17.1 As Beloo Mehra pointed out in his analysis, "even before the reader is made aware of the origins of Hindutva as a political ideology, he or she is asked to believe that it is "Hindu supremacist ideology" and has been responsible for much of the "communal violence" in India." The definition of Hindutva that is being applied in the Report is not what the proponents of the ideology say it is, but what the opponents say it is. What Hindutva is has been a matter for court decisions. Some of the proponents, in the electoral politics arena, have had cases against them for setting aside their elections. However, the Supreme Court decided in the favour of the proponents of Hindutva, and accepted that their definition can in no way be construed to be sectarian or communal. This has been reiterated by LK Advani, Home Minister, in the Parliament on November 18, 2002. He said:

· I will say our concept is the one which the Supreme Court wrote. Justice Verma in his judgement wrote: ''The words Hinduism or Hindutva are not confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India depicting the way of life of the Indian people. These terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people, and are not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith.'' We in the Government accept that the meaning of Hindutva is the one which the Supreme Court accepts and what Swami Vivekanandaji and others recognised. (The Indian Express, November 23, 2002.)

17.2 The inherent tolerance of the Hindus, an integral part of their ethos, is well accepted. The Jews, the Parsis, the Syrain Christians, and the Tibetians had to flee their own land because of persecution by the Christians, the Muslims, the other Christian sects, and the communists, respectively. It was only amongst Hindus that they were able to survive - not only in terms of keeping their own faith alive, but also in material terms. On December 19, 2002, the Holywood actor, Richard Gere, during his visit to India, said:

· No nation has helped the Tibetans more than India. Its contribution remains unparalleled as the displaced people have not only been able to rebuild their monastic institutions but have also prospered materially. ( http://headlines.sify.com/1546news3.html?headline=Richard~Gere's~'Light~of~Truth'~award~for~Indians)

17.3 However, Hindus have resisted those who came here with an intention of destroying their culture and civilisation. The interface of Islam and Christianity in Indian history can be said, at the very least, to have been architecturally and spiritually harmful on a fairly vast scale. This is a continuing story, with the threat still persisting. Because of the strong resistance, Hinduism today is the oldest surviving civilisation.

17.4 The Report defines the gurukul system of education in India as "Hindu religious schools, equivalent of the Islamic madrassas." The gurukul system provides the students with a modern and secular education, even as it inculcates the traditional values of our civilisation. Perhaps the authors of the Report could give examples of terrorists that have been bred in this system. Only a perverted mind would do link the gurukuls with the Madrasas, which have become jehadi factories all over the world. For the authors of the Report, only some Madrasas, but all gurukuls, teach hatred.

17.5 Even as the authors have never criticised the jehadi factories that the madarsas are all over the world, they have brought down an ancient system of education down to the level of the madarasas. The authors also allege that the 'Hindu madarsas' are operating not only in India, but also abroad.

17.6 One of the comments that the authors of the Report frequently make is that the Sangh is a secretive organisation. Given the extent of the size of the organisation, as admitted by the authors, one would find it very hard to believe this charge. Only if the Sangh had complete control over all branches of the government, right from the panchayat to the centre, can such a state of disguise be maintained. And, experience all over the world has shown, that even this is not possible for a length of time. And the Sangh is today 77 years old.

17.7 Perhaps it would be instructive to read a quote from an article by a known Sangh-baiter, Amulya Ganguli.

· "If there is one aspect of the RSS-led Sangh parivar which evokes admiration, it is candour. In a day and age when false smiles and unvarnished lies are the politicians' stock-in-trade, it is always refreshing to hear the clear, if grim, articulation of their deadly plans for India from the saffron stalwarts, including another "epic war" between Hindus and anti-Hindus. What is remarkable is that even when they are aware that they may be revealing their secrets, or that they are embarrassing a government which is nearer them ideologically than any other will ever be, the high priests of Hindu rashtra are not bothered. Either they have complete faith in the ultimate success of their mission, or they are incapable of terminological inexactitude, the polite term for being economical with the truth. Irrespective of how provocative their statements may be, they have no hesitation in standing by them." ("The RSS game plan", The Hindustan Times, March 27, 2000.)

