The Kashi Vishwanath Corridor was inaugurated today with much-deserved pomp and show. A symbol of Hindu pride that preserved Bhavya Kashi and the divinity that is synonymous with it. On Monday morning, Prime Minister Narendra Modi offered prayers at the Kal Bhairav temple in Varanasi. At the Kashi Vishwanath temple, Prime Minister offered prayers to Lord Shiva. A Hindu nation, led by a democratically elected proud Hindu, working for everyone and for the first time, including the Hindu population.

Unexpectedly, the liberal cabal was unhappy. NDTV’s veteran propagandist Sreenivasan Jain, who had whitewashed bomb blasts by Muslim terrorists, took to Twitter, brooding over how India was descending into Majoritarian rule, by rulers who had taken their oath under a “secular constitution”.

“So easily have we normalised the Indian state’s shift towards majoritarianism that its easy to forget this is a (multi-cam) govt. event, attended by functionaries who have taken an oath under a secular Constitution”, he tweeted.

Other elephantine dodos were not far behind.

Erstwhile Congress troll and present TMC foot soldier Saket Gokhale tweeted another asinine conjecture.

Both dingbats, were, of course, wrong and being wildly disingenuous. The second dingbat, Saket Gokhale was just flat out lying. BBC has, in its history, telecast several programs from Westminster Abbey and Canterbury. In fact, the UK is an officially Christian nation. For Saket Gokhale, the political shill for hire, to cite a Christian nation to shame a Hindu nation is not surprising, given that Gokhale would just as easily praise ISIS in his hate for Modi and Hindus.

We have seen in our article The United Front of Hostile Forces - Hindu Society Under Siege, how Communism fires its salvos at a Secularism under which ‘the Hindus occupied all places of power and prestige and the poor Muslim minority is denied its rightful place in national life’. It raised an accusing finger at a Prime Minister who performs Hindu religious rites at Kashi Corridor. It denounces as Hindu communalism and revivalism the breaking of coconuts and use of garlands at the inauguration of some public projects and functions. This Secularism, according to Communist Party resolutions, is a sham and a shame.

We must also address the question of majoritarianism, as posed by dingbat 1. When liberal subsidiaries talk about majoritarianism, they usually imply that it is something out of the ordinary, almost likening it to a theocratic dictatorship. Essentially, they signal to the rest of the world that India has descended into being an ochlocracy and therefore, is ruled by the will of a mob of crazy, religious lunatics who are walking about with sticks and a bhagwa flag.

Ochlocracy means a system where the will of the mob overrules the law of the land. One of the most prominent examples that we saw were the Salem Witch Trials in Colonial Massachusetts. Other examples, of course, include the Haun’s Mill massacre where Christians had massacred tens of Mormons because they did not like their religious beliefs. Western history is littered with examples of Ochlocracy where religious nuts in the majority demanded instant justice and their will overruled the law of the land.

With those part of the modern-day ‘His Majesty, King’s mob’ hankering to call India a majoritarian rule, they essentially tell the western world that the rule of law is failing in India and we are being overrun by Hindu fanatics, turning the country into a graveyard of mutilated minority bodies. Forget the fact that Ochlocracies were the creation and the bane of the west, never that of India. Forget the fact that the western countries, even today, are deeply Christian, so much so, that even their favourite President Joe Biden took oath laying his hand on an oversized ancient Bible – India, the only standing ancient polytheist civilisation is to be shamed.

Majoritarianism, per se, is nothing out of the ordinary. It essentially means that the majority population elects a government that governs the country. Nothing wrong with it. But when the likes of Sreenivasan Jain talk about “Majoritarianism”, they wish to imply that India is a country that has submitted to mob rule and a system that disregards the interest of its minorities to ensure that the will of Hindus reign supreme.

