Who is a minority person?

Another Orwellian word used by Nehruvian Stalinists is 'minority.' Once again this is a fascist European concept imported into India and used inappropriately. What is a 'minority' in Europe and America? The dictionary meaning is: 'an ethnic, racial, religious or other group having a distinctive presence within a society; a group having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society.'

In practice, 'minorities' are ethnic, religious or linguistic groups living among a 'majority' group in considerable and justified fear of persecution: examples include Jews and Gypsies in Europe, blacks and Asians in America. This is also the situation of non-Muslims living in any Muslim-majority country, such as Coptic Christians in Egypt, Druze and Maronite Christians in Lebanon, and Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan. And non-party appartchiks in the former Soviet Union or China.

These real 'minorities' have always been the target of ruffians from the 'majority' group. Some Joe Bob and his redneck pals would say for sport on a Saturday night, 'Let's go get ourselves some colored hide,' and off they would go and lynch some poor black kid or terrorise the neighborhood in their latest Ku Klux Klan robes. Some Heinrich and friends would say, 'Let's go bash some Jews, because they killed Jesus,' and off they would go and beat up some poor Perlmutter or Morgenstern.

A good test of a group's minority status is how the world, including the national media and international opinion, perceives their oppression. If they are brutalised, and nobody cares, then they are clearly a minority. This is what has happened, for instance, in the Sudan's Darfur region: blacks being terrorised by Arabs. This was also the case for a long time with South Africa's blacks under apartheid: they were really a 'minority' even though they were numerically a majority.

In Europe, America, the Muslim world, and Marxist lands, the 'minorities' know exactly who they are, and the 'majority' knows who they are. There is no confusion as to who is top dog.

But that is absolutely not the case in India. There are two reasons for this: one is the traditional Hindu acceptance of pluralism without any superiority complexes. The second is the fact that no Hindu feels himself to be part of the 'majority'. Startlingly, because each Hindu considers himself part of his caste, each and every Hindu is a 'minority' person. There is no monolithic pan-Hindu identity: each individual owes primary allegiance to his caste group. This is something Marxists continually accuse Hindus of, but they don't accept that, consequently, Hindus are fragmented.

Try this experiment. Ask any Hindu if they belong to a dominant group. You will find that they all, without fail, feel that they belong to an aggrieved group, one that is discriminated against. Lower-caste people have the historic baggage of oppression that they/their ancestors suffered and the glass ceilings they run up against. Upper-caste people feel they have been bad-mouthed and treated shoddily, and they resent reservations and concomitant loss of opportunity. Thus no Hindu struts around as a superior 'majority' person, looking to attack some poor 'minority' Muslim or Christian.

In fact, it is the exact opposite. It appears that it is the Muslims and Christians who deliberately attack Hindus. As far as I can tell, Hindu-Muslim communal riots generally appear to be started by Muslims. And even if not necessarily physically violent (although they are indeed violent in the Northeast), Christians attack Hindus, and their deeply held beliefs, all the time. The irony is that the myths of Jesus Christ's life, his virgin birth, etc. are also just fond beliefs with often demonstrable borrowings from older Hindu and Buddhist myths.

Thus, in India, Hindus are the 'minorities' needing protection. Every Hindu, by definition almost, is a 'minority' person. Yet, unbelievably, the Nehruvian Stalinists have arranged it so that even in areas where Hindus are in fact a numerical minority, such as in Muslim-dominated Jammu & Kashmir, Christian-dominated Mizoram and Nagaland, or Marxist-dominated West Bengal and Malabar, Hindus do not get the privileges so-called 'minority' Christians and Muslims get in other parts of India.

So in India, Hindus are attacked, murdered, whatever, and by the time they get organised and attempt to take revenge, the police are there to prevent any violence. An example is Marad. The Hindus end up silently nursing their wounds. They are just collateral damage, so the Nehruvian Stalinists and Marxists in the media do not pay any attention to them. No human rights person cares about them either.

But if you really want to know how a textbook 'majority' treats a 'minority,' just look at the following link to photographs from Bangladesh a few months ago. See the HRBCM report on this atrocity in Chittagong, one among many. The Shils were massacred, including four-day-old infant Kertik and 25-year-old Babuti, incinerated on her wedding day. This happened not long ago, just six months ago. Did you ever hear anything about this, gentle reader?

