Frequently asked questions or “commonly held” views of Hindus in India on communal issues:
Muslims have been multiplying like rabbits.
This is not true. It is the poor (who have been kept poor due to trade and property restrictions on farmers and the poor) who have been multiplying like rabbits. Muslims are mostly poor. That is why there is some growth there, but it is not disproportionate to the growth in population among poor Hindus. One real addition is about a half a crore to a crore Muslims who have come into India from East Pakistan/ Bangladesh after independence, many legally, but others, illegally too.
To a large extent, it is their own so-called leaders & their own illiteracy, which is to be greatly blamed.
Muslims (as are Hindus and others) are free to choose whatever level of poverty and illiteracy they wish. If their educated classes do not wish competitive education for them, despite many liberals among them, they will get poorer but that is in the end a personal choice, not ordained by Allah, and everyone is entitled to their choice so long as it does not directly hurt anyone else. The poor in USA and Australia are poor by choice, not by compulsion. So also, others are entitled to choose poverty and illiteracy if they wish.
Muslims start all these riots, and deserve to be killed.
The fact is that Muslims have been one of the most docile communities in India since independence. In general, they too are human-beings like all of us and want to live in peace and harmony. Almost invariably, it is allegedly “Hindu” politicians, (eg. Shiv Sena - Word doc but at times also Congress (I) - Word doc and others) who start the riots. In addition, it is almost invariably the Police who commit significant atrocities against Muslims. The facts and case studies of such riots speak for themselves. Liberals make a distinction between the average Muslims and terrorists acting in the name of Islam. So also, between the goons masquerading as Hindus and true Hinduism.
Muslims are foreigners, or they are forced converts. They should reconvert.
Muslims are not only those who came to India centuries ago, but also those who converted, for no fault of theirs. Their ancestors are not foreigners from West and Central Asia but strictly Indians. But even if a “fresh” foreigner were to come to India, and if they take on Indian citizenship, they no longer remain a foreigner (eg. Sonia Gandhi). Today an Indian who is allowed to migrate into Australia and lives there for two years can become a full-fledged Australian in every sense of the word. Should Australians, 1000 years down the road start killing these ex-Indians or force them to become Christians? Similarly, should westerners who convert to Hinduism be thrown out of their countries?
But of course, loving the great Indian culture and respecting our great ancestors might not be any big demand, if they consider themselves Indians at large. It is demanded by other cultures too, like in Christian countries.
An individual is not entitled to demand anything from anyone else. If any Christian nation like USA or Australia demands that Indians there lose their individuality and pray to “the God of USA” they will be wrong. It is out of voluntary respect that Indians regard the Americans highly.
Why should a person be subsidised to carry out their religious duties?
The liberals believe that the State has no role whatsoever in promoting or supporting matters of personal belief. Liberals do not support subsidy for the Haaj, nor any subsidies to Hindu temples. It is a fact that IAS officers and other government servants are posted to manage places like Triputi temple, and Deputy Commissioners are chairmen of innumerable temple committees (eg. Kamakhaya temple in Guwahati). The government also pays heavily for the Kumbha mela etc. None of these expenditures are justified.
It is not clear which religion gets a greater subsidy, Hinduism or Islam. It is also clear that those who do not believe in religion are paying for others to have their private religious bliss. Non-believers are also not entitled to ‘reservations’ quotas since there is no concept of caste for them. These people therefore pay for all kinds of religious beliefs and for the correction of its past evils even though they are strictly against religion. All kinds of inequities of this sort should be stopped. The liberals would like the government to completely withdraw from such activities and expenses, else it should also start paying for a once in a lifetime trip to “worship” Disneyland for atheists, or at least reimburse them part of their tax.
Why do Hindus have Hindu Acts and Muslims are allowed their personal law?
was Nehru and others who were able to “muzzle” Hindus into accepting
government interference into what was hitherto a completely personal area of
law for 5000 years. Hindus did not marry under government laws or expect the
government to help them out in their personal matters. Local priests and
decision-making bodies were sufficient for the purpose. Therefore it is for Hindus to demand
that the government get out of their personal matters. If they allow the interference of
government in their personal affairs, they have no right to demand that
Muslims also allow similar interference. In general, there should be no involvement in anybody's
personal religion by the state.
Of course, as a society, we can agree that certain things are not permissible, such as child marriage, sati, bigamy, dis-empowerment of the girl child’s inheritance or divorcees’ alimony, etc., and we can prohibit these activities universally. There are many Islamic countries that do not permit bigamy, but even if they were to permit, nothing stops India from prohibiting it. In other words, if Hindus leaders want to go back to their personal laws, subject to prohibitions which are unacceptable in a civilized society today, then liberals would not call it Hindu communalism, Demanding uniformity in personal law or belief in what is the best way to marry or divorce, for instance, is antithetical to liberalism. Some optional universal or secular law can be created for those who so desire it.
These Muslims celebrate the cricket victories of Pakistan.
Not true, except for a few. Two things apply to those who do
a) In the India-Australia cricket matches being played in Australia, there are many vocal and visible supporters of India in the stands. They are mostly people of Indian origin, although most are also likely to be Australian citizens. Liberals think that this is a sign of a mature society, and would condemn any attempt to impose the “cricket test”, as was once proposed in England.
b) Many of these people are fed up of the incessant demands from Hindus and are possibly doing so as ‘permissible protest’. Many of us in their place may have even done more. We must empathise with them first.
We are a tolerant religion but we have been taken advantage of by these intolerant religions
Tolerance is best displayed in the presence of intolerance. When Congress bans “Satanic Verses”, the Left government in Bengal bans Taslima Nasreen’s book and BJP affiliated people drive out the publication of the book "Myth of the Holy Cow" please do not tell anyone in the world that we a tolerant people. When Muslims and Sikhs are brutalised in communal violence orchestrated by Shiv Sena, Congress (I) and BJP, please do not say that we are a tolerant society. We are an antiquated and mediaeval, tribal society, with no respect for human rights and decency. To be tolerant is to be liberal. In recent years, many Hindus (belonging to different parties) have not displayed tolerance except as an exception, or at least not recently. Is the hate-mongering of the Sangh Parivar true Hinduism? If you are a truly tolerant person or a religion, come out and declare your allegiance to secularism and liberalism, else be it known that you are an intolerant bigot and there is only a difference of degree (not type) between you and Osama.