The Partition of Bharat in 1947 stands as a defining moment in the history of the Indian subcontinent, characterised by religious division and the birth of two independent nations: India and Pakistan. At the heart of this seismic event lay the vision articulated by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan. Jinnah’s assertion, rooted in the belief that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist harmoniously within a single nation, laid the groundwork for the creation of Pakistan as an Islamic republic, offering Muslims a separate homeland.
Jinnah Escalated Tension
Jinnah’s ideology, encapsulated in the two-nation theory, posited that Hindus and Muslims were distinct communities with irreconcilable differences, necessitating separate political entities to safeguard the interests and identities of each. This ideology gained momentum amidst escalating communal tensions and the specter of violence, fuelled by religious polarisation and competing nationalisms.
The Partition of India, while fulfilling the aspirations of Muslims for self-determination, also led to one of the largest mass migrations in history, accompanied by communal bloodshed and displacement on an unprecedented scale.
The Partition, which led to the creation of Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims, was a traumatic event that left deep scars on the Indian subcontinent. While Muslims were granted a separate nation based on their religious identity, Hindus were left to grapple with the erosion of their rights, the decimation of their identity, and the pollution of their culture.
In the aftermath of Partition, Hindus in India found themselves marginalised and vulnerable, their once-proud heritage under siege. The erosion of Hindu rights began with the systematic dismantling of their religious and
cultural institutions.
In 1950, the Indian Parliament enacted Article 25, a pivotal provision that guaranteed the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. This constitutional provision, while intended to protect religious freedoms, inadvertently set the stage for significant societal and cultural shifts.
One of the most notable outcomes of Article 25 was the phenomenon of Dharma Parivartan, or religious conversion. The impact of conversion was particularly pronounced among certain communities, leading to debates and tensions over cultural identity and religious practices. We all know people following religious practices were converted the most.
Nehru Restricts Rights of Hindus
However, Article 25 was just the beginning. In the same year, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced Article 28, which restricted the rights of Hindus in matters related to religious teachings. This move marked a shift in the Government’s approach towards religious education, favouring certain so-called minority communities over the majority Hindu population.
Under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, minorities were granted the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This provision further exacerbated tensions, as it privileged minority groups in matters of religious instruction and institutional control. In essence, the introduction of Articles 25, 28, and 30 in 1950 set the stage for a complex interplay of religious, cultural, and political dynamics in India. These provisions, while aimed at safeguarding religious freedoms and minority rights, have sparked ongoing debates and controversies that continue to shape the country’s socio-political landscape.
Cong Govt Takes Over Temples
In 1951, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HRCE) Act was introduced, ostensibly to ensure the proper administration of major Hindu temples. However, under the guise of temple management, the then Congress Government took control of over four lakh Hindu temples.
The HRCE Act, which was meant to protect and preserve the cultural and religious heritage of Hindu temples, instead centralised control in the hands of the Government. This move sparked criticism and allegations of Government interference in religious affairs, with many questioning the true intentions behind the legislation.
Despite the stated goal of temple upkeep, the HRCE Act has been a means of exerting control over Hindu religious institutions. The act of centralising authority over such a vast number of temples has raised concerns about the erosion of religious autonomy and the need for greater transparency in temple management.
Critics argue that the HRCE Act has undermined the fundamental rights of Hindus to manage their own religious institutions and has instead subjected them to Government control. The act remains a subject of debate and controversy, highlighting the complexities of balancing religious freedom with Government oversight.
The HRCE Act, enacted in 1951, was purportedly introduced to ensure the proper management of Hindu temples. However, it quickly became a tool for the Government to usurp control over more than four lakh Hindu temples, shamelessly misusing their wealth at its discretion. This wanton exploitation, done under the false pretext of temple upkeep, has left a deep scar on the Hindu society. The Hindu Code Bill of 1956, another divisive move by the Nehru Government, further aggravated the sense of injustice among Hindus. While the Congress Government imposed its will on Hindu religious practices, it conveniently refrained from interfering with the Indian Muslim Personal Law Board, allowing Muslims to continue governing themselves under their own religious laws. This blatant disregard for equality and justice has created a deep-seated resentment among Hindus, who rightly feel marginalized and discriminated against.
The refusal to implement a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which would ensure that all citizens are governed by the same set of laws regardless of religion, further highlights the Congress government’s biased approach towards different religious communities. While the Nehru Government claimed to uphold the principles of secularism, its actions tell a different story—one of appeasement and discrimination.
