Today I found the following on twitter which I found very offensive:

“globalisation and economic progress will destroy the BJP, it will be reduced to ranting bigots on the internet”

And guess who wrote it: Mdm Sagarika Ghose of CNN-IBN fame. Does any of you have any reach/contacts within the party to raise this issue of offensive reporting by media?

In fact I am endorsing a hardcore, rigid form of Hindutva to gear up the Hindu community.

The reasoning is based on my analysis of Hindu-Muslim relationships ever since Islam invaded India. This is based on
- Historical facts.
- Thorough research.

Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in his book Pakistan, or, the Partition of India published in 1940 mentions in one of his chapters of book called:

A. So called perceived Hindu Muslim Unity.

Dr. Ambedkar writes that

The real explanation of this failure of Hindu-Muslim unity lies in the failure to realize that what stands between the Hindus and Muslims is not a mere matter of difference, and that this antagonism is not to be attributed to material causes. It is formed by causes which take their origin in historical, religious, cultural and social antipathy, of which political antipathy is only a reflection. These form one deep river of discontent which, being regularly fed by these sources, keeps on mounting to a head and overflowing its ordinary channels. Any current of water flowing from another source, however pure, when it joins it, instead of altering the colour or diluting its strength becomes lost in the main stream. The silt of this antagonism which this current has deposited, has become permanent and deep. So long as this silt keeps on accumulating and so long as this antagonism lasts, it is unnatural to expect this antipathy between Hindus and Muslims to give place to unity.

Like the Christians and Muslims in the Turkish Empire, the Hindus and Muslims of India have met as enemies on many fields, and the result of the struggle has often brought them into the relation of conquerors and conquered. Whichever party has triumphed, a great gulf has remained fixed between the two and their enforced political union either under the Moghuls or the British instead of passing over, as in so many other cases, into organic unity, has only accentuated their mutual antipathy. Neither religion nor social code can bridge this gulf. The two faiths are mutually exclusive and whatever harmonies may be forged in the interest of good social behaviour, at their core and centre they are irreconcilable. There seems to be an inherent antagonism between the two which centuries have not been able to dissolve. Notwithstanding the efforts made to bring the creeds together by reformers like Akbar and Kabir, the ethical realities behind each have still remained, to use a mathematical phrase, which nothing can .alter or make integers capable of having a common denominator. A Hindu can go from Hinduism to Christianity without causing any commotion or shock. But he cannot pass from Hinduism to Islam without causing a communal riot, certainly not without causing qualms. That shows the depth of the antagonism which divides the Hindus from the Musalmans.

If Islam and Hinduism keep Muslims and Hindus apart in the matter of their faith, they also prevent their social assimilation. That Hinduism prohibits intermarriage between Hindus and Muslims is quite well known. This narrow-mindedness is not the vice of Hinduism only. Islam is equally narrow in its social code. It also prohibits intermarriage between Muslims and Hindus. With these social laws there can be no social assimilation and consequently no socialization of ways, modes and outlooks, no blunting of the edges and no modulation of age-old angularities.

There are other defects in Hinduism and in Islam which are responsible for keeping the sore between Hindus and Muslims open and running. Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.

Great work by Chakresh to carry on the momentum even after the elections!.

One thing which the Author forgets between 1990 and 2009 is that 20 years(2 decades) have gone by between these 2 periods.

In these 2 decades there has been a demographic shift for the Muslims with regards to the Hindus.

While the “official” (again cannot be considered accurate) percentage of Muslims in India was – 13.2% in 1991, It raised to about 16% in the 2001 official census.

Even the most conservative demographers dispute this figure. They say that the Muslim population in India grows at an average rate of 6-8% decade over decade but there was only a 3% increase.

Even taking the 3% increase only, In 2009, the Muslim population of India is somewhere between 19 – 20% (As the official 2011 census is yet to be done).

Anyway my point is that this large chunk of the Vote Base which is most definitely anti BJP makes a huge difference in the overall results of elections.

a. The Muslim population due to their high growth rate is much younger than the Hindu population. If the average age of Hindus is 35 y the average age for a Muslim in India is 19 Y.

b. Due to this the not only is there is a higher rate of growth but there is a growth itself in the rate of growth of the Muslim population.

This factor should be considered in analysis.

[[[ They used to sit on the floor side by side (even vajpayeeji and advaniji), they talked eloquently and pursuasively (no breastbeating and shrill rhetoric) and they looked the part.]]]

Now party meetings happen in closed AC rooms while important people watch cricket matches in England. The buzz of the 90’s is missing, there is no collective responsibility and its a shame that BJP is appointing people to positions rather than electing them (like how Sushil Modi was elected as Deputy CM of Bihar).

The sooner they correct the better it will be and I pray they do so as I cannot bear the pain of seeing another Indian center-right party wither and blow away.

Hindutva is dragging the part down.