BEING ANTI-HINDU
“Nehru’s personality acquired a superficial Indianness and a love for English mores without developing a deep insight into the core of either culture or philosophy.” “Nehru had a known dislike for anyone who stood staunchly for his Indian identity or philosophy, based on our rich cultural heritage, preservation of Hindi language and best of our old traditions…” —Brig. BN Sharma
“Nehru was completely out of touch with the Indian life even of his time, except with the life of the self-segregating Anglicised set of upper India who lived in the so-called Civil Lines.” —Nirad Chaudhuri
Nirad Chaudhuri further said that Nehru had little understanding of the actual India life or culture or of Hinduism; and was a snob, contemptuous of those who spoke English with an Indian accent.
NB Khare, the president of the All-India Hindu Mahasabha had said in 1950 that Jawaharlal Nehru was “English by education, Muslim by culture, and Hindu by an accident [of birth] .”
Ram Manohar Lohia believed that Nehru’s acceptance of Anglo-Indian cultural values led to his opposing anything that would give the nation a sense of Indianness.
~~~
Embedded in many of the blunders in this book are examples of the essentially anti-Hindu and anti-Indian-Civilisational-Heritage character of Nehru—camouflaged under the Nehruvian brand of “Secularism”.
Anglophile Motilal Nehru’s upbringing of Jawaharlal was such, and, in turn, Jawaharlal’s upbringing of his dynasty was such, that they all remained cut-off from the real-India, and developed a natural aversion for things Hindu or Indian.
While on one hand Nehru (a)promoted negationism with respect to Muslim invasions and the consequent holocaust of the Hindus (Blunder#92), and himself engaged in abject negationist history writing (Blunder#93); (b)ignored the constitutional obligation on the Uniform Civil Code (Blunder#86); (c)allowed demography of the Northeast and West Bengal to be very adversely affected by the influx of Muslims from East Pakistan (Blunder#5, 59, 60), thereby compromising their culture and security; (d)turned a blind eye to blatant, illegal proselytization by the Christian missionaries, compromising the Indian culture, and the internal and the external security, particularly in the Northeast (Blunder#60, 61); (e)promoted Urdu and Persian-Arabic script over Devanagari (Blunder#81); and (f)neglected Sanskrit (Blunder#82); on the other hand, he used his distorted notion of secularism (Blunder#85) to condemn or browbeat anything Hindu; and paint those who advocated Hinduism as fascists; and even opposed the renovation of Somnath temple (Blunder#87)! Please also check in this context Blunder#122-3.
Nehru’s bias against things Hindu or the Hindu heritage was, besides his westernised upbringing, the result of his distorted world-view, thanks to his Marxist outlook (Blunder#106-7), that was rejectionist of the past. Most ironically and hypocritically, Nehru didn’t apply the same yardstick to the Islamic and Christian past.
Wrote Sandeep Balakrishna:
“Indeed, Indians like Nehru could only arise as the natural consequence of thorough and inescapable colonialized national psyche [Blunder#84]. In his quest to somehow escape British colonialism, Nehru blindly embraced the Soviet variety. His secularism is the ideological love child born by fusing an incurable love for Stalinist Communism [Blunder#106] and an irretrievable alienation from his own Hindu roots.”
“…Seventy years of secularism is just one long tale of a project aimed at making Hindus forget and disavow precisely this defining character. Among others, an enduring method used to accomplish this includes instilling a lasting sense of self-alienation and self-loathing using the medium of formal education. The outcome is the cowardice resulting from a complete erosion of cultural self-confidence.”
Thanks to Nehruvianism “The average urban, English-educated Indian Hindu since Independence is a stranger in his own land and has today brought to fruition Ananda Coomaraswamy’s prophetic warning that this Hindu is ‘a nondescript and superficial being deprived of all roots, a sort of intellectual pariah who does not belong to the East or the West, the past or the future.’”
Given below are some extracts from Nehru’s ‘Discovery of India’ (Kindle Edition from Amazon) that are illustrative of Nehru’s anti-Indian-Hindu-cultural-heritage and pro-Muslim-Western mind-set, and his dire lack of genuine scholarship and knowledge:
“On the other hand some famous temples in South India, heavy with carving and detail, disturb me and fill me with unease …”
“Beautiful buildings combining the old Indian ideals in architecture with a new simplicity and a nobility of line grew up in Agra and Delhi. This Indo-Mughal art was in marked contrast with the decadent , over- elaborate and heavily ornamented temples and other buildings of the north and south. Inspired architects and builders put up with loving hands the Taj Mahal at Agra.”
“A civilization decays much more from inner failure than from an external attack . It may fail because in a sense it has worked itself out and has nothing more to offer in a changing world, or because the people who represent it deteriorate in quality and can no longer support the burden worthily. It may be that the social culture is such that it becomes a bar to advance beyond a certain point, and further advance can only take place after that bar has been removed or some essential qualitative variation in that culture has been introduced. The decay of Indian civilization is evident enough even before the Turkish and Afghan invasions. Did the impact of these invaders and their new ideas with the old India produce a new social context, thus unbinding the fetters of the intellect and releasing fresh energy?”(So, as per Nehru, while the civilization of India had decayed, that of the invading Muslim hoards was superior, and carried new ideas!)
