Why an uproar against the call for eradication of Hindus is easier to ignore

Read Time: 09 minutes


There is indeed, a lot to be said about the differential treatment by courts in cases where Hindu plight is sought to be highlighted. But as a society, we may be able to square in on the reasons why this happens - as is already extrapolated by many academicians

On Friday, the Supreme Court reluctantly issued notice in a plea seeking action against Udhaynidhi Stalin and other state ministers of Tamil Nadu, who participated in a conference calling for the eradication of Sanatan Dharma. The argument of the petitioner was that the speeches directly attacked Hindus and could be classified under “hate speech”. The Supreme Court has already stipulated directions in case concerning hate speech against Muslims that FIRs should be registered against such persons at own behest (Suo Motu) by state authorities and police. Despite this, neither was an FIR registered against the state ministers or against the organisers of the conference.

The Court, while issuing notice, refused to not only tag this particular issue with the hate speech cases against Hindu seers, but also pointed out that the context of both issues at hand were different. “You should have gone to the High Court” and “You should go to the police station for getting an FIR filed/ You are converting us into a police station!” was the oral observation of the court in this case. Further to this, it may not be out of place to point out that the conference was held on September 2 and though a number of petitions and a letter was filed in the top court, one plea was finally listed after 20 days.

Contrast this with the Supreme Court’s take on the hate speech cases concerning Muslims, wherein a bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy directed that without waiting for a complaint to be registered, suo moto action has to be taken by the concerned authorities.  "Any delay or hesitation on their part in taking action will be held to be as contempt of court...", the court had pointed out – despite the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta stating that the petitioners were being selective in bringing out issues of hate speech.

What went on in the Supreme Court is what Koenraad Elst describes as “specious sophistry”. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, for contempt of court is not the ideal scenario in times like this. This sophistry is what India has been witnessing since centuries because of diametrically opposite understanding of secularism. Though a lot has already been written on this issue of a warped understanding of so called secularism in India in the past, it would hurt nobody to elaborate on why the plight of Hindus is often ignored and their concerns are touted as either puerile or McCarthyism.

Intellectualism in India is dominated by left-leaning individuals and that is not a problem at all. However, when so-called secularism, which unites the radical left with Hindu haters write history and dominate educational institutions, the society at large which is exposed to such education, believe in twisted concepts – such as “donning the Hijab is women empowerment”, “minorities do not need a civil code” to govern their personal lives and a “challenge to the Waqf laws is an attack on the rights of the Muslim minority”, despite waqf properties expanding to over 6 lakh acres across India and no other religion or sect possessing such a firearm for pushing identity through property. As Elst puts it, “In India, Sharia wielding muslim clerics whose arab counterparts denounce secularism as the ultimate evil, call themselves secularists in India”.

If this is not perceived as getting too far ahead of oneself, it is safe to say that the judiciary in India is not immune from such mediocrity of thought. The judiciary is, after all, a product of the society simply because judges are fallible and judgments, orality in courts will always reflect what is ingrained in the educated or intellectual society at large. The denial of persecution of Hindus over the centuries, the “vindication” of Hindus by their conversion into Christianity as attested by the Church and incorrect, false reporting of communally sensitive issues for smearing the majority stems from this intrinsic mediocrity, which is preferred to be left in status quo – for convenience, politics or power, is debatable.

So effectively, it is fairly easy to engage in mindless activism about why the judiciary reacts differently to Hindu plight – clearly, the judiciary does not witness Hindu plight because it is kept under wraps by the those who want to push personal agendas and in some cases, don’t know any better.