Here is a heart-breaking appeal from poor Bimal Shil:

Translated from Bengali:
 
                                 Appeal

I the undersigned Bimal Kanti Shil, father late Tajendra Lal Shil, Village:

My entire family and relatives were ruthlessly roasted alive in which flammable substances were used. This bloodbath was preplanned and I want unbiased justice in this regards. I have witnessed the whole barbaric massacre. 
I have survived jumping out of the ablaze house. I am now under treatment at Mamoni hospital at Chittagong. HRCBM leader Rabindra Ghosh has visited my house and me in the hospital. He also promised for assistance.
I am feeling completely insecure here. I am hapless.
I want to live and do hereby appeal for your help in procuring justice.

(Signed by: Bimal Kanti Shil dated 11/21/03)

Nobody is appalled by this level of endemic violence. Therefore, Bangladeshi Hindus are clearly a minority. Amnesty International's Secretary General Irene Khan is a niece of the Bangladeshi ruler Khaleda Zia, so, of course, Amnesty keeps mum. Nehruvian Stalinists in India and the 'South Asians for Kerry' campaigners in the US are unconcerned. Their ire is reserved for the subcontinent's Hindus, and this is the moral equivalent of blaming a rape victim for the rape.

In particular, the 'South Asians for xyz' are especially meaningless. There is no such thing as 'South Asia:' it is as imaginary as the equator. No consistent opinion can be drawn from across the Indian subcontinent: it cannot speak with a single voice as it contains brutal Islamist theocracies such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, a nation under virulent Maoist attack such as Nepal, and other nations where life is more normal. How could they all possibly have the same opinion on Bush or Kerry?

Indians in the US should not be misled by those individuals, usually Indian Marxists with Hindu names, afflicted by 'South-Asian-itis.' They shouldn't waste their money on these efforts, which are generally intended to harm India. Here is an example of what their cohorts do in India where in power. I quote this from M V Kamath in the Afternoon Dispatch and Courier of June 18th ('The truth has to be faced')  

The Statesman (May 24th, 2004) datelined Gopiballavpur, Midnapore West says: 'Adikanta Dolui (45), Satragram panchayat secretary and BJP loyalist was burnt alive by a mob allegedly backed by the CPI-M. Around 40 shops and houses were robbed and set ablaze following the murder. The rampage was reportedly the fallout of the murder of senior CPI-M leader Ardhendu Satpati.... An hour after Satpati's killing, about 1,000 men, armed with bows, arrows, tangi and knives raided homes and shops belonging to BJP supporters at Birsachowk Bazaar.... Dolui (the BJP loyalist) was dragged out, the men chopped off his limbs and set him on fire after sprinkling petrol on him from the tank of his two-wheeler parked nearby.... The mob then set fire to about 40 shops and houses after robbing them. Several two-wheelers and bicycles parked in the market were destroyed in the blaze. The police posted in the market reportedly watched in silence.'

And, by the way, Dolui or Daliya was a Dalit. But he had the misfortune to be a Hindu Dalit, and a BJP supporter at that. And therefore his incineration in Marxist-dominated West Bengal attracted absolutely no attention from the Indian media. Poor Dolui was burned to death in front of his wife and teenaged son and daughter. Some of you may recall the worldwide fuss when white missionary Graham Staines was burned to death.

Yet, nobody spoke about Dolui with the exception of S Gurumurthy in the Indian Express, July 12th ('Had Aadhikanta Daliya not been a Hindu') and Balbir Punj in the Asian Age, July 6th ('A freedom-starved people'). Not one of the 'secular' icons or human rights mavens raised an eyebrow. Why is there no CBI enquiry? Where are all the liberals who lambast the security forces and submit PILs to the Supreme Court?

They did nothing, because obviously the life of Hindu Dalit is worth nothing. Once again, given that nobody bothers about Dolui, he's clearly a minority person.

Meanwhile, a Hindu temple was attacked and the deity smashed to bits in Chennai and the report alleges that this is the act of fundamentalist Christians who have been menacingly active in the vicinity. Of course, there was no hue and cry anywhere. The US Council on International Religious Freedom was not at all perturbed by this.

Yet again, given that nobody bothers about Hindu religious sentiments, it's clear they are a minority.

Comments welcome at rajeev.srinivasan@gmail.com