17.8 The Report alleges that the IDRF raised money for the Bangladeshi Hindus who are once again being driven out of their homelands, the 350,000 Kashmiri Hindus who are living as refugees in their own country for the last 13 years, and given a token donation for the victims of the World Trade Centre, because the perpetrators of the crime were Muslims. (At a polemical level, perhaps one should be amused that the authors of the Report do admit that the perpetrators are Muslims.) By the same logic, one would come to the conclusion that given that IDRF raised large sums of money for the Gujarat earthquake and the Orissa cyclone, these and other such events were actually not natural calamities, but were done by the Muslims! We guess if we are to take the Report with even a modicum of seriousness, we will have to take special precautions that we do not lose our sanity.

17.9 The Report gives an impression that various corporates are giving funds to IDRF directly. The truth is that many coroprates have a policy of grants which match the fund raising activities of their employees. This is supposed to give an encouragement to the employees to be more involved in the welfare of the society. For this purpose the concerned charity has to be registered with the corporate concerned. According to the article by Varsha Bhosle ( http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/nov/23varsha.htm), Cisco 'has given grants to, amongst others, Catholic Charities Euclid Girls' Home, Jewish Vocational Services, and St Vincent de Paul Society of San Mateo County.'

17.10 This is only a glimpse of the type of perversions that the authors have to resort to, as true revolutionaries as commanded by Lenin. A group called Friends of India are making their own analysis of the Report. They have taken the trouble to find out the antecedents of ten of the recipients, identified as being sectarian, of the donation from IDRF. One of them, Miraj Medical Centre, is run by the Church of North India. Janan Prabodhini receives funds from colleagues of the authors of the Report, namely Asha and AID, in the USA. The Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Vaidyakiya Pratishthan is identified as involved in 'Hinduisation, tribal or education'. In actual fact, this institute runs a very large hospital in Maharashtra, along with some outreach centres in the surrounding villages. The donors to this institute include organisations like the Tatas in India. So much for the level of meticulousness that the authors of the Report claim.

17.11 Similarly, while discussing one of the in-house fund raising project of IDRF, namely "Martyrs for National Integration Fund" (MNIF), the authors of the Report have put the words 'terrorist war' in inverted commas. It would appear to us that this has been done because they do not accept that what is happening in Jammu & Kashmir cannot be classified as terrorism. Given that those creating a problem are receiving substantial material assistance from Pakistan (a fact admitted by Setalvad in her August 2002 speech mentioned above), the contention of the authors of the Report can only be defined as a perversion. They seem to have no appreciation of the tremendous sacrifice made by thousands of our soldiers, from all parts of the country, to keep our country intact.

Perversions in the Report -

Lies, Lies And More Lies
Author: Vivek Gumaste
Publication: Sulekha.com
URL:  http://www.sulekha.com/articledesc.asp?cid=290065
When I read recent reports (fabricated, to say the least) of the IDRF (India Development Research Fund) being a conduit for the communal violence in Gujarat, I said to myself, “there we go again.” There just doesn't seem to be an end to this litany of lies. A few years ago there was a story circulating in the Indian news media, about the fleeing Hindu refugees from Kashmir. These reports claimed that over a quarter million Hindus had left their homes in Kashmir, not out of fear of Islamic militancy, but at the instigation of Jagmohan, the then Governor of Kashmir. It was and is still, a ridiculous notion without even an iota of truth; in other words, a blatant lie. But it didn't stop some of our intellectuals from propagating that falsehood!

Then did you hear that the 34 innocent Sikhs of Chatisinghpora, who were murdered in cold blood on the eve of Clinton's visit, were not done in by Islamic militants, but by agents of the Indian government in order to discredit the separatist movement? Another canard spread not by Pakistan, but our own so-called intellectuals.

This has been the pattern ever since the BJP came to power in India in March 1998. In fact there has been a relentless witch-hunt, the likes of which we have never seen before; a witch-hunt orchestrated by the major English newspapers in cahoots with the opposing political parties and so- called secular groups; a witch hunt that knows no logic and sees no reason; a witch hunt so consumed by a blind hatred for the BJP that fraud and deceit are considered appropriate weapons in this mad orgy; a witch hunt in which even national interest is of no concern.

Beginning in the late 90s, Indian newspapers reported on a rash of so- called anti-Christian incidents perpetrated supposedly by Hindu extremists. Close scrutiny, however, revealed that these incidents were deliberate falsehoods spread by vested interests to further their political agenda.

