him at his own game; by the very fact that he has forced you to play, he has won even if he loses. The true and final victory against your colonizer is choosing to get up and walk away from the table. The victory lies in deciding that you do not need to play with a bully. The victory lies in realizing that you can decide the rules of your own game. Indian Hindus are preoccupied with either becoming brown Englishmen or proving that they were already Brown Englishmen.
The goal is not to become secular or be secular. The goal is to stop being defined by our secularity. The goal is to be free of the shackled definition of self-worth that the Eurocentric worldview has burdened us with.
"Instead of a Hitler, we have a travelling extravaganza, a mobile orchestra. The hydra-headed, many-armed Sangh parivar. It speaks with as many tongues as a whole corsage of trishuls." —Arundhati Roy (example of aforementioned category of librandu)
Tolerating the mleccha—the foreigner—has never been part of Indic thought. Sanatan Dharma is an accepting and tolerating meme, no two ways about it. But the key point of our acceptance is psycho-cultural assimilation: a fundamental compatibility in worldviews that allows two hitherto competing streams of thought to merge together into one Sangam.
Our beating heart of civilizational contiguity has linked within its fold a variety of thoughts and lives: from the reclusive ascetics who retreat deep into forests to find their divinity to the closely-knit indigenous communities who seek their gods in song, dance, and communal living. From the mesmerizing daivas of the South to the flowing locks of Rishi Kashyap in the far North, from the demons of Patala below our feet to the gleaming Saptarishi in the stars: a thread connects every one of these disparate entities together into a cohesive consciousness tied together by our stories, pilgrimages, beliefs, and cultures.
But there is one fundamental truth to this shared experience. To assimilate into one, continuous culture, there needs to exist a seed of common ground: a point of negotiation from which the folklore and legends of one may be incorporated into another, and from where their adherents may find similarities in the way they walk, talk, and think. Over generations, these similarities are what meld together into synthesized wholes which are adopted by the descendants of both, until one overarching culture exists where discord did before.
But to negotiate with one whose very fundamental worldview is different from yours is a fruitless and in fact counterproductive exercise. The mleccha thinks of himself as lord over nature where we consider ourselves one of its numerous parts. He believes the world exists to serve him where we exist to serve dharma. When we try to find commonality and assimilation, the only thing he will accept is subjugation and total annihilation. Like offering money to a polar bear, extending a hand of friendship to one whose one and only goal is the erasure of your existence is asking for it to get bitten off. Our epistemological difference is so fundamental and irredeemable that we might as well negotiate with a rock or a tree for all the good it will do. A cooperative and synthesized existence is only possible when both parties agree to meet midway.
Continuing to accommodate a culture which only takes and tortures in return is not tolerance and assimilation. It is acquiescence to an invading power. Decrying our sacred duty to protect our civilization and dharma is not modern and rational. It is an identity crisis. As a Hindu myself, I would love more than anything to be wrong about this. We have a historical pedigree of tolerating, accepting, and integrating an entire subcontinent and lands beyond into a single epistemological fabric. To us, unlike the Abrahamic, fighting a civilizational war has always been a last resort. Even the most adharmic and sinful Sisupala was given a hundred chances to retrace his steps. Even the vile and twisted in the Mahabharat were accorded every faculty for peace and then surrender. Fighting a dharmayuddh—a war for dharma and civilization—is not something that is taken lightly.
But this scourge has shown its true colours a thousand times over already. It has torn flaming warpaths through Africa and through Asia, sweeping away and grinding down the indigenous culture in their wake until nought but rubble is left. Their bloody legacy dances in the flame of the Fire Temple. It screams and cries in the forgotten tombs of the god-Pharaohs, calling out to worshippers who see them now as mere rock and stone. It whispers in the forgotten groves and cairns of the Celts and Nords, where famished ancestors and spirits await nourishment which never comes. It grinds in the crumbling statues of Zeus and Jupiter, crackles in the charred ruins of Buddhist statues, and roars in the burning god-trees of the druids. Over and over, like a poisonous animal flaring coloured fins, the mleccha has shown his colours: he will burn, tear, cut, and blast, until nothing of yours remains and all is his. And what he cannot destroy physically, he will destroy ideologically.
