Opinion | The Silent Majority: When Hindu Voices Go Unheard – News18

Last Updated:December 26, 2024, 15:47 IST

The tendency to ignore, or worse, malign the majority Hindu community by dismissing their concerns as “majoritarian” while prioritising those of religious minorities sets a dangerous precedent

It has become fashionable within Indian “liberal” circles to frequently write about the importance of addressing the concerns of religious minorities while often ignoring — or sometimes even deriding — the concerns of the majority community. This is not to suggest that the concerns of religious minorities should not be addressed — they must be. However, why should this involve ignoring the concerns of the majority community?

A democracy thrives on the balance between both minorities and the majority. It is, however, unfortunate that the intellectuals of this country — often preoccupied with writing or discussing the threats to democracy — choose to dismiss the concerns of the majority community. The worst part is that they characterise these concerns as “majoritarian” — a term frequently used by them to portray such concerns as a danger to the country’s pluralist culture and democracy.

The Recent Violence In Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh

In November, violence erupted in the Muslim-dominated town of Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh after a court mandated a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid, a 16th-century mosque. Hindu groups believed that it was built on the ruins of a Hindu temple dedicated to Kalki, who will be the last avatar of Lord Vishnu according to Hindu scriptures.

On the day of the second survey, a violent mob began throwing stones and even attacked police officers with locally made weapons. Four men from the Muslim community were killed in the violence, and several police officers were also injured. While the Muslim side and Opposition parties alleged that the four deaths resulted from police firing, there is still no concrete evidence to support this claim.

Let’s not forget that the survey was intended solely to ascertain the religious character of the site — not to alter the nature of the worship. Nevertheless, violence broke out due to the presence of an angry mob armed with stones and weapons.

One of the key questions that arises is: who is responsible for the Sambhal violence? Is former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud responsible, as alleged by liberals and some opposition leaders? Or is it the mentality of provoking ordinary Muslims with the agenda of keeping them as mere vote banks for a particular party? Or, more significantly, is it the tendency to address only the concerns of religious minorities while ignoring those of the majority Hindu community that is responsible for this violence?

The Places of Worship Act

The recent Sambhal violence has once again reignited an old debate — the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act. In 1991, the Narasimha Rao-led Congress government introduced a bill named the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which subsequently became law after being passed by Parliament. The law, introduced in the wake of the Ayodhya Ram Temple movement, prohibits altering any place of worship as it existed on the day of independence. This was strongly opposed by the then main Opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Notably, the law excluded the Ram Mandir–Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya.

It is worth mentioning that the Act has been in the spotlight in recent years due to petitions filed in court challenging the current status of various mosques allegedly built over demolished temples. In 2022, then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while hearing the case of the Gyanvapi Masjid dispute in Varanasi, orally observed that the 1991 Act did not bar the ascertainment of the religious character of a place at any time in the past. This observation by Chandrachud has been criticised by liberals and even by the main opposition Congress for opening a Pandora’s box.

On 12 December, the Supreme Court paused district courts from surveying any place of worship until further orders. The apex court is yet to decide on petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Act. It also remains to be seen whether the Centre will support or oppose the Act in the Supreme Court.

Arguments Always Overriding Majority Hindu Sentiments Set A Dangerous Precedent

The disputed Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi and the Shahi Idgah Masjid in Mathura have been claimed by Hindu groups as having been built on demolished temples during the reign of Mughal ruler Aurangzeb. Historians such as Jadunath Sarkar and S. A. A. Rizvi support these claims. The temples in both Varanasi and Mathura hold immense significance for Hindus, similar to Ayodhya’s Ram Temple.

While the Supreme Court has the authority to decide on the constitutionality of the Act, the Indian Parliament, which enacted it, also has the power to amend or repeal it — although such actions could again be subject to judicial scrutiny. The real issue arises when the past is not acknowledged, particularly when it favours Hindus. Whenever Hindu groups raise concerns about temples demolished by invaders or non-Hindu rulers with bigoted agendas, liberal-leaning intellectuals invariably point to the Places of Worship Act.

This raises an important question: shouldn’t the law also consider the sentiments of the majority Hindu community? Let us be clear — barring some radicals among followers of all religions, no one wants communal violence. This, however, doesn’t mean the history of demolished temples should be kept hidden.

It is a well-known fact that liberals and some prominent historians — more accurately, propagandists of the liberal ecosystem — had dismissed the existence of a temple beneath the Babri Masjid. However, in its historic 2019 judgement, the Supreme Court rejected the agenda of these propagandists — who are still yet to recover from that significant setback — on the basis of textual references and scientific evidence.

The tendency to ignore, or worse, malign the majority Hindu community by dismissing their concerns as “majoritarian” while prioritising those of religious minorities sets a dangerous precedent. This practice of minority appeasement creates a false sense of privilege for a section of religious minorities over the majority community.

For these liberals, the only individuals considered truly “Hindu” are those who reject their scriptures and culture, and who often mock them. Basically, for them, some radical atheists, who disguise themselves as Hindus, or converts with Hindu names, are the actual followers of Hinduism! This kind of radical thinking among the liberals has fuelled counter-polarisation in the form of Hindutva, which they falsely equate with fascism.

The Sambhal violence is an outcome of this radical liberal thought. As the country celebrates 75 years of the Constitution, it is time to address the concerns of both religious minorities and the majority Hindu community with the same yardstick. Let’s not punish the Hindus simply for being the majority in the country. Their concerns related to their religion, culture and places of worship also deserve attention — and, most importantly, solutions.

The author is a political commentator and tweets @SagarneelSinha. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.