Truth Stranger Than Fiction: Sachar Report Shenangians

In recent months sob stories about the so-called socio-economic backwardness of Muslims,
based on the Sachar Committee Report, have been making waves in the mainstream English media,
both print media and T V channels. Interestingly when I asked some voluble minority-centric
journalists whether they had read the Sachar Report, they admitted that they hadn’t. Some even
admitted that they had written banner headline stories solely relying on whatever material was dished
out to them by members of the Committee, especially by Dr. Abu Saleh Sharrif, who happens to be
the Chief Economist of N C A E R, and was Member Secretary of Sachar Committee. Many
confessed that they had not paid attention to, nor read the Rejoinder issued by our Thinktank,
Patriots Forum, highlighting the fact that Sachar Report abounds in innumerable instances of
suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. For reasons best known to Justice Sachar and Member Secretary of
the Committee the report has deliberately concealed several important facts. For reasons not
altogether inscrutable, it took recourse to shutting out important data provided by our Forum in two
Memoranda submitted to the Committee on October 26, 2005 and May 18, 2006.
In the aforesaid facts-and-data packed Memoranda it was specifically brought to the notice of
the High Level Committee that in respect of four globally recognised important human development
indicators, namely, Infant Mortality, Child Mortality, Degree of Urbanisation and Life Expectancy at
Birth, the Muslim community is certainly ahead of the Hindus.

It was further pointed out that the major causes of the lower per capita income of Muslims
(often tom-tomed as the so-called backwardness of the community) are two. First, due to non-
acceptance of small family norm, every Muslim woman is giving birth to at least one more child than
her Hindu counterpart which increases the dependency burden on the breadwinners and households.
[Source: National Family Health Survey –2 and Census 2001 data}. Second, the work participation by
Muslim women is 50% less than that of the Hindu and Christian women, the respective ratios being
14.1% for Muslim women as against 27.5% for Hindu women and 28% for Christian women. [Source:
Census 2001]. These are two major factors impacting the income of Muslim households. The per
capita income of Muslims naturally goes down because of higher dependency ratio vis a vis other
communities.
The abnormally low work participation by Muslim women (due to the diktats of clerics and
religious scholars) gives an unrealistic slant to the data about the proportion of unemployment (or
employment) because the total unemployment level (or employment level) of a community is arrived
at by averaging the sum total of the male and female unemployment. These important facts and the
relevant data highlighted in our Memoranda have been totally concealed in an inelegant manner by
the High Level Committee in their report. Reasons are not difficult to guess – ours is essentially a
vote-bank besotted polity.
Most importantly the Committee has deliberately downplayed the huge advantage accruing to
the Muslim community by virtue of their higher degree of urbanization, the community having a
whopping advantage of 10 percent over the Hindus, the respective averages being 36% for Muslims
and 26% for Hindus. According to the economic theory, urbanization is not only an important
barometer of economic prosperity, but the vital key to speedy development of any country or
community. Goldman Sachs, a globally acclaimed professional group of economists, have highlighted
the importance of urbanization in their Global Economics Paper No. 152 (India’s Rising Growth
Potential) by pointing out that every movement of surplus labour from low-productivity agriculture to
high productivity industry and services contributes about 1 percentage point to annual GDP growth
because in India “productivity in industry and services is more than 4 times that in agriculture which
employs nearly 60% of the labour force”. The report draws pointed attention to the fact that South
Korea has a high urban population of 81 percent, Malayasia 67 percent, China 43 percent, while India
has only 29 percent population living in urban areas. There is a very powerful link between the
1 of 27
degree of urbanization and economic prosperity of a community, or country. The more urbanized is a
community, better is its economic status. The Goldman Sachs Report proclaims on page 18 that “the
21st century is set to become India’s ‘urban century’, with more people living in cities and towns than
in the countryside for the first time in history”. It estimates that another “140 million rural dwellers will
move to urban areas by 2020, while a massive 700 million people will urbanize by 2050.” It requires
no great wisdom to assess which community, the Muslims or the Hindus, is presently better placed
economically and well set on the future road to greater prosperity. Obviously, the Muslims have a
huge advantage over the Hindus in terms of economic prosperity and economic development. The
Member Secretary of the Committee, Dr. Abu Saleh Sharrif, who happens to be the Chief Economist
of the National Council of Applied Economic Research, is fully aware of the truth that urbanization is
the biggest driver of economic development and prosperity. But he deliberately chose to suppress
this important fact, highlighted in our Memoranda, for reasons best known to him. The Muslim
percentage of urbanization at 36% is barely 7 percentage points behind that of fast developing
China, while the Hindu percentage of urbanization languishing at 26% is not only 10% short of the
Muslim average, but is lagging behind China by a huge margin of 17 percentage points. What better
proof is required to prove that economically the Hindus are far more disadvantaged than the
Muslims? And they will continue to be far behind Muslims during several decades ahead!
The fact that there is hardly any difference in the economic status of Hindus and Muslims was
further corroborated by the results of a recent N.C.A.E.R. survey covering 63,000 households,
spread over 1,976 villages, 250 district and 2,255 urban wards (342 towns), conducted by the Senior
Fellow, Rajesh Shukla, which gave a direct lie to the flawed findings of Justice Sachar Committee.
[Source: A news item captioned Hindu, Muslim equal in income’ Economic Times, New Delhi, April 5,
2007, pp. 1 and 12].
Incidentally the Member Secretary of Sachar Committee, Dr. Sharrif, who unabashedly
concealed the truth while writing that obfuscatory report, as well as Rajesh Shukla, whose research
disclosed that the economic condition of Hindus and Muslims was almost at par, belong to the same
organization, namely the National Council of Applied Economic Research ! Well, that should be a
matter of concern to the Indian nation, perhaps much more to the National Council of Economic
Research.
Furthermore, though para 2(a) of the Notification dated March 9, 2005, specifically directed the
Committee to undertake “an intensive literature survey to identify the published data, articles and
research on relative social, economic and educational status of Muslims in India”, apparently the
Committee did not undertake any such survey. In fact, the Committee deliberately ignored the two
facts-and data-packed research papers presented in a Workshop-cum-Seminar on the subject held
on September 2, 2006, at the prestigious Indian Institute of Public Administration which
comprehensively rebutted the Committee’ pre-conceived thesis that Muslims were economically and
educationally disadvantaged compared to Hindus. One of the Papers, circulated by Prof. Sanjay
Kumar (Fellow, Centre for Study of Developing Studies), based on a survey of more than 27,000
respondents, categorically stated that “there is hardly any difference among the level of educational
attainments among Hindus and Muslims”. It further concluded that “contrary to the common belief that
Muslims are poorer compared to the Hindus, the findings of the N.E.S. Survey (National Elections
Study Survey) indicate hardly any difference in the level of economic prosperity among people from
the two communities”, which fully supported the submissions made by the petitioners in their
Memoranda. Another important conclusion highlighted in the Seminar Paper of Shri Sanjay Kumar
was that “at the national level the proportion of those who would fall in very poor class is more among
Hindus compared to the Muslims”. (A Summary of Shri Sanjay Kumar’s Paper is appended as
Annexure ‘A’). The malafide intent of the Committee is evident from the fact that it decided to shut
out the politically inconvenient truth, including the important data and material facts highlighted in our
Memoranda and those highlighted in the Seminar Paper of Prof. Sanjay Kumar on September 2,
2006, during an important seminar on the subject.

2 of 27
 After inviting representations through advertisements in newspapers, the Committee adopted a
peculiarly crafted partisan method of inquiry by resorting to picking and considering only politically
convenient representations, thereby wantonly infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed to the
petitioners under Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. The partisan procedure adopted
by the Committee was violative of the principle of natural justice in the sense that repetitive requests
of the petitioners for a personal hearing were deliberately ignored by the Chairperson who invariably
found enough time for meeting a number of groups and individuals, including some who had made no
written submission. One such instance was the audience granted to Shri S.S. Gill (a retired civil
servant just like many members of our Thinktank), as mentioned by Shri Gill in an article which
appeared in the Times of India , New Delhi, on January 23, 2007, though he had made no written
submission to Sachar Committee. There could be no rationale for handing down such discriminatory
treatment to the petitioners, especially after a written assurance to consider their viewpoint had been
given by the Committee’s Officer on Special Duty. The deliberate denial of opportunity to be heard,
coupled with completely shutting out from their Report the data about important human development
indicators furnished by the petitioners, shows that the report of the High Level Committee is biased
and arbitrary. It is based on partisan considerations and abounds in a number of instances of
suppresio veri, suggestio falsi, duly pointed out in the Rejoinder issued by our Thinktank, a copy of
which was sent to Justice (Retd) Rajindar Sachar on January 29, 2007, seeking his clarifications and
response and copies thereof were endorsed to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, the Minster for Minority
Affairs, the Home Minister and several other government functionaries. Till date no reply has been
received from any quarter to the aforesaid Rejoinder issued by the petitioners.
Throughout the inquiry the Committee continued to function and act in an arbitrary manner,
though after inviting representations through public advertisement it was duty bound to consider all
representations and hear the relevant oral submissions of those who had responded to its
advertisements. The Committee did not extend even the elementary courtesy of acknowledging the
numerous reminders of lesser mortals like us, leave alone the hope of sparing a thought for truth. By
giving audience only to selectively chosen partisan groups and individuals, the Committee not only
violated the principle of natural justice, but also denied to the petitioners the right to equality and
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. In doing so the
Committee acted in a manner prejudicial to the public interest despite this Hon’ble Court’s mandatory
directions in Sarla Mudgal Vs. the Union of India 1995 (3) SCC 365 and National Textile Workers
Union Vs. P.R. Rama Kishnan 1983(1) SCC 228.
The gross bias and pre-determined mindset of the Committee is fully reflected in two partisan
postures namely, (i) the procedural flaw of deliberately shutting out certain politically inconvenient
representations and true facts, and (ii) unfairly denying an opportunity to be heard to a group
comprising educated and enlightened citizens many of whom had held important positions of
responsibility in public life, and that too, after giving a written assurance to consider their viewpoint.
We, therefore, submit that the Sachar Committee Report, containing several instances of suppressio
veri, suggestion falsi, cannot be deemed to be a just and objective document, fit to be relied upon by
the government and the general public. Looking to its patently biased contents, the petitioners have
no alternative remedy available except to seek intervention of this Hon’ble Court for upholding their
fundamental rights and the time-honoured principle of natural justice.
Dates
09.03.2005 Office of the Hon’ble Prime Minister constituted a seven member High Level
Committee chaired by Justice (Retd.) Rajindar Sachar to prepare a report on the
Social Economic and Educational status of the Muslim Community of India

20.09.2005
& 03.10.2005 In response to the Committee’s advertisements, the petitioner wrote two letters
dated 20.09.2005 and 03.10.2005 for requesting the Chairperson to give them an

3 of 27
 opportunity to meet him personally for representing their viewpoint on the subject
while making a written submission.
05.10.2005 Dr. S. Zafar Mahmood, Joint Secretary to Govt. of India and Officer on Special
Duty in Sachar Committee vide his letter dated October 5, 2005, advised the
petitioners to Fax or send by post their Memorandum categorically assuring
therein that the Committee “will be happy to consider” their representation.
26.10.2005 A fact and data packed Memorandum dated 26.10.2005 was submitted to the
High Level Committee by Speed Post Acknowledgement Due.

