Guruji: A drishta—XVII
Although Samuel Huntington endorses Guruji’s concept of ‘Basic culture’ by his concept of ‘Core culture’, there is a qualitative difference between ‘Core culture’ as expounded by Huntington [also other Western thinkers] and ‘Basic culture’ expounded by Guruji. Guruji’s concept of ‘Basic culture’ is an inclusive concept founded on seamless thread of unity running through the Indian diversity . In contract, Huntington’s concept of ‘Core culture’ is exclusive. It is the core society’s – more appropriately, in US, Anglo-Protestant people’s – exclusive culture .
When Huntington speaks of ‘Subcultures’ in America, it is not about diversity. By ‘Subcultures’ he means the non-core cultures, that is, the non-core societies. Unlike, in Guruji’s concept of ‘Basic culture’, in Huntington’s ‘Core culture’ theory there is no thread of unity connecting the ‘Core culture’ and the ‘Subcultures’. This is because the non-core societies or cultures are racially or ethnically exclusive from the core, notwithstanding that the core-society and non-core society in US follow common faith, namely Christianity.
Latin Americans [Hispanics] who constitute the largest chunk of immigrants are also Christians like Anglo-Protestants. But Huntington is clear that being Christians does not make the Hispanics culturally Anglo-Protestants. So, Huntington has difficulty in accepting the principle of diversity  because diversity without a seamless thread of unity becomes seamless multi-culture. Huntington rightly holds, as we shall see later, multi-culture as the cause of America’s problems . But Guruji spoke of diversity as the very essence of Hindu culture and therefore, of the Hindu nation . This thread of unity inherently assimilates the diversities in Hindu [read Indian] society. But, in the West, given the exclusive nature of the core culture, assimilation meant persuasive or coercive acceptance of the ‘Core culture’.
Minority in modern West – Product of immigration
The current western discourse on compassionate treatment to minorities is comparatively a recent development – actually a consequence of the immigration into the West, including the US, from the rest of the world. From 1836 to 1914, over 30 million Europeans migrated to the America . The first generation immigrants living in the US has quadrupled from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007 . Illegal immigrants in US is estimated at 9-11 million . A large chunk of the first generation immigration of [non-White] Asians and Hispanics [Latin Americans] who, despite being Christians like other American citizens, constitute the cultural minority in US. Immigration to US has created the more complex current multi racial-ethno-religious issue for the West.
In contrast, the problem in India was, and is even now, just religious difference – as Hindus, Muslims or Christians – between people of the same ethnic, racial or social stock. It has been deliberately made complex by religious monority politics in the 20th century. In the US, it is exactly the otherway round, it is the ethnic, racial and cultural difference between the society of people of the same religion! While the Christian religion is unable to unite the diverse racial and ethnic society in US, it has been successfully used to divide the ancestrally, historically, and culturally [seamlessly] united cultural Hindu society in India. Yet, despite the theoretically argued ethnic differences and the colonially contrived Aryan and Dravidian theory that is now almost proved false, there has been no racial and ethnic differences of the kind in the West, on the ground in India and so no question of persecution of non-Hindus arose. But, the history of Christianity is full of persecution. Persecution of Pagans by Christians first by the Roman Empire; by phenomena like Crusades [11-13th century]; by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition from 12th century; by the suppression of heresy, Crypto-Judaism, witch-hunt, and witch trials in the early modern period; by the persecution of Buddhists and Muslims; by violence against LGBT people; and by discrimination against atheists and other such events. . The decline in the authority of the Church and the later entry of non-Christian immigrants, essentially Muslims, in Europe altered the Christian theological character of Europe. Besides the ethnically and racially different emigrant population, dissenters of Christianity too constituted the minority in modern West. But humane treatment of minorities evolved only post the Second World War on the discovery and exposure of the Holocaust genocide. This made the issue of minorities in modern West an emotional issue traceable to genocide and guilt, while Hindu India had no such history of genocide of non-Hindus and consequently, Hindus have no sense of guilt. Some analysis of the history of contrasting treatment of minorities by the Christendom and by Hindu India is relevant at this point.
The Christendom’s treatment of its own religious minority was brutal and violent; Hindu India’s treatment of even totally alien people was empathetic, inclusive and compassionate. So the West is smarting under guilt, while the Hindus feel proud.