Firstly, we have to realise that even in Western countries, it is majoritarian rules that reigns. Since 1921 and the Presidency of Warren G. Harding, all Presidents of the USA have been Christians. They could be from different sects of the Christian faith, namely Episcopalian, Latin Church, Baptists, Methodists etc, but Christian they were. In the UK, Prime Ministers have either belonged to different sects of Christianity or Judaism. For the most part, countries with a majority of those who follow Abrahamic religions have had the head of state that follow an Abrahamic religion too, even then, it is almost never that an Islamic nation will be governed by a Muslim PM or President or a Christian Nation be ruled by a Muslim PM or President.

Is this bigotry? Not at all. Every nation and its people have the right to choose its representative. Even if the nation is constitutionally “secular”, the people would select a leader that they feel would look out for their interest. It is only natural.

Why does it then irk our made-in-India brown sahibs? Why does it hurt them when PM Modi asserts his faith, much like their favourite President Joe Biden did while he swore over the Bible in a “liberal” nation?

It is certainly not because they stand against Majoritarianism. It is simply because they stand against the interest and the will of the majority – specifically, the Hindus. They have no qualms when the white man selects heads of state who align their faith. They have no problem when the Muslim world does so. However, India is meant to catapult to Abrahamic faiths that would rather see polytheists breathe their last once and for all.

Of course, once they read this, there would be wails of how not all Muslims are bad and that the very idea that Hindus would feel comfortable electing a fellow, Dharmic Hindu means that India is an ochlocracy where the will of the minority is not taken into consideration. That for Hindus to choose to even remotely uphold their Dharma is akin to Constitutional sacrilege.

So what is the system that they expect us to conform to? What Sreenivasan Jain is plainly insinuating is that the Hindus of this country are not entitled to democracy because he believes that the majority of the unwashed masses is not conforming to the will of the elite (people like him). They want a secular nation where the Hindu abandons his Gods to pay obeisance to their definition of a “secular” state because the will of a violent minority, that he likes to whitewash, is catered when Hindus do so. And what happens when the will of a violent minority reigns supreme? The gravy train of people like Jain continues unabated.

What he fails to realise, or at least wants us not to realise, is that in India, Ochlocracy thrives when the Majority fails to rule. What is closer to Ochlocracy, we must ask? Mobs taking to the streets to scream “Gustakh-e-Rasool ki saza sar tan se juda” and then acting on those threats as they did with Kamlesh Tiwari or Hindus worshipping in an ancient temple built thousands of years ago in a civilisational land of the Hindus? What is the very epitome of Ochlocracy – Hindus saying that the civilisational land should revere its Gods and the Hindu civilisation or Muslim mobs running rampage, kicking the memorial meant for those who protect our nation because of what was happening to Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, burning trains full of Hindus, holding a nation to hostage with street violence, burning the national capital because they did not refuge to be given to persecuted Hindus so and so forth.

Every example that one picks up, point to the fact that elements like Sreenivasan Jain would prefer an Ochlocracy over democracy because they rather see the violent minority rule to meet their political ambitions rather than a peaceful majority reclaim their civilisation through the democratic process.

They want our civilisation, one which our ancestors fought for sacrificed at the altar of some mythical “secularism” where the will of the minority is the massacre of the majority. They are angry today because post-2013, as evidenced from the 2014 elections, Hindus asserted themselves, deciding that their deranged minoritarianism would no longer be able to guilt-trip Hindus into sacrificing their head at the feet of the mobs they like to whitewash.

The will of the minority does not always align with national interest and/or the interest of the majority population of a nation. For example, even though Jains are not the preferred, “special” minority, minoritarianism would mean that when a certain ambassador went and told South Africa that they were against the Pokhran tests, or when he supported South Africa planning to use the NAM forum in Durban to take a stand against India’s nuclear power status, they were acting in the nation’s interest.

Rioting, street veto, burning trains and Hindus alive by the “special minority” is arguably not the “democracy” that one should aspire for.

For the sake of the nation and for the sake of an ancient civilisation, one must thank the Gods that be that the majority has finally woken up to protect civilisation from barbarian cults and those who whitewash their barbarism by calling them “chhota mota” aggressions.

Yes. Majoritarisism won today. It won in 2014. It won again in 2019. And it will continue to win by the will of the Gods.

References:

opindia.com - Nupur J Sharma