10.11.2005 The said Memorandum dated 26.10.2005 was received in the Committee’s
Secretariat.
07.11.2005 Another letter of request was sent by the petitioners for personal hearing.
18.04.2006 After waiting for Committee’s response for 24 weeks a reminder was sent to
Justice Sachar on April 18, 2006, once again drawing attention to the petitioner’s
long pending Memorandum and again requested for a personal hearing.
17.05.2006. The petitioners received a communication from Shri Atam Prakash,
Administrative Officer of the High Level Committee, advising the petitioners to
send another copy of their Memorandum dated October
26, 2005. Presumably it had been lost in the office of the Committee.
19.05.2006 Another revised Memorandum was sent to the Committee through Speedpost on
19.05.2006 which contained further request for personal hearing.
12.07.2006
23.10.2006 &
09.11.2006 Three more reminders were sent seeking a personal hearing and giving
important additional inputs in support of the facts stated in the revised
memorandum dated 18.05.2006.
17.11.2006 The Committee headed by Justice Sachar submitted biased and arbitrary report
with a predetermined mindset by denying to the petitioners an opportunity to
present their viewpoint and deliberately shutting out certain important facts and
submitted by the petitioners which resulted in gross violation of fundamental
right guaranteed under 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
……2007 Hence this present Writ Petition is being filed under article 226 of Constitution of
India for upholding the principle of natural justice and fundamental rights
guaranteed under Constitution because the said report dated 17.11.2006 has
violated the time-honoured principle of natural justice by denying to us equality of
treatment and concealing the truth which is bound to adversely affect the
multicultural and age old pluralistic ethos of India.

R.K. Ohri, IPS (Retd) D-6/13-D Vasant Vihar

Secretary General, New Delhi - 11057
Patriots' Forum Ph: 2614 2277 &41663278

IISSM/DEL/03/2007-PF January 29, 2007

Sub: Rejoinder to the Sachar Committee Report, issued by Patriots' Forum - our
humble request for clarification.

Sir,

4 of 27
 It is my privilege to forward herewith a copy of the Rejoinder issued by Patriots'
Forum to the Report of the High Level Committee, chaired by your honour, about the
status of Indian Muslims.
Kindly recall that we, members of the Forum, had submitted a Memorandum on
October 26, 2005, contesting the premise that Muslims are more disadvantaged than
Hindus, which was somehow lost in the Committee's office. Subsequently on your
specific advice we had submitted another Memorandum, a revised one, on May 18,
2006, which was followed up by a number of reminders seeking a personal audience
with you. Unfortunately despite a categorical commitment to consider our viewpoint,
conveyed by the Committee's Officer on Special Duty, Dr. Zafar Mahmood, vide his letter
dated 06-10-2005, the High Level Committee did not respond either to our
Memorandum, or to our repeated reminders.
Although the Committee met a number of groups and members of public, we
were not fortunate enough to receive any call from your office. Even Shri S.S. Gill, a
retired civil servant (just like many of us), was heard by you, as is evident from his
article published in The Times of India, New Delhi, on January 23, 2007, though he had
made no representation to the Committee. But Patriots' Forum was singularly denied the
opportunity to meet you despite making a detailed representation highlighting certain
important facts and figures. Mysteriously even the written assurance to consider our
viewpoint, given by your Officer on Special Duty, was not honoured.
A reading of the Committee's Report indicates that the facts submitted by the
Forum were never considered at all. On going through the Report I also found that the
document contains a number of instances of suppressio veri suggestio falsi, which have
been duly highlighted in the enclosed Rejoinder.
In the circumstances, on behalf of the Forum, I request you to kindly clarify the
substantive factual errors and flaws pointed out in the enclosed Rejoinder.

We further submit that our Forum will be too happy to join any discussion on the
issues highlighted by us at any public platform. At the same time your clarification on the
serious flaws in the Report will be greatly appreciated.

Hoping to hear from you soon and with regards,

Yours Sincerely
(R. K. Ohri)

Justice (Retd) Shri Rajindar Sachar

A-19 New Friends Colony,
NEW DELHI

Encl: As stated.

Copy, along with a copy of our Rejoinder and the relevant representation made on May
18, 2006, forwarded for information and necessary action to:

1. Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister.

2. Shri Shivraj V. Patil, Union Home Minister.
3. Shri Arjun Singh, Union HRD Minister.
4. Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Union Defence Minister.
5. Shri Antulay, Union Minister for Minority Affairs.
6. Shri L.K. Advani, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha.
7. Shri Jaswant Singh, Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha.
8. Shri Somnath Chatterjee, Speaker, Lok Sabha.
9. Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, UPA.
10. Shri M.K. Narayanan, National Security Adviser.
11. Shri V.K. Duggal, Union Home Secretary.
12. ShiI P.C. Haldar, Director, Intelligence Bureau.
5 of 27
(R.K. Ohri)

6 of 27
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ petition (Civil) No. of 2007

IN THE MATTER OF
Patriots Forum, through its Secretary General, Shri R.K. Ohri, D-6/13-D, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North
Block, New Delhi.

2. Office of the Prime Minister of India,

South Block, New Delhi.

3. Justice (Retd) Rajindar Sachar.

Former Chairperson, Prime Minister’s High Level
Committee for inquiring into Social, Economic and
Educational Status of the Muslim Community,
A-14, New Friends Colony, New Delhi

……Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF

ARTICLE 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 & 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AND IN THE MATTER OF

THE REPORT DATED 17.11.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE

HEADED BY JUSTICE (RETD) RAJINDAR SACHAR TO PRIME MINISTER.

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH XXXV OF

THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 1966.

To

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED. MOST RESPECTFULLY

SHEWETH:

1. That the petitioner, Patriots’ Forum, is a non-profit charitable trust and is registered in the office
of Sub Registrar, New Delhi.
2. That on 09.03.2005 Office of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India had constituted a seven
member High Level Committee chaired by Justice (Retd.) Rajindar Sachar (referred to as
‘Sachar Committee) to inquire into the Social, Economic and Educational status of Muslim
Community of India and prepare a report. A true typed copy of notification is appended as
ANNEXURE P-1.

3. It is respectfully submitted that in a country teeming with the poor and the indigent, the reasons
for appointing a Committee solely to assess the socio-economic conditions of only one

7 of 27
 community, namely; Muslims, while ignoring the deprived segments of other communities, was
prima facie a motivated political move.

4. That the terms of reference of the said Notification included a specific provisions in para 2(a)
of the directing the Committee to undertake “an intensive literature survey to identify the
published data, articles and research on relative social, economic and educational status of
Muslims in India” .

5. That Para 5 of the Notification authorized the High Level Committee to co-opt or invite such
person(s) at it deems appropriate, to participate in any of its meeting as special invitee(s).

6. It is submitted that the aforesaid two provisions were intended to empower the Committee for
arriving at the truth after considering the views of all those who wanted to submit representations
containing important facts and data and draw attention to the available research studies and
seminar papers, etc. This was also clear from that fact that the Committee had issued
advertisements in a number of newspapers inviting representations from all those who wanted to
make written and/or oral submissions.

7. That Pursuant to Para 5 of the notification the Sachar Committee issued advertisements in more
than 50 newspapers/ journals inviting representations from all those who wanted to make written
or oral submissions for assessing the socio economic backwardness of the Muslim Community.
A true and correct copy of the advertisement dated …… published in more than 50
newspapers / journals is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-2 to this petition.

8. That in response to the said advertisement the petitioner wrote two letters dated 20.09.2005 and
3.10.2005, respectively requesting the Chairman to give them an opportunity to meet him
personally for representing their viewpoint on the subject along with a written submission. True
copy of the letters dated 20.09.2005 and 3.10.2005 are appended herewith as ANNEXURE P-3
(COLLY) to this writ petition.

9. That on 06.10.2005 Dr. S. Zafar Mahmood, Joint Secretary of Govt. of India and Officer on
Special Duty in the Committee’s Secretariat vide his letter dated October 5, 2005 advised the
petitioners to FAX or send by post their representation and assuring therein that the Committee
“will be happy to consider” their representation.

10. Accordingly, a fact and data packed Memorandum dated 26.10.2005 was submitted to the
Sachar Committee by SpeedPost Acknowledgement due which was duly received in the
Committee’s secretariat on 10.11.2005.

11. That another letter was written by the petitioner on November 7, 2005, requesting for personal
hearing to which there was no response from the Committee. Thereafter, on 18.04.2006, after
waiting for Committee’s reply for 24 weeks, once again another reminder was sent to Justice
Sachar on April 18, 2006, drawing attention to the points raised in Memorandum dated
26.10.2005 and praying for a personal hearing. A true copy of the reminder dated 18.04.2006 is
appened herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-4.

12. On 17.04.2006 a letter was received from Shri Atam Prakash, Administrative Officer of Sachar
Committee advising the petitioner to send another copy of his Memorandum dated 26.10.2005.
Presumably the Memorandum in question had been lost in the office of the High Level

8 of 27
 Committee. A true copy of the said Communication dated 17.04.2006 is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE P-5.

