India showed that law comes before religion in the world’s largest democracy. Law before religion is the definition of secularism. When on the single most important religious issue to the majority of them, they refused to use might as right. They waited for decades for the courts to rule. Justice delayed is justice denied. Tell that to the hundreds of millions of Hindus.
It is the Hindu way. They do not have the concept of conversion which is needed as the driving force for conquest.
So, India, is the birthplace of non-violence as a political not just a religious concept. We do not want a pat on the back for our suffering under the Mongols, and do not tell me how they were the patrons of the arts, architecture, and culture. Hindustan civilised them. Our uninterrupted culture has exited longer. If you want to know the culture of Mongols, name me their global cultural, political, artistic contributions? The Barbeque.
The issue of Ayodhya leaves questions open:
Why when it is the most important place to Hindus, would the occupiers of the site in this case not have done what the Supreme Court had to force them to do by law; which is find a nearby site and vacate this one? Why drag it for decades and decades to cause unneeded pain? Because your safety was and is underwritten by law and by the majority is why.
The occupiers did not dispute Hindus considered this to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. Consider that. So why inflict wantonly more pain by refusing to concede even an inch? Because their case was that Hindus did not continuously pray there. Yes they did ruled the Supreme Court. They wanted to say Hindus could forget the cornerstone of their faith, and be moved away from anything. As long as this is taken from them, anything, including their faith can. It is a racially superior colonising mindset that thinks that.
Why when it was built on the orders of a colonising Mongol from Uzbekhistan, mongols known for their butchery, savagery, genocide, barbarism, an alien to India, do Indians call them the more respectable name of ‘Mughal’?
It was a Mongol Empire founded by the descendants of Genghis Khan. Imperialism, like slavery, and colonialism is reviled everywhere today. Look at the debates around you. Why do the injustices of colonisation not apply to Hindus?
Why when India is not, and has no plans, to be a Hindu Republic, does the left-liberal have no problems with the 53 Muslim dominated countries (Islam is the official religion in 27) in the world; 100+ Christian dominated countries. In 15 nations, Christianity is the official religion?
The answer is the critics fear a type of Hindu that exists in their imagination, just as the black man was portrayed as the savage, the Hindu, is the fanatic. Just as the black man is the criminal, the drug dealer, the raper of white women, so the Hindu is portrayed for political ends as the fanatic, the loin cloth, saffron robbed, fakir.
It is a colonial, racially superior narrative. It is institutionally racist. And those propagating it are racist.
Alpesh Patel