It is high time that the Government acknowledges and rectifies these injustices. The exploitation of Hindu temples must end, and all religious communities should be treated equally under the law. Only then can Bharat truly claim to be a secular and democratic nation.
Segregating Hindus on Caste Lines
The Congress party’s implementation of reservation policies has been a double-edged sword for Hindus, ultimately leading to their division along caste and tribal lines. What was initially intended as a necessary measure to address historical injustices and social inequalities has morphed into a tool of perpetual division and dependence, all thanks to the Congress’s shortsightedness and political opportunism. Reservation, introduced during a crucial period in the nation’s history, was meant to be a temporary measure—a stepping stone towards a more equitable society. However, instead of keeping it limited to a specified timeframe, the Congress party continuously extended reservation quotas, creating a culture of dependency and entitlement among certain segments of society. By categorising Hindus into Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Sikhs, Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and Adivasis, the Congress party effectively pitted one group against another, sowing seeds of discord and division within the Hindu community. Rather than fostering unity and inclusivity, reservation policies have exacerbated caste-based identities, hindering the progress of the Hindu community as a whole.
The forcible insertion of the word “SECULAR” into the Indian Constitution by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1976, during the dark days of the Emergency, stands as a blatant attack on the core ethos and identity of Bharat. This arbitrary amendment, made without any parliamentary debate or public discourse, was a calculated move to strip India of its rightful status as a Hindu Rashtra.
The insertion of the word, “SECULAR” into the Constitution was not just a semantic change; it was a symbolic erasure of Bharat’s Hindu identity. It is high time that this injustice is rectified, and India is rightfully recognised as a Hindu Rashtra, where Hindus can proudly assert their cultural and religious heritage without fear or discrimination.
The onslaught on Hindu rights and heritage did not stop with the insertion of “SECULAR” into the Constitution. In 1991, the insidious Pooja Sthal Act dealt a devastating blow to Hindus, Jains, and Sikhs depriving them of their fundamental legal rights and erasing their historical legacy.
This draconian law effectively barred Hindus, Jains, and Sikhs from reclaiming their religious institutions that were forcibly seized by the Mughal invaders centuries ago. By denying them the right to fight for the liberation of their sacred places in court, this act perpetuated the injustice inflicted upon Hindus, leaving them defenseless against historical and cultural appropriation.
The Pooja Sthal Act stripped Hindus of their legal recourse, ensuring that their voices remained unheard in the corridors of justice. As a result, countless Hindu temples, each a repository of the community’s history and culture, fell into neglect and ruin, their stories and significance lost to future generations. This deliberate marginalisation of Hindus and their heritage is a travesty of justice and a dark stain on India’s secular fabric. It is high time that the Government acknowledges these historical injustices and takes concrete steps to restore the rights and dignity of Hindus, ensuring that their temples and history are preserved and protected for posterity. Anything less would be a betrayal of India’s rich and diverse heritage.
While Hindu temples were subjected to Governmental control and exploitation, other religious institutions were left untouched, enjoying the freedom to manage their affairs without state interference
In 1992, the introduction of the Minority Commission Act marked a pivotal moment in India’s socio-political landscape, one that would deepen the rift within the Hindu community. This legislation paved the way for the establishment of the National Minority Commission, which granted special status to so-called minority communities, further exacerbating divisions among Hindus.
The creation of the National Minority Commission institutionalised preferential treatment for certain religious groups, leaving Hindus feeling marginalised and overlooked. This divisive approach not only sowed seeds of discord within the Hindu community but also created a sense of resentment towards the Government’s biased policies.
The consequences of this discriminatory practice were far-reaching, with specific religious groups receiving disproportionate benefits from government schemes and initiatives. This selective favoritism not only undermined the principles of equality and justice but also perpetuated a sense of victimhood and alienation among Hindus. From 1950 to 2009, Congress, wielding its power, systematically eroded Hindu rights and education, using the Constitution and the law as tools of oppression. The party’s actions mirrored the brutal tactics of Aurangzeb, who used the sword to suppress Hindus, except Congress used the cloak of legality to achieve the same sinister goals.
The Congress party’s betrayal of Hindus is a stark reminder of the dangers of political expediency and the importance of safeguarding religious freedoms. It is high time that Hindus wake up to the Congress’s duplicity and stand united against such blatant discrimination and injustice. Anything less would be a surrender to tyranny and a betrayal of our cultural and religious heritage.
Leave a Comment