13. In response to the aforesaid communication a revised Memorandum dated 18.05.2006 was sent
to the Committee by SpeedPost on 19-05-2006 along with yet another prayer for personal
hearing. A copy of the said revised Memorandum dated 18.05.2006 is enclosed herewith as
ANNEXURE P-6.

14. That subsequently three more reminders were sent on 12.07.2006, 23.10.2006 and 07.11.2006,
making fervent prayers for personal hearing and giving additional inputs in support of the facts
already submitted in the revised Memorandum dated 18.05.2006.

15. That on 17.11.2006 the High Level Committee, headed by Justice Sachar, submitted to the
Prime Minister a highly biased and arbitrary report with a predetermined political mindset. It was
prepared by deliberately shutting out important facts and data highlighted by the petitioners in
their Memoranda and by denying to the petitioner an opportunity to present the viewpoint of
their Thinktank thereby violating the Right to Equality guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19,
21 and 25 of the Constitution of India. It is respectfully submitted that despite innumerable
repeated requests neither the petitioners were given any audience, nor were their humble
submissions ever considered which discriminatorywhich discriminatory treatment was in sharp
contrast to the the favourable treatment accorded to many others by granting them audience, as
admitted in the Acknowledgment page of the report.

16. It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid Memorandum dated 18.05.2006 highlighted some
very important and relevant facts, duly supported by statistical data, critical analysis, including
the sources of inputs, which established that as a community the Hindus are more
disadvantaged than the Muslims. The contents of the said Memorandum and those reiterated in
reminders may kindly be read and treated as part of this Petition. For the sake of brevity these
are not being reproduced here in detail.

17. Hence this present Writ Petition is being filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India for
upholding the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution. It is
respectfully submitted that the palpably biased and seriously flawed findings of Sachar
Committee are bound to adversely affect the unity of Indian nation and destroy the age old
pluralistic ethos of India, apart from violating the right of equality enshrined in the
Constitution.

18. That the petitioner has not filed any other Writ Petition in this Hon’ble Court, or any other Court
anywhere in India, for the same or similar relief.

19. That being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned illegal, biased and arbitrary report submitted on
17.11.2006 the petitioner is seeking the present Writ petition on the following grounds, amongst
other:

GROUNDS :
(A) Because the said illegal, arbitrary and biased report has been prepared by Justice Sachar
Committee by recourse to a highly convoluted methodology which not only violated the
principle of natural justice, but deliberately denied to the Petitioners the Right to Equality and
equal treatment by shutting out from consideration certain important facts and documented
data submitted by the Petitioners in

9 of 27
 their two Memoranda dated 26th October 2005 and 18th May 2006. Despite giving a written
assurance to the Petitioners to consider their representation, the Committee deliberately
denied us an audience. Apart from concealing important truth and documented date, the report
is full of several instances of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi, as highlighted in the Rejoinder
issued by the Petitioners and sent to Justice Sachar on 29th January 2006 and copies of which
were endorsed to the Prime Minister, Minister of Minority Affairs, Home Minister and several
other concerned government functionaries.

(B) Because the Committee functioned in an unlawful manner by resorting to a partisan policy of
pick and chose while considering various representations thereby transgressing the standard
procedure followed in all such inquiries, and further by denying equality of treatment to the
Petitioners. The report submitted by the Committee was palpably illegal and unconstitutional.

Because the Committee failed to formulate any standard norms, based on scientific analysis, for
adjudging “backwardness”, and blithely resorted to extensive fudging of facts and concealment of
truth, its findings are highly biased and arbitrary. The Committee totally failed to appreciate the
submissions made in our Memorandum dated 18-05-2006, which highlighted the following facts, duly
supported by statistical data and critical analysis (including the sources of inputs used):

i) That the incidence of infant and child mortality per 1000 births is substantially higher
among the Hindus than the Muslims, the overall differential being of the order of 29 to 30
percent in favour of Muslims. It is a universally recognized fact that the higher incidence of
Infant and Child mortality is a direct consequence of poor nutritional intake resulting from
acute poverty. In addition between 1991 and 1999, there was a steep increase in this
differential in Infant and Child Mortality of the two communities which indicated a sharp
decline in the economic status of Hindus 74 percent of whom are trapped in terminally ill
rural sector dependant on agriculture. The following data compiled by S. Irudaya Rajan
from District Fertility Estimates give the overall picture of the incidence of Infant and Child
Mortality for Hindus and Muslims of India:

Estimates of Infant and Child Mortality for

Hindus and Muslims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Source Infant Mortality Child Mortality
Hindus Muslims Hindus Muslims
Census 1991 74 68 97 91

NFHS- I
(1992- 93) 90 77 121 106

NFHS – 2 77 59 107 83
(1998-99)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The above data is based on 2 National Family Health Surveys, NFHS –I and NFHS -2, held in the
years 1992 and 1998-99 respectively. A third survey was undertaken recently but its full result are
yet to be known. The term Infant Mortality relates to death of children below one year age per 1000
births, while Child Mortality connotes death of children below 5 years, but above the age of one year
per 1000 births.

10 of 27
 The above data reveals that in 1998-99 for the country as a whole, there wee 77 cases of
Infant Mortality (per 1000) among Hindus as against only 59 case among Muslims, thereby revealing
more than 30 percent higher
incidence of Infant Mortality among Hindus vis a vis Muslims. As regards the incidence of Child
Mortality, according to NFHS -2 (1998-99) there were 107 cases of Child Mortality per 1000 births
among Hindus compared to a meager 83 such cases among Muslims. In other words, the incidence
of Child Mortality, too, is nearly 29 percent higher amongst Hindus as compared to the Muslims. It
issimple commonsense and a universally recognized principle that higher incidence of Infant and
Child Mortality is a direct consequence of poor ntritionl intake caused by acute poverty and inability to
access proper medical care. In terms of these two important human development indicators the
Hindus are definitely worse off than the Muslims. As pointed out in our Memorandum the manifest
difference in the incidence of Child Mortality between Hindus and Muslims further widened to the
disadvantage of Hindus between 1991 and 1999 due to sharp decline in incomes in the agricultural
sector due to a massive decline in productivity in the agricultural sector due to dwindling investment in
agriculture. This truth is fully reflected in suicides by more than 15,000 impoverished farmers, mostly
Hindus whose rightful claim for “affirmative action” to ameliorate their lot has been ignored because
they happen to be too poor and disorganized to act as a solid “vote bank” for politicians and have not
learnt the devious art of practicing ‘grievance politics’.

Degree of urbanization, or the relative proportion of a community living in urban areas is the
third important globally accepted human development indicator. According to Census 2001, barely 26
percent Hindus live in urban areas (i.e., only 21,63,15,573 out of a total of 82,75,78,868 population),
while the Muslim percentage of urban population is much higher at 36 percent (i.e., 4,93,93,496
urban dwellers out of a population of 13,81,88,240) which comes to a whopping advantage of 10
percent for Muslims. This most important human development indicators was deliberately
downplayed by the Committee even though its Member Secretary, Dr. Abu Saleh Sharrif, happened
to be the Chief Economist of the National Council of Applied Economic Research. As emphasized by
Goldman Sachs, a professionally acclaimed group of economists, according to economic theory
urbanization is not only an important barometer of prosperity, but the vital key to speedy economic
development. In their Global Economics Paper No. 152 (India’s Rising Growth Potential) Goldman
Sachs have pointed out that “the movement of surplus labour from low-productivity agriculture to high
productivity industry and services contributes about 1 percentage point to annual GDP growth”
because in India “productivity in industry and services is more than 4 times that in agriculture which
employs nearly 60% of the labour force”. Emphasizing the strong correlation between urbanization
and economic prosperity, the report highlights the fact that South Korea has a high urban population
of 81%, Malaasia 67%, China 43 percent while India has only 29 percent population living in urban
areas. Clearly there is a very powerful link between degree of urbanization and economic prosperity
of a community, or country. The Goldman Sachs Report proclaims on page 18 that “the 21st century is
set to become India’s ‘urban century’, with more people living in cities and towns than in the
countryside for the first time in history”. It estimates that another “140 million rural dwellers will move
to urban aeas by 2020, while a massive 700 million people will urbanise by 2050”. It is a simple
matter of using commonsense to assess which community, the Muslims or the Hindus, is better
placed economically and well set on the future road to greater prosperity. Surely with the Member
Secretary of Sachar Committee, Dr. Abu Saleh Sharrif being the Chief Economist of National Council
of Applied Economic Research, could not have missed out, unless the intention was to deliberately
shut out the inconvenient truth from public discourse. We submit that the member Secretary and
Chairperson were fully aware that urbanization is the biggest driver of economic development and
prosperity. But they chose to suppress this important human development indicators favouring
Muslims, for reasons best known to them. Kindly note that the Muslim percentage of urbanization is
36%, barely 7 percentage points behind China, while the Hindu percentage or urbanization
languishing at 26% is not only 10% short of the Muslims, but is lagging behind China by a huge
11 of 27
margin of 17%. What better proof is required to prove that the Hindus are far more disadvantaged
than the Muslims. No wonder they have much higher incidence of Infant and Child Mortality than
Muslims.

The fact that there is hardly any difference in the economic status of Hindus and Muslims was
further corroborated by the results of a recent NCAER survey covering 63,000 households spread
over 1,976 villages, 250 districts and 2,255 urban wards (342towns) conducted by the Senior Fellow
of NCAER, Rajesh Shukla, which gave a direct lie to the seriously flawed findings of Sachar
Committee. A copy of the aforesaid survey published in Economic Times, New Delhi, on April 5,
2007, is enclosed for ready reference. Incidentally both Dr. Sharrif (Member Secretary of the
Committee) who took recourse to suppressio veri for concealing this important truth and Rajesh
Shukla. who blew the lid off Dr. Sharrif’s bluff, belong to the same organisationa, namely, National
Council of Applied Economic Research.