Minority issue in the West is a product of genocide and guilt
The idea of humane treatment of any minority is comparatively new to the West. Equal treatment to minorities came to be debated in the West only in the aftermath of World War I . The minorities where the Semitic faiths reigned were subjected to violence and genocide not only during the Middle Ages, but till as late as the first half of 20th century. In his book titled Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur [a 2007 Top Seller in Sociology] Ben Kiernan has, after 30 years of study, given an authentic account of genocide from ancient to modern times. Kiernan, winner of the 2008 gold medal for the best book in History awarded by the Independent Publishers Association also won the 2009 Sybil Halpern Milton Book Prize from the German Studies Association for his Holocaust Studies published in 2007-2008. In an article titled ‘Blood and soil: the global history of genocide’ [ October 11, 2007], Kiernan explains the substance of his book. Referring to a “recurring theme of genocide” in history Kiernan says, “The Old Testament is replete with examples. Deuteronomy trumpets hatred and violence: “But thou shalt utterly destroy them – the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites – as the Lord your God has commanded you”. Listing these same ethnic groups, the book of Exodus adds: “I will wipe them out”. Again in Deuteronomy we read: “[T]hou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them”. Kiernan also cites Quran’s injunction to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them”. In its intro of the book, the publisher Yale University Press, notes that, according to Kiernan, “The ideologies that have motivated perpetrators of mass killings in the past persist in our new century.” Kiernan urges that “we heed the rich historical evidence with its tell-tale signs for predicting and preventing future genocides.” 
From the ancient times to the modern days, the West has had almost monopoly of genocidal deaths – no other major civilisation, except the Chinese, has demonstrated similar propensities. While Holocaust in which 5-6 million Jews perished is well known, the Spanish killings of 5-6 lakh dissenting minorities between 1936 and 1939 is not as well known . Even less known is the ethnic and demographic cleansing of some 146 million native Americans and Mexicans during the exploration of the North America by Europeans. According to one estimate, the total deaths in genocides in the 20th century was 558 million; out of this the share of the governments of the day that killed its own people is put at 258 million; the share of religion as the cause of deaths is estimated at 180 million; and the Karl Marx inspired killings approximated to 120million. In modern terms these deaths mean loss of 720 million lives.  But, till the World War II the West had dismissed such genocides as medieval barbarism. The Native American, Spanish and Holocaust genocides proved that Christendom’s barbarism did not stop with Middle Ages, but, it is a genetic continuity. Even today the West and the Church keep apologising for their violence. Pope John Paul himself has apologised for more than 100 different wrong doings by the Church . But for the discovery of the hard fact of Holocaust and the defeat of Hitler, the issue of minority persecution would never have become a matter of global concern! Had Hitler won, the issue of minority would never have arisen.
Hindu majority – not guilty, but, victim, of genocide in their own country
The Hindu India is a contrast. In the record of the genocides, the only people whose name does not figure as mass killers are the Hindus; and the only country, which does not figure as perpetrator of such crimes is India. Most other nations, religions and peoples are involved in such inhuman crimes. In case of the Hindus, the truth is the other way round. Not only did the Hindus treat the persecuted Parsis, Jews and Muslims who had sought assylum with compassion, records show that Hindus were the victims of genocide. Some three million Bangladeshi Hindus having perished during the Pakistani invasion of Bangladesh in 1970-71 . According to KS Lall, a well known Indian historian, some 80 million Hindus perished during the Turk-Persian-Moghul invasion of India . Hindus and India have been the victims, not perpetrators, of genocides. The Website http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm gives the best referenced picture of deaths by violence and genocides in history. This source estimates the killings since the dawn of history. In this except Kalinga War of Emperor Asoka, there is no history of killings by Hindus at all .
No further discussion is needed to reinforce the point that while the West suffers from guilt in its treatment of minorities in the past, the Hindus feel proud that they treated them compassionately. But the rules of the West which are guilty of genocide against the minorities are imposed on the Hindus who feel proud for being compassionate protective of the minorities.
 Bunch of thoughts p73;
 Who are we? Pxvi;
 Ibid p18;  Ibid;
 Bunch of Thoughts p133-34;
 Indirect passage from Europe. Journal for Maritime Research http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk;
 Immigration Worldwide: Policies, Practices, and Trends. Uma A. Segal, Doreen Elliott, Nazneen S. Mayadas (2010) Oxford Univerity Professor;
David Wippman, The Evolution and Implementation of Minority Rights, 66 Fordham L. Rev. 597 (1997), http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol66/iss2/10;
 ibid;  Ibid