Take for example the incident in Jhabua, MP in which four nuns were brutally raped. Even before any details of this crime were available, the major newspapers had conducted a trial, established the criminal guilt of the Hindu extremists and communicated this message to the country and the world at large by splashing this news across their front pages.

It was finally left up to Francois Gautier, the correspondent in South Asia for Le Figaro, France's largest circulation newspaper, who personally went to Jhabua, to unearth the truth. This is what he wrote in the Hindustan Times (Feb 1, 1999). “This massive outcry on the 'atrocities against the minorities' raises also doubts about the quality and integrity of Indian journalism. Take for instance, the rape of the four nuns in Jhabua. Today the Indian Press (and the foreign correspondents -- witness Tony Clifton's piece in the last issue of Newsweek) are still reporting that it was a 'religious' rape. Yet I went to Jhabua and met the four adorable nuns, who themselves admitted, along with their bishop George Anatil, that it had nothing to do with religion. It was the doing of a gang of Bhil tribals, known to perpetrate this kind of hateful acts on their own women. Yet today, the Indian Press, the Christian hierarchy and the politicians continue to include the Jhabua rape in the list of the atrocities against the Christians.”

A few days later, the Home Minister released a list of the criminals, a list forwarded to him by the Congress (whose leader incidentally happens to be Christian) government of MP. Twelve of the accused were Christians. Christian groups initially questioned this finding but when confronted with irrefutable proof chose to ignore it. And the newspapers? Yes, they reported it in some hidden corner of their paper. What about those things called truth and honesty? Does it matter? No. According to their warped sense of values maligning the Hindu groups is itself synonymous with truth.

About another incident that occurred in Kerala, Francois Gautier wrote.

“In Wyanad in northern Kerala, it was reported that a priest and four women were beaten up and a Bible was stolen by 'fanatical' Hindus. An FIR was lodged, the communists took out processions all over Kerala to protest against the 'atrocities' and the Press went gaga. Yet as an intrepid reporter from the Calicut office of The Indian Express found out, nobody was beaten up and the Bible was safe. Too late: the damage was done and it still is being made use of by the enemies of India.”

More recently, the reporting of events about Gujarat is another example of hyperbole. But before elaborating on specific instances of deception, let me state that we cannot and should not condone the senseless violence that happened in Gujarat. By the same token we cannot accept the malicious dissemination of falsehoods. Writing about the Gujarat riots, Arundhati Roy had this to say (Outlook, May 6,2002).

“A mob surrounded the house of ex-Congress MP Iqbal Ehsan Jaffri. His phone calls to the director-general of police, the police commissioner, the chief secretary, the additional chief secretary (home) were ignored. The mobile police vans around his house did not intervene. The mob broke into the house. They stripped his daughters and burnt them alive. Then they beheaded Jaffri and dismembered him.”

The description is graphic; the veracity of the incident taken almost for granted coming from a writer of Arundhati Roy's reputation. But, alas, that's where we make the mistake. Fame and honesty are not interlinked as the following paragraph clearly indicates.

Jaffri was killed in the riots but his daughters were neither 'stripped' nor 'burnt alive.' T.A. Jafri, his son, in a front-page interview titled Nobody knew my father's house was the target (Asian Age, May 2, Delhi edition), says, "among my brothers and sisters, I am the only one living in India. And I am the eldest in the family. My sister and brother live in the US. I am 40 years old and I have been born and brought up in Ahmedabad.”

So if Ehsan Jaffri had only one daughter (singular) who was safe and sound in the US, where did Roy get her facts about not one, but daughters (plural) being stripped and burnt? Was it the fantasy of a writer's mind? Or was it willful deceit aimed at maligning her ideological adversaries?

Arundhati Roy did apologise for her mistake in a letter published in Outlook May 27, 2002. Could this have been a genuine mistake, one is tempted to ask? But when such 'mistakes' occur periodically, the chances of them being accidental appear remote. They appear to be in fact calculated machinations aimed at achieving a specific goal as the following incident further proves.

In the same article, Roy claims.

"Last night a friend from Baroda called. Weeping. It took her fifteen minutes to tell me what the matter was. It wasn't very complicated. Only that Sayeeda, a friend of hers, had been caught by a mob. Only that her stomach had been ripped open and stuffed with burning rags. Only that after she died, someone carved 'OM' on her forehead." Disturbed by the thought of such a ghastly act, Balbir Punj (a BJP MP) had this matter investigated. In Outlook (Jul 08, 2002) he wrote.