Though para 2(a) of the Notification dated March 9, 2005, specifically directed the Committee
to undertake “an intensive literature survey to identify the published data, articles and research on
relative social, economic and educational status of Muslims in India”, the Committee did nothing of
that kind. In fact, the Committee deliberately ignored the two facts-and-data-packed research papers
presented in a Workshop-cum-Seminar on the subject held on September 2, 2006, at the prestigious
Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, which comprehensively rebutted the Committee’s
pre-conceived politico-religious thesis that Muslims were economically and educationally
disadvantaged compared to Hindus. One of the Papers written and circulated by Prof Sanjay Kumar
(Fellow, Centre for Study of Developing Societies), based on a survey of more than 27,000
respondents, categorically stated that “there is hardly any difference among the level of educational
attainments among Hindus and Muslims”. It further concluded that “contrary to the common belief that
Muslims are poorer compared to Hindus, the N.E.S. Survey (National Elections Study Survey)
indicates hardly any difference in the level of economic prosperity among people from the two
communities” which fully suppoted the submissions made by the Petitioner in their Memoranda. Yet
another important conclusion highlighted in Shri Sanjay Kumar’s research paper was that “at the
national level the proportion of those who would fall in very poor class is more among Hindus
compared to the Muslims”. (A summary of Shri Sanjay Kumar’s Paper is appended as Annexure
…….) (Annexure ‘B’ of the printed Rejoinder to be added). There could be no better proof of the
malafide intent of the Committee which chose to ignore these facts presented in a packed seminar
hall of IIPA, and which fully supported the submissions made by the Petitioners.

The average life expectancy at birth is yet another globally recognized indicator of socio-
economic status of a community. In this too the Muslims are ahead of the Hindus. As calculated by
two well known professional demographers in their research study pubished in Economics & Political
Weekly, January 29m 2005 (page 390), the average life expectancy at birth for Muslims was 1.2
years higher than that of the Hindus – the respective averages being 62.6 years for Muslims as
against 61.4 years for the Hindus.

There is not much difference in the literacy ratios of the two communities, the average literacy
among Hindus being 65.1 percent (i.e., barely 0.3 percet higher than the national average of 64.8), as
against 59.1 percent among Muslims. There are, however, substantial variations in the percentages
of literacy from State to State, as revealed by Census 2001. According to Statement 8 of Census
2001 (Religio Data Report) there are at least 13 States and Union Territories, including several large
states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and
Gujarat where the Muslims are ahead of the Hindus in literacy. Even female literacy among Muslims
is higher than among Hindus in 13 States and U.Ts., namely Orissa, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Pondicherry, Daman &
12 of 27
Diu, Dadra Nagar Haveli and Andamans & Nicobar islands. Interestingly, in Andhra Pradesh, where
the government is hell bent on granting 5 percent reservations to Muslims for political reasons the
percentage of literacy among Muslims is higher than the Hindus to the extent of 7 percent, while in
female literacy the Muslims have an advantage of 10 percent over Hindu women.

Admittedly according to the NSS surveys the per capita income of Muslims is lower than that of
Hindus. But there are two critical differences between the socio-economic parameters of the two
communities which Sachar Committee has deliberately concealed. One crucial factor is the
comparatively larger size of Muslim households when compared to Hindus which increases the
dependency burden on the breadwinner. On an average every Muslim family has one extra member
to feed that the comparable Hindu or Christian household due to poor acceptance of small family
norm. According to National Family Health Survey- 2 and Census 2001 data, on average every
Muslim woman is giving birth to at least one more child than her Hindu counterpart. The second
important reason, revealed by Census 2001, is the abysmally low work participation by Muslim
women which is nearly 50% lower than that of Hindu women, the respective ratios being 14.1
percent for Muslim women, as against 27.5 for Hindu women. The main reason is the diktats issued
by the community’s clergy and scholars forbidding acceptance of family planning and the insistence
that women must stay at home. Despite repetitively harping on its politically propagated sob story of
Muslim poverty, the Committee deliberately concealed the true reasons for the globally prevalent twin
maladies of abnormally high birth rate and poor female work participation in the Muslim community. A
simple real life example, based on Census 2001 and NSS data, will highlight the precise problem. Let
us assume that in one locality 2 families are lving: one Hindu and another Muslim; The Hindu family,
Mr and Mrs Menon, have 2 children and both husband and wife are working othat he dependency
burden comes to 1:1 (i.e., 2 working hands and 2 dependant children). Along side is a Muslim family,
Mr and Mrs Abdul who have 3 children, but only Mr. Abdul works so that the dependency burden
comes to 1:5 (ie., one breadwinner and 4 dependants, because Mrs Abdul does not work). Now
Abdul and his family are angry that they don’t have the same comforts as Menons have. And there
are many Abduls who want to have comparable peer capita income and economic status, but without
agreeing to reduce the size of their families and without allowing their wives to go out to work
because of objections by the clergy and community leaders. The question is how is it possible to
ensure the fulfilment of that kind of unreasonable demand. What Justice Sachar Committee has
done is pure and simple bluster. After cleverly concealing the truth, the recipe offered by the
Committee is that the government should provide reservations to the community of Abduls, bestow
monetary benefits on them and give them cheaper bank loans, etc., to improve their lot - all at the
expense of the tax payer. But Sachar Committee dare not advise them to opt for small family norm,
nor encourage their womenfolk to come out of veil and go out for work. That would be a politically
incorrect formula !

The scriptural disapproval of women going out for work has 3 adverse side-effects which have
the effect of giving a slant to the statistical data. First, it results in lower household earnings causing
lower per capit income. Second, it pulls down the percentage of overall employment in the community
because the average level of employment is the average of the sum total of the total work
participation by both the men and the women of a community. Third, it tends to show a higher level of
unemployment in the community due to a large percentage of non-working women. Rationally
speaking, due to adverse impact of these 3 factors, the statistical data of unemployment and per
capita income of Muslims cannot be compared with similar indices pertaining to Hindus, Christians
and other communities whose womenfolk don’t suffer from such religion-based disabilities.
Our Memoranda specifically pointed out that the Hindu society has a thick creamy layer,
mostly city based, whose huge income gets distributed over the vast Hindu population, mostly poor,
spread out in rural areas. That creates an impression that as a community the Hindus are more
prosperous than the Muslims. Out of 311 rupee billionaires in the country nearly 300 happen to be
13 of 27
Hindus, though a forward-looking Muslim entrepreneur, Azim Premji of WIPRO was till recently the
richest Indian billionaire.

In one of our reminders dated November 7, 2006, it was highlighted that the socio-economic
backwardness of Muslims is not an India specific problem. It is a global phenomenon, as pointed out
by a bold Pakistan-based analyst, Dr. Farrukh Saleem in his article. One major reason of social
backwardness is the rampant gender discrimination and regressive practices imposed by the
community’s clerics. The social status of a community is a direct function of its socio-religious mores,
especially the treatment meted out to its womenfolk in the matter of gender equality and socio-
economic emancipation.
By deliberrtely concealing the truth and extensive recourse to suppresio veri, suggestion falsi,
the Committee has tried to build up communal frenzy among Muslims of India. Instead of telling the
community and their aggressive leaders that in the matter of 4 globally recognized important human
development indicators, the Muslims are ahead of the Hindus, and that their lower per capita income
was a direct consequence of larger family size and poor female work participation the Committee has
resurrected the divisive politics of grievance-centric minority agitation. That is the most unfortunate
fall out of the highly biased Sachar Committee Report which adverse effect needs to be remedied
forthwith before it causes further damage to the unity of the nation.
(C) Because the Committee totally overlooked the fact that right from the beginning of Indira
Sawhney to the recent case of quota for OBC this Hon’ble Court has been of firm opinion that
no reservations on the basis of religion can be provided and the same view was uphold by this
Hon’ble Court in the case of the bid of Andhra Pradesh to provide 5% reservations for
Muslims.
(D) That Sachar Committee has made wanton misuse of their office for crafting a palpably false
and arbitrary and highly biased report the long term consequences of which will promote the
politics of divisiveness, disunity and acrimony between various communities. This report has
been prepared by denial of equal opportunity to the petitioners and concealment of important
facts and well-documented data in an arbitrary and unconstitutional manner. …

PRAYER
The petitioner herein, therefore, most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly:-
a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or directions, or order declaring the report submitted to the Prime
Minster on 17-11-2006 by the High Level Committee headed by Justice (Retd.)Rajindar
Sachar as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the law of land and constitutional propriety.
b) issue any other writ/s or order/s or direction/s declaring that the recommendations made in the
aforesaid Sachar Committee report, submitted on 17-11-2006 to the Prime Minister should not
be acted upon till the decision of the present Writ Petition.
c) Pass any other/ further order, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit & proper in the fact and
circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS AS IN DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER
PRAY.

DRAWN ON:

FILED ON :
119

Chapter 8.

SECULAR GRAFFITI AND HINDU DILEMMA

14 of 27
 "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory.
Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

- Sun Tzu
A famous Chinese strategist and philosopher.