The Christian 'Saint' Boniface chopping down the Oak of Donar, a tree sacred to the Norse god Thor
To be very clear, just because someone has an Abrahamic name, parentage, or community does not mean he is automatically a ticking time bomb. Belonging to a nation, as stalwarts like Veer Savarkar and Pandit Upadhyay had put it, is a function of ideals and thoughts, rather than mere race. To define one's identity only by the details of one's birth in a particular race, country, or geography is myopic. After all, both Arundhati Roy and Atal Bihari Vajpayee were born in this country to Hindu families. Would any man of good conscience be able to claim that both were equally deserving of the title of a Bharatiya? If mere birth in India were able to decide one's belonging to this civilization, would children born to British colonial officials stationed here be members? Birth decides nothing but civic citizenship: a looser and shallower concept than civilizational belonging. Similarly, it is possible to not be born into Hindu community and still be a true and devoted practitioner and/or preserver of Sanatan Dharma. But is it possible to be a practising and devoted Abrahamic while still bearing loyalty to the civilizational zeitgeist of Bharatvarsh?
No.
The Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind is one of the few Islamic advocacy bodies that have, at least publicly, upheld Indic geostrategic and cultural interests
Trying to be secular merely plays into their game of our eventual oppression, exhaustion, and expungement. Just as our ethos teaches us to tolerate the tolerable, it also teaches us to spare no expense in eliminating the repugnant. Our society is beautiful, vibrant, accepting, and free. We do not need to define ourselves by colonial terms in order to reach that goal. But maintaining a vibrant and accepting society is not a mere passive exercise.
Just as a gardener must trim his garden and uproot weeds, it is an active and constant undertaking: one of seeking out, assessing, and eliminating any threats to its continued identity and prosperity. Maintaining the Hindu way of life in the face of encroachment is not just a matter of principle.
Quoting the narration of Abu Hurairah – ‘The Messenger of Allah promised us the conquest of Al-Hind (the subcontinent). If I am able to join it, I will spend on it my wealth and my life. If I am killed, I will be the best of martyrs and if I return, I will be Abu Hurairah, the freed one (i.e. from hellfire).’ Quoting the narration of Hazrat Safwan – ‘Some people of my Ummah will fight India, Allah would grant them success, even they would find the Indian kings being trapped in fetters. Allah would forgive those warriors.’ —Hadiths on the 'Ghazwa-e-Hind'
It is one-half of the defence against oppression. Just as our hands must defend our land, our minds must ward our civilization. Both are avenues of corruption. But of the two, the mind is more important. The armless may fight with the mind. But the mindless is worse than useless no matter how strong his arms may be.
We are Hindu. We must defend ourselves. That requires no justification: not to screeching librandus, not to fuming Occidentals, and not to your own conscience.
And thus, I have no sympathy for Shraddha Walker or any girl like her. This was not a case of love jihad; she knew from the very beginning who Aftab was and what his 'Quam' was, and still chose to go with him willingly. I would not feel pity for her any more than I would pity someone who walks willingly into a raging fire, sticks his own head into a predator's mouth, or straps a ticking time bomb to himself. Parley and compromise with the mleccha is worse than stupid: it is traitorous and an insult to the legacy of those ancestors who chose death and suffering over the loss of their identity. If you betray and walk out on the nation of your own volition to be with the subjugator and enemy, there is no sane cognition that will enjoin me to pity you when you reap the fruits of your own folly.
My sympathy goes out, of course, to those people who were duped until it was too late, or rightly rejected such advances and then suffered for it. But for a deliberate betrayer, I have nothing but scorn to give. And any self-respecting Hindu would also feel the same. And so, for the removal of any and all doubts, I will state it here. There is a good side, and there is a bad side. All religions are not equal. India that is Bharat has an essential religious-cum-cultural character and it is not 'Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb' or the Indian Constitution. I am not secular. And you should not be either.
"Every person is a Hindu who regards and owns this Bharat Bhumi, this land from the Indus to the seas, as his Fatherland as well as Holy Land." —Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
Warning: This article is not a call for you to take a sword and sally forth into the street to slaughter every Abrahamic in sight. It is not an incitement to riot, communal disharmony, or other, more drastic actions. We may not be civilizationally compatible, but as members of the wider civic nation-state, respecting each other's civic rights is necessary (reform in the civic framework is a topic for another day). This is a call to be diligent in the defence of your civilizational character. Be vigilant. Stand together against encroachment. Educate, support, and aid each other. Rediscover the militating branches of Sanatan Dharma and employ them in your collective defence. Protect yourselves and your loved ones. And, perhaps most importantly, pass on the underlying truths of the inter-episteme conflicts in the subcontinent and beyond to all Indic adherents around you. The greatest defence against corrupting influence is the knowledge, recognition, and rejection of such influence. The more we tarry in reclaiming our agency, the harder it will become.
India is Bharat. But Bharat is not India.
नमस्कारः