“Shocked by this despicable 'incident,' I got in touch with the Gujarat Government. The police investigations revealed that no such case, involving someone called Sayeeda, had been reported either in urban or rural Baroda. Subsequently, the police sought Roy's help to identify the victim and seek access to witnesses who could lead them to those guilty of this crime. But the police got no cooperation. Instead, Roy, through her lawyer, replied that the police had no power to issue summons. Why is she hedging behind technical excuses?”

So when asked to prove her allegations, Arundhati Roy developed cold feet; definitely not the attitude of a crusader for truth.

Similarly you must have read some accounts of what preceded Godhra. There were wild accounts of an altercation between Ram sevaks and Muslim stall-owners, and of the abduction of a Muslim girl by Ram sevaks. All this emanated on the basis of a fictitious e-mail as revealed by Prem Shankar Jha (Outlook, March 25)

This also reminds me of another episode that occurred a few years ago. Filmmaker Pradip Kishen (who happens to be Arundhati Roy's husband and a part of the same ideological group) walked out in a huff from the National Film Awards jury accusing the board of political motives. He asserted that Raveena Tandon had been given the best actress award for Daman because she had campaigned for the BJP. When an angry Raveena asked him to prove his charges, he beat a hasty retreat and submitted an unconditional apology. This may not be an item of grave national importance but serves to confirm the fact that certain groups repeatedly use devious methods to achieve their broader political aims.

Mr. Tunku Varadarajan is deputy editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal. He also has had several publications in the New York Times. This is an excerpt from his article titled, 'Deadly Zeal in India' (NY Times, Jan 11, 1999).

“This happened a month after a Roman Catholic priest was murdered and religious fanatics vowed to turn an entire district into a 'Christian-free zone'. In keeping with this promise, a chapel was set on fire. Elsewhere, armed men broke into a Catholic convent and assaulted two nuns inside, and another Catholic priest was shot dead.” This report appeared exactly 15 days before, I repeat 15 days before Graham Staines, the Australian missionary was killed in Orissa. Until then no Christian missionary had been killed in India as a result of religious hatred, yet Tunku Vardarajan's op-ed piece described picturesquely how armed men broke into a convent and shot dead a Catholic priest. In deference to fair play and before passing judgment, I e-mailed the newspaper asking them for details that I may not have been aware of. I never received a reply. A week later, however, the NY Times reported that no lives had been lost in the so- called anti-Christian campaign. (This was before the Staines murder). So this was without a doubt an explicit lie with an ulterior motive. Apart from being a tall tale it was also a clever ploy: exaggerate the crime, evoke greater condemnation and thereby silence those who do not agree with you.

What do these incidents suggest? The so-called secular groups (or more appropriately labeled 'pseudo-secular') are willing to go to any lengths to put across their point of view, even if it involves duplicity, spreading half- truths or indulging in hyperbole. How can we believe a people or the philosophy they espouse when trickery is an indispensable item in their mode of communication? Or in other words can an ideology that requires the crutches of deceit and distortion sustain itself?

What is even more disturbing is that many eminent personalities (Nobel laureates, software entrepreneurs and academics) are using the weight of their prestige to lend misplaced credibility to these untruths. But one must remember that shorn of the sophisticated accents that we speak in, shorn of the King's English that we pen, shorn of the academic degrees from Western Universities that we flaunt, shorn of our status or fame in society that we impose upon others, what really matters is the truth and honesty of the words that we write or speak. When judged by this yardstick, some of these so-called intellectuals and eminent personalities fall way below into an abysmal pit of moral bankruptcy that is hard to fathom.

Blind adherence to any ideology whether it is Hindutva or anti-Hindutva will lead us nowhere. Truth, honesty and justice must surmount all ideology. Double standards and hypocrisy especially the type practiced by our so-called eminent personalities will only destroy our democracy and society. Truth must be the basis of any ideology. Truth and honesty must be the foundations of our society.

So let us stop lying. Let us be fair and above all let us speak the truth. Then alone can we build a truly democratic and secular India.

REFERENCES

1) Outlook India, May 06,2002
2) Outlook India, May 27, 2002 article by Balbir Punj
3) Outlook India, Jul 08, 2002 article by Balbir Punj.
4) Hindustan Times, Feb 1, 1999
5) New York Times, Jan 11, 1999

Lies, Lies And More Lies -