--------

Barely 57 years after independence, today the Indian nation once again stands at the cross
roads of history. For centuries, nay millennia, the Hindu faith has been the fulcrum of Indian
civilization. Despite one thousand years of slavery and struggle, the sacred tradition of Hindu dharma
continues to be the most important connecting link between its past and present and also between
the diverse people living in various parts of the country. The glory of Ramayan and Gita, as surely as
the powerful preachings of Sikh Gurus and Mahavira and Buddha, resonate throughout the length
and breadth of this ancient land and millions of Indians draw inspiration from the wisdom enshrined in
our holy scriptures. Unlike semitic religions, Hindu dharma is not a monolithic formation; it is an all-
compassing religion. It has a unique element of elasticity and cosmic federalism. A Hindu can be a
Jain, a Buddhist or a Sikh - or even an atheist. There is no central religious authority in Hindu faith
which can ex-communicate or throw out anyone from Hindu fold, not even an anti-Hindu atheist, from.
In that sense it is a unique religion and the absence of dogmas makes it almost unparalleled spiritual
faith completely free of the intolerance often encountered in many monotheistic religions like
Christianity and Islam. Perhaps the Hindu mode of worshipping multiple deities, like Vishnu, Siva,
Lakshmi, Parvati, Ganesha, Brahma, Saraswati and innumerable other and
120
goddesses, including Gautam Buddha and Tirthankaras, representing multifarious strands of spiritual
thought has made it much more tolerant of other people's religious beliefs and ideas than any other
faith worldwide. If man, as they say, has cast God in his own mould, then it stands to reason that
those who are prepared to live their lives ethically and by accepting harmonious existence of multiple
gods and goddeses in their pantheon will have no quarrel with the existence among them of people
owing allegiance to diverse beliefs. When a number of deities representing God can co-exist
harmoniously, how can their followers be dogmatic and refuse to accept multiculturalism or co-
existence with other faiths ? The most distinctive feature of Hinduism is that it has numerous powerful
components of secularism. In that sense it is much more than mere religion. It is a complete way of
life, as described by that eminent philosopher and India's former President, late Dr. Radhakrishnan,
because of its higher sensitivity and broad sweep of eternal and all encompassing humanism. The
Hindu dharma has fairly intense feelings for all living beings, including the lowest of the lowly
creatures, and even mundane things, both spiritual and worldly. For a Hindu the guiding principle of
life is "dharma" which entails subscribing to all those principles which are fit for adoption by
householders in their day-to-day life. The Hindu concept of "dharma" is not limited to any sectarian or
doctrinaire religious belief; it consists of universally accepted moral principles, as correctly
emphasised by Swami Vivekananda. It is entirely due to the grandeur of the prevalent Hindu ethos
that the Indian civilization has centuries old tradition of secularism and pluralism - almost unheard of
in the narrow universe of monotheistic creeds. And that is how the Indian people, predominently
Hindus and Sikhs, opted for a secular constitution despite going through a blood-soaked partition of
121
their motherland in 1947. By the very nature of its cosmic beliefs, Hinduism accepts change as an
important fact of life. Since times immemorial the Hindu philosophy,
enshrined in the Vedas and Upanishadas, has regarded change as the only immutable law of life, a
fact repetitively emphasised in several holy texts. Incidentally the strong belief in change as an
important aspect of our existence alone can explain the prowess shown by the Hindus in quickly
15 of 27
mastering the languages of even the marauding aliens, like the Mughals and the English, so fast and
so well. Despite centuries of slavery and economic deprivation, this acceptance of change as an
important facet of life has enabled the modern Hindu youth, spurred by the centuries old tradition of
worshipping Saraswati, the Goddess of Knowledge, to burst upon the global scene as experts in
Information Technology and numerous other scientific disciplines, including surgery, biotechnology
and engineering. That is a tribute to the glory of Hindu dharma, the glory of India, my motherland,
your motherland and motherland of one billion citizens inhabiting this vast country.
Unfortunately long centuries of slavery, repetitive overdoses of non-violence and abject
tolerance of tyranny have emasculated the Hindu society. We have touched a new low of cowardice
and pusillanimity to such an extent that now Hindu masses do not react to persistent attacks on
Hindu identity and civilizational values. For instance, the terrorists attacking Hindu temples, including
Raghunathji temple in Jammu and Akshardham temple in Ahmedabad, and those storming the Indian
Parliament, have remained unpunished. No other civilization, no other nation, would have allowed the
country sponsoring such crimes to strut around without being penalised . Obviously the

122
over emphasis on tolerance and acceptance of secularism as part of our heritage have now come to
threaten the very existence of Hinduism. Today within India itself the Hindu society faces multiple
dangers from different quarters some of which are quite daunting and mindboggling.
A totally inexplicable and peculiar threat to the Hindu identity comes from a
motley crowd of leftist Hindus masquerading as secularists who not only try to heap scorn and insults
on Hindu faith and Hindutava, but invariably use drivel and bucolic epithets against anyone trying to
speak up for Hinduism. The recourse to secular graffiti has spread quite rapidly and is now
threatening to assume near epidemic proportions. Anyone who reads English newspapers, or
watches television programmes, can notice the widespread use of drivel against Hindu ethos, Hindu
scriptures, and our ancient civilizational values. To cite just one concrete instance, on May 3, 2004, a
prominent English daily published with banner headlines a lead story captioned "No full stops in Rig
Veda" alluding to rigging of polls during the general elections in a State notorious for lawlessness as
"Rig Veda", thus pouring wanton ridicule over the sentiments of Hindus for whom Rig Veda is the
source of spiritual solace. Apparently neither the Editor of the newspaper, nor the reporting journalist,
bothered a wee bit about the insult which they were heaping on Rig Veda, a holy scripture held in
high esteem by millions of Hindus, and even by scores of non-Hindu scholars and literatteurs
worldwide. They could take this liberty, and merrily get away with it, solely because of the Hindu habit
of tolerating demeaning insults and heaping of gross scorn on them and

123
their scriptures. Incidentally the reporting journalist was a Hindu too, though perhaps more in name
than in deed. Another glaring instance of pouring scorn on the ancient
Hindu ethos is the daily triviliasation and devaluation of the term saffron by English media.
Throughout Indian history saffron colour (known as 'kesariya' in most vernacular languages) has
been the representative symbol of the Hindu and Sikh valour and their spirit of sacrifice. During
medieval times when hordes of Muslim invaders plundered and pillaged cities and towns, the saffron
coloured attire (or kesariya bana) invariably stood for the daring and resolve of Indian soldiers and
peasantry to offer sacrifices for protection of their motherland and dharma. The earlier generation of
freedom fighters and the founding fathers of our constitution knew it very well. It is not for nothing
that the colour saffron occupies the pride of place in our national flag, right on top, above every other
colour. Additionally, saffron, or kesar, is by far the most sweet smelling condiment, sort of a herb,
extensively used in the ancient Indian cuisine. But all these ancient and civilizationally sacred
aspects of saffron do not matter for the graffiti-writing leftists and secularists! Day in and day out they
have been using the word saffron in a pejorative sense. Such indeed is their contempt for India's past
16 of 27
that they treat not only saffron, but nearly all Hindu ethos as clap-trap fit to be thrown into the dustbin
of history. Incidentally, only Islamic history has the legend of holding colour saffron in contempt and
disdain. Prophet Muhammed specifically forbade the wearing of saffron coloured garments and had
reportedly chided some of his followers who dared to wear saffron coloured garments. Isn't it
remarkable that the same degree of Islamic ridicule for saffron has been copied by our self-styled
secular intellectuals who have reduced the

124
word saffron to some kind of trivial trash ? Just remember how during the recent beheadings of
scores of innocent civillians during the Iraq war, often the condemned
prisoners were shown in terror-laden video-tapes wearing saffron-coloured clothes, as a mark of their
being "dhimmies" ! The utter contempt in which leftists and perverse secularists hold the colour
saffron, the top pride of our national flag and the ancient Indian ethos of daring and sacrifice,
underlines the growing depth of degradation.
The greatest pity, however, is that most of those using drivel against Hindu ethos and
Hindutava come from Hindu parentage and invariably carry Hindu names. Yet
they display amazing insensitivity to the Hindu sentiments. Could there be anything more shameful
and disheartening than that? It needs no elaboration that the Hindu ethos and Hindutava are two
sides of the same coin. And the surprise of surprises is that neither Hindu intellectuals, nor the
somnolent Hindu middle class, find themselves equal to the task of countering the relentless
onslaught on their faith and scriptures by Hindu-hating Hindu secularists. Granted that the Hindu
intellectuals cannot and must not stoop to the low level of those who regularly take recourse to scorn
and abuse to denigrate Hinduism. But not standing up even to register well-articulated protests
against incessant drivel and calumny shows the Hindu society in poor light, especially those who
claim to be its intellectual and political leaders.
The insertion of secularism as an essential feature of Indian Constitution in 1976 during
Emergency gave a weird slant to the body politics of the country. Today secularism is the most
misused word by various political parties and leaders of India's political theatre. In no other country
you will find the mainstream politicians using the term secularism so frequently, so unabashedly and
so deviously as in India. Interestingly
125
most politicians wearing secularism on their sleeves are leaders of patently casteist and communal
political outfits and some of them are neck deep into the quagmire of blatant
corruption. They have no compunction in singing paens to secularism while donning skull-caps for
attending religion-denominated Iftaar parties, or haranguing aimlessly in patently caste-based
conferences like the Rajput Mahasabha, Yadava Sammelan, Brahmin Sabha, or a Shia or Sunni
congregation. They defend with great gusto the grant of religion-specific discriminatory Haj subsidy,
but oppose common civil code and even use the funds collected from Hindu Devasthan Trusts for
doling out funds to madarasas without batting an eyelid. And yet they and their collaborators, mostly
communists and leftist obscurantists, keep strutting across the political firmament wearing pseudo-
secular plumes ! Surprisingly these political busy-bodies consider caste-oriented political philosophy
and Islam-oriented minorityism as essential components of their secular credo. Despite their tall
claims the fact remains that today India is anything but a secular country. Frankly, the Indian state
does not fulfil even the two elementary postulates of secularism. First uniform application of laws to
all citizens irrespective of their caste or religion; and second, the concept of equality before law.
Among specific instances of religion-based discrimination institutionalised by the Constitution are the
provisions made in Articles 30 and 370 which promote discrimination on the basis of religion and
territorial identity. For instance under Article 370 no law passed by the Indian Parliament is applicable
to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, unless it is duly re-passed, or approved by the State legislature.
Similarly our constitution allows blatant discrimination by certain state governments between Indian

