A Hindu Rashtra, when shallowly thought of, occurs as a theocratic country where only practising Hindus could reside in, where the law would side with Hindus whenever a dispute arises with other communities. It is thought of as a country where non-Hindu communities would face brutal oppression, and be either suppressed or exiled. Though this notion is incorrect, the Left ecosystem has successfully manufactured this narrative in a bid to terrify non-Hindus living in Bharat, polarising them for political gains.
Unlike the narrative peddled by the Left, a Hindu Rashtra by its very essence is inclusive to people of other faiths, as evident by the various historical accounts which prove that Hindu kingdoms were never hostile to people of foreign faiths.
Bharat has seen the entry of several communities, giving them opportunities to flourish and start life afresh in their new motherland. Never in Bharat’s entire history has a Hindu kingdom forced other communities to convert to Sanatan Dharma, and has always embraced new settlers as guests.
As seen in history, those who faced oppression elsewhere found refuge in our motherland and weren’t troubled by the local Hindu monarchs. For instance, several Jews from Europe came to Bharat seeking refuge after the commencement of Inquisitions in their homeland, which saw most of their tribe be forcefully converted to Christianity. The Jews were given a dignified life in India and no Hindu kingdom imposed restrictions on their faith, nor did we commit mass genocides of the Jewish community to the likes of Muslim rulers like Tipu Sultan.
The root of this false narrative of a Hindu Rashtra being oppressive against minorities lies in the deep insecurity of people from the Abrahamic faith. The followers of Abraham look upon the concept of Hindu Rashtra as a mirror, in which they see a reflection of their own past and presume that we would do exactly what they did to us. History has shown that intolerance tends to be the basis of Abrahamic religions, with all of them warring against each other in places where they come in contact.
As MS Golwalkar, popularly referred to as ‘Guruji’, rightly puts it in Bunch of Thoughts:
“The first Semitic religion was Judaism, an intolerant faith. It was this intolerance that nailed Christ on the Cross. Then came Christianity, the child of the former. That too was equally intolerant. Doubtless Christ was a great saint. But later, what went on in the name of Christ had nothing to do with him. It was no Christianity but only ‘Churchianity’. The saying “There was but one true Christian and he died on the Cross” is true to the letter.
The Christians committed all sorts of atrocities on the Jews by giving them the label ‘Killers of Christ’. Hitler is not an exception but a culmination of the 2000-year long oppression of the Jews by the Christians.
Then came Islam – a long story of ‘Sword and Koran’ written in the tears and blood of millions of innocent human beings. It’s latest chapter of ‘Pakistan’, the self-declared theocratic Islamic State, is no different with the entire Hindu population butchered and driven out from its western wing and the same process continuing in its eastern wing. All these have ingrained in their blood intolerance of other faiths.”
MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, Pg 134
Hindus don’t want the blood of minorities despite the pathetic oppression they levied upon us during their reign, all we want is the disposal of the hard shells they’ve developed in their heads, making them feel like they are “different” from the local majority population.
The Jews and Parsis managed to peck aside their differences and merged their heart and soul with their new motherland, emerging as a prosperous community in Bharat. This is yet to be learnt by a few Muslims and Christians, who find pride in being associated with our motherland’s past oppressors.
Many members of these two specific communities do not believe that the ones who were persecuted by these rulers were one of their own. They pride themselves with the sadistic accomplishments of these invaders, thinking that these accomplishments should be credited to their ancestors.
What they fail to understand is that the oppressors they fan about all day had slaughtered their very ancestors. A vast majority of them were forced to convert due to the barbaric measures employed by the Arabic and European invaders and had a little-to-no contribution in the rise of the invading empires. Glorifying these barbarians is equivalent to spitting on the memory of their bloodline.
What is a Hindu Rashtra?
A ‘Hindu Rashtra’ isn’t a new concept as a political entity, as it was seen for thousands of years before the barbarians stepped foot on our motherland. Even if we look at the Hindu kingdoms that existed during the Islamic reign, no citizen was discriminated against on the score of religion.
A beautiful example of this can be seen during the time of Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj, who appointed several Muslim commanders in his army and never restricted local Muslims and Christians from following their faith. Several of his most trusted aides belonged to the Muslim community, such as his navy chief Darya Sarangh and lieutenant Daulat Khan. On the death of Afzal Khan too, Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj facilitated the Islamic burial of him at Pratapgarh fort, despite his treacherous attempt to assassinate the great Maratha king. Several accounts also record donations made by the Maratha king to Dargahs and Mosques.
Socially and culturally, Bharat has always been a Hindu Rashtra. The very essence of Bharat’s social and cultural structure is based on the Sanatan Dharma. This can be seen amongst the old Christians of South India as well; it is only in Bharat that you’d see Christians put a maala of flowers on pictures of Mary and Christ, and it is only in Bharat that you’d see them singing Bhajans of Jesus (or Yeshu, as they like to call him). The fact is, you cannot separate the Sanatan way of living and worship from an Indian, no matter how hard you try to influence his faith and lifestyle.
If you look at it from a legal perspective, a Hindu Rashtra won’t exactly be very different from the current legislation except on key matters, such as the issue of temple autonomy, the ban on cow slaughter and reclamation of temples that were previously razed by barbarians. It will also put an end to minority appeasement for political gain since the state would try to benefit the entire society than just one or two communities.
A Hindu Rashtra would never harm those who pledge their loyalty to the motherland and don’t make intentional attempts to outrage the sentiments of the majority populace. As a part of its dharma, the administration of a Hindu Rashtra will look upon all its citizens equitably, since it is the moral and religious duty of it to work for the welfare of society.
