After the partition of India in 1947, it should not have been difficult to bridge the gulf
between Hindus and Muslims, if only there were not many anti-Hindu Hindus. It is they who
nurture Muslim bigots and justify their wayward conduct. Remember that there is a paucity
of non-clerical leadership amongst the Muslims.That vacuum in leadership is filled by
anti-Hindu Hindus. It is difficult to think of their motivation other than emotional
masochism. Which is rather like a psycho~sexual disorder in which an erotic release is
achieved through having pain inflicted on oneself.
Dr Ram Manohar Lohia put it differently in "'The Guilty Men of
India's Partition'': It is one thing not to acknowledge the rape of one's mother, it is
quite another to refuse to accept the result. While the Muslim erred in acknowledging both
the rape and its results, the Hindu should be faulted for refusing to acknowledge either.
Evidently, anti-Hindu Hindus derive satisfaction by inflicting
humiliation upon their own community. Or else, how does one explain the phenomenon of
journalist Kuldip Nayar, who had to run away to India from his home in Lahore in the wake
of partition. Yet he writes and speaks for Pakistan day in and day out. On the floor of
Parliament in December 1999, he said that it is but natural that thePakistani ISI should
terrorise Hindus in Jammu, because Indian RAW instigates agitations in Karachi. Why does
Mr. Nayar not go back to his beloved home in Pakistan?
The intention is not to focus on any one person. There is a galaxy of
groups and individuals who have held anti-Hindu views ranging from the communists to
Jawaharlal Nehru to Mohandas Gandhi. There are intellectuals like Ms Romila Thapar, Gargi
Chakravartty, Harbans Mukhia, Bipan Chandra and N.E. Balaram whose views make even more
rabid reading. In a democratic society, every citizen is free to hold his opinions but no
responsible person should twist facts to back up his views.