17 of 27
 125
nationals in the matter of purchase, sale and transfer of property on the questionable ground of
domicile. The very idea of domicile-based discrimination is a flagrant violation
of the conceptual formulation of secularism. Deliberate non-implementation for the last five decades
of Article 44 which stipulates the enactment of a uniform civil code for all citizens, irrespective of their
religion or caste is yet another example, and a glaring one at that, of the Indian state functioning in an
anti-secular and communally partisan manner. In India almost all essential components of the secular
ideal are more honoured in breach than in observance.
Let us make a cursory comparison of our "perverse secularism" with the secular framework of
the United Kingdom, a country often cited as role model for India's parliamentary democracy. In the
U.K. uniform civil and criminal laws have been enacted for all religious groups and communities and
these are equitably applied to all citizens, without making any exception. In the eyes of the law all
citizens are equal irrespective of their colour, sex, religious beliefs, or modes of worship. Equal
respect for and equal treatment of people belonging to diverse religious groups is the quintessential
hallmark of secularism. Unfortunately that high ideal, a vital component of the secular ideology is
totally missing in Indian theory and practice of secularism. The constitutional and legal position of
secularism is more or less the same in almost all European democracies and America. Yet the British
commitment to the secular ideal has not deterred the state from declaring itself a "Christian" nation.
The monarch ascending the throne, whether the queen or the king, assumes the title of "Defender of
Faith". Interestingly in the U.K. all important state functions like the coronation and inauguration of the
Parliament session are accompanied by a Christian prayer, often led by Archbishop of Canterbury
126
himself. In sharp contrast, the system which India has evolved is a putrid and perverse secularism. It
could more appropriately be called pro-Muslim minorityism because
among all minorities it favours only the Muslims, while denying any favour to the Parsis or the
Christians. The banning of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses , under pressure of Muslim
fundamentalists, and overturning of Supreme Court's verdict in Shah Bano case by enacting a special
law to deny to divorced Muslim women their rightful claim to maintenance are glaring examples of
rampant communal discrimination taking precedence over even the basic principles of natural justice
and equality before law. These are often resorted to with impunity at the highest level.
While analysing the secular claims of Marxists and others of their ilk, Bhibhuti Bhusan Nandy
has drawn attention to certain pro-Muslim features prominently displayed by the leftist regime of
West Bengal. First, the Marxists adopt a discriminating approach in practising secularism. Though
the Marxist ministers boycott Saraswati Vandana at public functions and cut out invocation to
Ganesha from Chhou dance, they sit through recitation of Quran at public functions. (1) [1. Bibhuti
Bhusan Nandy, Secular, A Marxist Blend of Duplicity and Deception, The Statesman , New Delhi,
January 21, 2005]. Second the Marxists don't have the courage to take action against fundamentalist
Muslim clerics who recently issued a fatwa towards the end of year 2004 social and economic boycott
of twenty-odd families of Muslim bauls (bards singing religious songs) for singing Bengali songs
preaching peace and unity among followers of different faiths. The same Marxist regime had no
compunction in banning Tasleema Nasreen's Dwikhandata under pressure from fundamentalist
Mullahs who openly

127
instigated the faithful to assault and humiliate the author by blackening her face. One of the Mullahs,
a cleric preaching at Tipu Sultan mosque of Kolkata, even announced a
cash reward to any Muslim who was willing to intimidate Tasleema Nasreen by blackening her face.
Yet the self-styled secular government of West Bengal, swearing by the Marxist ideal, took no action
against the Muslim cleric who was prima facie guilty of committing a serious non-bailable offence
under sections 503, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Third, the State government spends more
than rupees 15 crores annually on madarasas which largely focuss on teaching Quran and Hadees,
18 of 27
including doctrine of jihad, to children. Prima facie any financing of hate-spewing communal ideology
militates against the secular ideal. It also goes against Marxist claim of promoting secular thought and
inter-community harmony. Astonishingly the same government treats Sanskrit seminaries (Tols) in a
highly discriminating manner by virtually refusing to support them financially. And the reason given for
this indefensible discrimination, according to a former head of the Sanskrit department of Calcutta
University (known for his proximity to the leftist regime), was that the teaching of Sanskrit would
increase the influence of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh ! In any case, Bibhuti Bhusan Nandy
deserves applause from all true secularists for exposing several interesting examples of Marxist
duplicity. Just sample this one which takes the cake for practising the fine-tuned strategem for
deceiving the electorate. . Some years ago, during an earlier Id celebrations, a former State minister
who is now a sitting Member of Parliament, led the namaz on the Red Road in full television glare. On
the face of it that may not be objectionable, though Marxist always emphasise the need to avoid
public participation in religious functions. The most shocking instance of Marxist deception to bluff
the
128
gullible Hindu voters was seen when the same Marxist politician during the last parliamentary
elections prefixed the word "comrade" to his name in the wall-writings
across the areas inhabited by the majority community (read Hindu), but dropped the Marxist prefix in
the wall-writings in the Muslim dominated areas where instead his name "Mohammed" was used to
garner votes of his community. The motto of the CPI(M) seems to be "secularism be damned, long
live Marxism!" The sole aim of Marxists appears to be to secure votes by hoodwinking both Hindu and
Muslim voters. Lastly, the Marxist regime has singularly failed to check Bangladeshi infiltration.
According to Nandy, the subversive and criminal activities of illegal immigrants have created such
insecurity in the border areas that many original inhabitants (read Hindus) have been forced to leave
the affected border areas "in droves", after selling their houses and lands at throw away prices to
Muslims. All this is being done by Marxists and their so-called secular supporters to secure the
crucial 22 percent Muslim votes to retain political power. (3) [3. Ibid].
Apart from the specific provision for application of different legal systems for the citizens
belonging to different faiths, one often hears frequent political pleas to introduce religion-based
reservations, as was recently attempted in 2004 in Andhra Pradesh and is now being frequently
mouthed and propagated in Bihar to win Muslim votes. It surely prove that India is a patently an anti-
secular country. In fact, the Indian brand of secularism emphasises only two things. First, the State
and its laws must discriminate against the majority community, that is the Hindus and allied religious
groups. Second, the state apparatus must be used to promote anti-Hindu thoughts and actions. As a
rule, secularism should mean complete disassociation of the State and its functionaries
129
from all religious beliefs and treating all religions in a just and equitable manner by according uniform
respect to all religious groups. But that is just not done.
This new breed of left-oriented Hindus has come to pose serious challenge to Indian
civilizational values. These votaries of pseudo-secularism have been on rampage now for quite
sometime past. To give a specific example, in December 2004 Rajiv Shukla, a Congress Member of
Parliament, put a question to Mani Shankar Aiyar, Petroleum Minister, about the efforts being made
to ensure availability of natural gas. The minister, true to his pro-Muslim fundamentalist stance,
replied: "We have to look to Allah to give us the gas, and we are looking for that." Perhaps he wanted
to allude to the fact that petroleum and natural gas have to be obtained from Muslim countries of
Middle East, where Allah reigns supreme. But that is no excuse for use of brazenly communal
verbiage by someone who claims to be secular. The penchant of the fundamentalist minister for
taking recourse to invoking Allah at the drop of a hat is both interesting and meaningful. It is no
coincidence that while pretending to be secular he has penned an anti-secular tome, The
Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist, to highlight his anti-Hindu thesis. An objective reading of
Aiyar's book gives the feeling of being led around on a guided tour of a hybrid construct of sham
19 of 27
secularism and Islamic fundamentalism. As pointed out by R. Jagannathan, Mani Aiyar's book shows
what is wrong with Indian brand of secularism. It calls for an extreme variety of secular doctrine in
which the entire burden of making secularism a success in India will have to be borne by the majority
community, i.e., the Hindus. He therefore concludes that Aiyar secularism is a fraud. Jagannathan is
absolutely right in concluding that apparently most Hindu critics of Hinduism are victims of their own
low sense of self-esteem. (4) [4. R.
130
Jagannathan, Microview, Why Mani Aiyar is wrong, The Business Standard, December 4, 2004,
p.11]. It goes without saying that all pseudo-secular Hindus suffer from a low sense of self-esteem;
otherwise they won't convert to join the tribe of Hindu-haters. It is because of this low self-esteem that
some pseudo-secular members of Hindu society want to promote secular fundamentalism in India in
the name of Allah - and perhaps with the help of Allah's followers, too. Apparently they have
immense faith in Allah, but none in Sri Rama or Sri Krishna, nor in Wahe Guru. No wonder Aiyar has
even a word of praise for Aurangzeb's bigoted zeal for demolishing Hindu and Jain temples. He has
no respect for history and historians and casually dismisses the well documented long list of atrocities
by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subjects as "imagined wrongs", By shunning any rational analysis of
the innumerable attempts of Muslim rulers to subjugate and convert Hindus as events of not much
historical consequence he has revealed his animus towards Hindu civilization. A great part of his
highly laboured treatise is short on logic and long on anti-Hindu diatribe. For that reason the broad
parameters of Aiyar's secular fundamentalism appear to be somewhat similar to Jinnah's deceptive
secularism which invariably gave preference to Muslim minority over the Hindu majority of the
undivided sub-continent. Left to themselves perhaps Aiyar and other members of pseudo-secular
brigade would like to supplant Hindu civilization root and branch from Indian soil and replace it with
crescentic cactus nurtured by them for decades. On seeing their pronounced hostility to Hinduism,
an ancient prayer comes to lips: "O God, save us from our friends, we shall take care of our
enemies."

131
Nevertheless credit must be given to Mani Shankar Aiyar for his frankness in openly
denouncing Hindu ethos while supporting the Muslim cause to the hilt, including the latter's non-
acceptance of small family norm and the custom of triple talaq prevalent in Islamic societies. Unlike
other pseudo-secularists he has displayed considerable
candidness by rallying forth to support his Muslim constituency and justified even demolition of
temples and gross atrocities on Hindus during the long span of Muslim rule. He is openly pro-Muslim
unlike most other pseudo secularist politicians who often try to hide their disdain for Hindu ethos
behind veiled rhetoric and inane platitudes.
Surely there is something morbid and grotesque in the present day spectacle of educated
Hindus berating their time-tested ancient ethos and civilizational values. In this
context, for the benefit of our younger generations it may be worthwhile to recall the exhortations of
Dr. Annie Besant, who was President of the Indian National Congress
in 1917, calling upon Hindus to defend and guard their faith and motherland. In a soul-stirring call to
the Hindu society she spoke thus :
" If Hindus don't maintain Hinduism, who shall save it ? If India's own children don't cling to
their faith, who shall guard it ? Indians alone can save India, and India and Hinduism are one."
But in today's decadent cultural milieu, dominated by pseudo-secular political buccaneers, who
bothers for Annie Besant ? Most pseudo-secularists won't even know who she was and how
enormous was her contribution to our freedom movement. The present tribe of sermonising
secularists is utterly incapable of comprehending the intensity of Annie Besant's commitment to Hindu
ethos of India and the sacrifices made by that great patriot and lakhs of Hindu foot soldiers for India's
freedom in last century.
20 of 27
 132
Interestingly during the recent spell of political adversity, when most Hindu intellectuals ran for
cover, it fell to the lot of an intrepid Sikh lady, Tavleen Singh, a famous no-nonesense columnist, to
take up cudgels on behalf of the meek and mild Hindu masses and wavering intellectuals. In a
stinging rejoinder to the relentless tirade of fundamentalist secular brigade on Hindu identity, she
wrote a refreshingly punch-packed article in the Indian Express in June 2004. (5) [5. Tavleen Singh,
'This inner voice too needs hearing', The Indian Express, June 13, 2004, p. 7]. Frankly without
quoting verbatim from her article, it would be impossible to do justice to Tavleen Singh's facile and
powerful pen. In her inimitable style she wrote thus :
"My inner voice is a bit of a nag and I might have told it to shut up, had Madhu Kishwar not
drawn my attention to the need for someone to examine how many times
the word Hindu is used pejoratively. You might find, she said ominously, that it is used mostly in
pejorative terms. After this I began to read and listen more carefully to "secular" voices and found to
my horror that Madhu was right, Hindu fanatic, Hindu fundamentalism, Hindu nationalist, Hindutava
mostly, that is how the word Hindu gets used and nearly always pejoratively."
Tavleen continues candidly and boldly. "I am not a Hindu, but with this I have a serious
problem because the debate appears no longer confined to the cloistered world of priests, or even the
self-serving ones of politics; it has expanded into a challenge to Hindu civilization. So one of our new
secular ministers tells us that the Sindhu Darshan festival, started by the last government to celebrate
the river India gets her name from, will be made less communal." "Excuse me?" (6) [6. Ibid]. She
rightly points out that no Indian can be proud of our glorious heritage if he or she knows nothing about
the roots
133
of Hindu civilization. Unfortunately we Indians have denied our glorious heritage for the last fifty
years. Drawing attention to the havoc caused to the world by Semitic religions, she concludes that
"Hindu civilization is something of which I am very proud of. If that
is evidence of my being "communal", then my inner voice tells me, so be it." (7) [7.Ibid.].
One must salute Tavleen Singh for giving a befitting reply to the reams of secular graffiti
poured out and circulated endlessly by perverse secularists and leftist rabble rousers all over the
country.
The most important threat to the Hindu society, however, comes from the fast changing
demography of the country. Adverse demographic is not merley a challenge to Hindus, it is a
challenge to the entire Indian nation, including the Sikhs, the Jains, the
Buddhists and the Christians. In the long run it will pose a challenge even to the existence of our pro-
Muslim secular fundamentalists and comrades, as already analysed and set out in a previous
chapter. They have only to look at the happenings in the next-door Bangladesh where "Banglabhai",
a typical Islamist phenomenon, is busy hunting the communists and leftists, along with the usual
suspects, the Hindu infidels.
The day of reckoning for Indian society is drawing close because of the looming threat of
adverse demographics which could make the Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and allied religious groups lose
majority status in their own homeland, or at least in certain crucial States, during the next forty to fifty
years - may be even earlier. Democracy is essentially a game of numbers. Elections to govern the
country will always be won or lost on the basis of population numbers. But how to convey that
message to the vast

134
majority living in villages and small towns. That is the core of Hindu dilemma. Anybody seeking to
administer the country through elections has to have maximum people on
board and must have the long term perspective of national interest. Let us not forget that India will
remain a secular country only so long as the Hindus, Sikhs and allied religious groups constitute the
majority.
21 of 27
 A mere glance at the adverse demographics likely to envelope India in the near future will
convince us about the urgent need to devise a multi-pronged survival strategy. Hindus must
reorganise and modernize themselves and throw out all dogmas, false rituals and obscurantism. The
orthodox among them have not only to change their outlook but also their social mores, though the
traditional Hindu ethos of "universal humanism" has to be protected. Hinduism must not become a
hostage to petty and peripheral issues. Hindus and allied religious groups have to make a new
resolve to ensure survival of their identity and heritage at all costs. This, however, can no longer be
taken for granted because of the continuous decline in their percentage share in India's population
during the last 110 years. And that adverse demographic trend has gathered big momentum after
independence primarily because a large majority of Hindus and allied religious groups have readily
adopted the small family norm. In the circumstances, the future of Hindu society cannot be taken for
granted in the face of adverse demographics and growing threat of jihadi terrorism.
In an interesting analysis of the developing threat to India, Prakash Singh, a retired Director
General of Police, has cited the viewpoint of a controversial intellectual who said that there were only
two possible solutions to the persistent problem of

136
communalism in India. One solution was that all Muslims should become Hindus, while the second
solution was that all Hindus should become Muslims. It was argued by the
same intellectual (name withheld by Prakash Singh) that Muslims being what they are will never opt
for Hinduism and therefore the only alternative was for the Hindus to embrace Islam, if the communal
question is to be resolved. Prakash Singh concedes that the proposed solution will outrage the
majority community, i.e., the Hindus but candidly posits the million dollar question: are we, the
Indians, not already moving in that direction ? (8) [8. Prakash Singh, In search of lebensraum, The
Pioneer, New Delhi, February 1, 2005, p.7]. The blatant ethnic cleansing in Kashmir by driving out
lakhs of Pandits, massive influx from Bangladesh causing Hindus to become a minority in 6 districts
of Assam and the sharp growth of Muslims in West Bengal clearly point to the turmoil likely to
overwhelm India in the near future. Let us not forget the boast of an important Lashkar-e-Toiba leader
that his organisation would not rest till the Islamic flag flies on Red Fort. Was he day dreaming, asks
Prakash Singh ? (9) [9. Ibid].
It is time to carry the warning about the threat of adverse demographics across the country to
the uneducated and ill informed Hindu masses, mostly living in the countryside. They must be
awakened to the fact that during the last century adverse demographics had changed the destinies of
several countries and civilizations, including India which went through the trauma of partition solely
because of the numbers game in which the Hindus and allied religious groups lost. The educated
middle class, opinion-
maker intellectuals and semi-literate and illiterate Hindu masses must be apprised of the fate which
befell the Christians of Lebanon (reduced to a helpless minority within a few decades) and the similar
fate which overtook the Christian Serbs in Kosovo and Bosnia because of the sharp increases in
population of Muslims. Both in Lebanon and the

137

Balkans the population changes were accompanied by high voltage civil strife involving huge loss of
life and property. Though ultimately the once-upon-a-time majority community was reduced to
minority status, the embers of strife continue to smoulder.
The impending demographic threat should be an eye opener for all Hindus, including leftists
suffering from gross vision deficit induced by the malaise of secular fundamentalism. They should be
made to realise that after Islamists take over this country, their plight will be similar to or even worse
than that of the communists of erstwhile Yugoslavia, now reduced to a truncated and embatteld
22 of 27
Serbia - with the former Communist President of Serbia, Milosevich, cooling heels before the
International Court at Hague . It is time to tell the Hindu masses frankly that unless they counter the
demographic threat and take effective steps to reform, re-engineer and reinvigorate the Hindu
society, their future generations will face a bleak future. Niall Ferguson's warning that in the next 50
years Europe is likely to become a Muslim majority continent, and the suggestion made by some
wisecracks to rename it as 'Eurabia' has already made the Christian Europe sit up and take notice.
Several countries are trying to re-invent and re-order themselves demographically in a bid to counter
the impending threat. In a bid to step up their declining populations many European countries like
Sweden, France and Italy have announced liberal cash bonuses to pressurise young couples to opt
for more babies. In the U.K. serious questions have been raised about the validity of multiculturalism
and the Prime Minster, Tony Blair, has started advising young couples to opt for the 5 children norm,
even though just now the Muslims constitute less than 2 percent of Britain's population. In most
European countries there is a complete about turn from the erstwhile emphasis on small families. The
tremors of the coming demographic threat are felt even in the far away Australia, paranoid by the
growing population of jihad-oriented Indonesia. In Australia, too, a specific provision for cash bonuses
has been introduced and young couples are being advised to have more babies, at least 3, preferably
many more.
Unfortunately while the western nations have woken up, in the Hindu society there is no
awareness or awakening about the impending demographic threat because the Hindu leadership has
kept the matter under wraps. It is time this problem of adverse
138

demographics was brought out of closet and openly debated so that the Hindu masses become
aware of the difficult times ahead for their future generations. Most leading politicians at national
level, Hindus, Muslims and secular fundamentalists, have been fully aware of the gigantic
demographic threat. Yet they have successfully withheld the sharp contours of this devastating
faultline not only from the multitude of Hindu masses, but even from the middle class. Madhu
Limaye was a well known socialist and a committed secularist. While referring to the explosive growth
of Muslim population and decline in the Hindu percentage, he had stated way back in January 1986 in
a very perceptive article in The Muslim India (a journal brought out by Syed Shahabuddin) that it
looked certain that the Hindus were a dying race, as warned by Swami Shradhanand decades ago.
Madhu Limaye predicted that in the coming decades there will be a precipitate decline in Hindu
population and may be by 2300 A.D. they might lose majority status in India. After that there will be a
precipitate Hindu decline and they will be come extinct in this ancient land of theirs.(10) [10. Baljit Rai,
Is India going Islamic, p. 108, B.S. Publishers, Chandigarh]. He bemoaned that though there was
much that was bad in Hinduism (also in Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism according to Madhu Limaye),
yet there was something priceless too. Thanks to the stupidity, social exclusiveness and cowardice of
Hindus in the past millenium that 'priceless something' which is "the heritage of the entire human race
will disappear and that makes me sad. …." (11) [11. Ibid]. In his controversial book, Communal Rage
in Secular India, Dr. Rafiq Zakaria, too has alluded to the fact that Hindus might turn into a minority
community in India by the year 2300 A.D., while emphasising that there was no immediate
demographic threat to the Hindu society. The truth, however, is altogether different as is evident from
our detailed analysis of population of various religious groups in the 0-6 years age group, presented
in chapter 3. The dangerous denouement of Hindus losing majority status in numerous parts of India
is likely to take place much earlier - may be even before end of the present century. Islam being a
congregational religion, the vast majority of Muslims are already aware of this developing trend
through the medium of mosque and madarasa. But the Hindus and Sikhs are totally oblivious.

139

23 of 27
 Prima facie there is no reason why those Hindus and Sikhs who are financially well off and can
afford to bring up more children should limit their family size to two or three. They must understand
that it is preferable to have four children and one car rather than opting for two children and three
cars. Surely the development and prosperity of Indian nation is an important economic objective, but
ensuring long term independence of the country and securing the future of younger generations are
decidedly far more important national goals. Neither independence, nor unity and security of the
future generations can be mortgaged for the sake of greater prosperity
of the present population of Indians. In the long run only a balanced growth of population among all
religious groups will guarantee the continuation of a secular and pluralist social order. Let us not
forget that if freedom is lost, or should the country go through another partition and spell of
bloodshed, as happened 58 years ago, that will be spell end of the road for India's prosperity as well
as future ambitions. In any case, the entire burden of family planning need not be carried by the
Hindu society and allied religious groups alone. That message must go out boldly to all Hindus, Sikhs,
Jains and Buddhists, in no uncertain terms.
Without trying to sound alarmist it has to be recognized that the Hindus, to use a corporate
jargon, are slowly but surely being subjected to creeping mergers and
acquisitions. The large scale infiltration from Bangladesh can be described as adverse merger. As
mentioned elsewhere, according to a Bangladeshi demographer, Sarifa Begum, approximately 14 to
15 million Bangladeshis sneaked into India during the one single census decade of 1981-91. The
silent invasion continues and the total number of illegal foreigners and their progeny is now estimated
to be over 25 millions, or 2.5 crores. And they have penetrated deep into various parts of India,
including Mumbai and Delhi. In West Bengal, Assam and other States of North East such infiltration is
now posing a serious and imminent challenge to the existence of local populace. Lately many Hindu
families in border districts of Assam and West Bengal, overwhelmed and overrun by illegal infiltrators
are reported to have relocated to safer habitats.

140

Similarly the growing campaigns for conversion, mostly of the poor and illiterate Hindus, could
be classified as creeping acquisitions which have to be countered and contained at grass roots level
by reforming and reinventing the Hindu society.
In Jammu and Kashmir a demographic change has already been forced on non-Muslims. The
religious and cultural practice of annual yatra to Amarnath which has
been in vogue since times immemorial, has become a regular target of Jihadis. Even the pilgrims
going to Vaishno Devi are not spared. And unless urgent remedial measures are adopted, both
Hindus and Sikhs in the violent valley could end up as Museum pieces, as they already are in
Afghanistan where a few decades ago they had a robust presence. It
is a tragic irony that in the area which was effectively ruled by Maharaja Ranjit Singh not very long
ago, and then by the British through Dogra rulers, within a short span of fifty
years after independence, under the so-called 'secular-Hindu' rule at Delhi, the Hindus and Sikhs
have been reduced to the status of a persecuted minority.
This is a crisis situation for Hindus and a time for strategic introspection. One important step
towards restructuring the Hindu society could be to summon a major conclave of representatives of
all sections of the Hindu community from the four corners of India, including the Shankracharyas and
Dharmacharyas, and other religious preachers. The Hindu society must make bold to abolish all caste
distinctions in one go and once for all. A yagna should be organised on the pattern of the one held
several
hundred years ago in the Aravalli hills, perhaps at Mount Abu, when a similar crisis situation arose
for the embattled Hindu civilization because of rapid decimation of

24 of 27
Kshatriya warriors battling invaders. At that critical time by common concensus it was considered
essential to co-opt scores of non-Kshatriya clans and tribal communities into
the Kshatriya fold by baptising them as "warriors" through the medium of a formal yagna or "havan".
And by that single fiat they came to be known as "Agnikula" Kshatriyas.The result was electrifying
and the crisis was overcome by forging a new class of warriors to fight the onslaught on dharma.
It may be recalled that Muslim atrocities reached its peak during the reign of Mughal ruler
Aurangzeb who resorted to senseless killings of innocent masses and razed hundreds of temples.
While the renowned Hindu warrior Shivaji rallied brave Marathas
141

to join the battle against Aurangzeb's savagery in western India and established a Hindupad Padshai,
another saviour of the oppressed masses rose in north India. Born in
Patna in 1666, he was the famous tenth Guru of Sikhs, the Warrior Saint, Guru Gobind Singh, who
challenged the might of Mughal empire by taking up arms. Before doing so, however, he wrote a
letter to the Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb, in which he warned that
when "all other means have proven ineffective, it is right then to take up the sword." (8)[8. J.S. Bains,
Political Ideas of Guru Gobind Singh, p. 23]. Those were difficult times
for the hopelessly disunited Hindu society, deeply divided by caste-based discrimination and trapped
in meaningless rituals. On the auspicious day of Baisakhi, the great Guru
created "Khalsa" by baptising five mild and meek Hindus handpicked from different castes and
regions of India whom he imbued with rare zeal to fight for dharma and justice. The five disciples
handpicked by Guru Gobind Singh came from different castes, including the highest and the lowest,
and belonged to different regions of Bharat Varsha. Among them were Daya Ram Kohli, a Kshatriya
from Lahore in the north, Dharam Dass, a Jat from Delhi, Mohkam Chand, a low-caste washerman
from Dwarka (Gujarat) in the west , Himmat Rai, a cook from Jagannath Puri (Orissa) in the east, and
Sahib Chand, a barber from Bidar in the south. The significance of the transformation brought by
Guru Gobind Singh was that in one go he removed all inequalities and abrogated all religious
prerogatives of higher castes. By moulding them into "Khalsa" he made all Hindus sit together, eat
together and take up arms together to fight for their religion and motherland. He was indeed the
worthy son of his worthy father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, who had sacrificed his life to protect the Hindu
faith and honour of Kashmiri Pandits when the latter were ordered to embrace Islam on pain of death.
Guru Gobind Singh was both a warrior and a learned scholar who led by personal example. Very well
endowed with knowledge of ancient scriptures he was a soldier par excellence and accomplished
poet. In one of the famous stanzas of his celebrated hymns he prayed thus to Lord Shiva:
"De Shiva bar mohe aiyhe
Shubh karman te main kabhun na darun
Na darun Ari se jab jaiye larun
Nishche kar apni jeet karun."
142
Translated into English it means: "O Shiva, grant me this boon that may I never turn away from doing
good deeds, that may I always join the battle against the enemy fearlessly, and by your grace may I
always emerge as victor by sheer resolve to win."
To raise a committed army to fight Aurangzeb's terror and tyranny he gave a wake up call to
the Hindu society calling upon every mother to donate at least one son to be baptised as Sikh. And
his strategic call did bring forth a tremendous response. Soon it became a universal custom among
Hindus to baptise the first son as a Sikh and dedicate him to the service of motherland and dharma.
That was how the Mughals were
defeated by the Sikhs and thrown out from the Punjab. To defend "dharma" and the oppressed
masses Guru Gobind Singh had to undergo immense persecution. Apart from the martyrdom of his
father, his four sons Ajit Singh, Juhar Singh, Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh had to bear the brunt of
Mughal emperor's wrath. Two of his sons were tortured and bricked alive in Sirhind fort under orders
25 of 27
of Aurangzeb. Years later, Banda Bahadur, his warrior disciple from western India, avenged the
dastardly killings of Guru's innocent children, by attacking the Mughal garrison at Sirhind and pillaging
the Mughal encampment in the fort.
The critical times presently facing India demand that all segments of the Hindu society,
including the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes should
be brought into the mainstream by abolishing all distinctions of caste and creed. After holding an all
encompassing representative conclave of different section of Hindu society
the status of twice-born, that is "dwijya" should be conferred on all categories of Hindus through the
medium of a Mahayagna. Such a bold and dynamic step, remniscent of the

143
one taken in the hoary past in the Aravallies in Rajasthan, and later on successfully repeated in the
seventeenth century by Guru Gobind Singh at Anandpur Sahib in Punjab is the pressing need of the
hour. All community leaders and intellectuals of Hindu society should be involved in this national
endeavour to unite, re-engineer and restructure the Hindu society. A national level conclave of
Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists needs to be organised to take stock of the situation arising out of
the adverse demographics caused by the skewed acceptance of family planning by different religious
groups which has further tilted the balance against the Indian civilization by Bangladeshi influx
resulting in multiple religious asymmetries in many states and regions. Later, similar conclaves should
be held in every State to create mass awareness.
It will do good to the Hindu society if for the time being all controversial and peripheral issues
like the ban on cow slaughter are placed on the backburner. India has
a thriving leather industry, with an annual turnover of more than Rs.18,000 crore, which provides
livelihood to lakhs of Dalit Hindus, even to non-Dalits and non-Hindus. We can ill afford to alienate
them. The focus should be on on unifying the Hindu society by winning back into the Hindu fold all
those who deserted it by opening the doors for their "ghar wapasi". For the time being there is no
harm in adopting a rationalist approach, as advocated by Swami Vivekananda and Veer Savarkar.
Wisdom and sagacity should be the key watchwords in this battle for survival.
Similarly there is no point in displaying unnecessary hostility towards Christians whose
percentage share in India's population has hovered around 2.5 percent during the last 50 years. It
must be realised that in the forthcoming global conflict between
Islamist terror and civil society the Hindu masses and the Christian world have been unwittingly cast
in the role of long term partners. It is crystal clear that this global compulsion is likely to last for many
decades to come. The Hindu society must make a

144

conscious effort to eradicate the wrong impression being created all around that Hindus are an anti-
Christian community which surely they are not.
The impending demographic challenge requires a country-wide debate, both on the religious
and secular platforms, in which Hindu masses as well as intellectuals should be encouraged to
participate. The proposed Hindu conclave must also consider various
other options for evolving an effective Hindu strategy. One of the most important steps to revitalise
the Hindu society would be to assign a more dynamic and purposeful role to women whose
participation in nation-building has to be substantially increased. It is not a difficult task because
traditionally India has been the continent of Shakti and the Hindus have worshipped Mother Goddess
for thousands of years. Therefore all gender discrimination should be ruthlessly weeded out. Such
obscurantist and discriminatory practices should have absolutely no space in Hindu homes. Let us
not forget that for

26 of 27
centuries Lakshmi, Durga and Saraswati have been our role models. Therefore vesting more power
in Hindu women and ridding the Indian society of gender bias is an important goal which brooks no
more delay.
Lastly, time has come to finally remind the Hindu masses by relaying the wake up call to every
village, every hearth and every home that those who don't learn from history will ultimately end up as
bad history. That important lesson all Hindus and Sikhs must learn from the eery echoes harking from
India's troubled past.

**********

27 of 27