Ritu Rathaur - Last Hindu Standing
Shrikant G. Talageri
Although I have written articles before in praise of various people, or have praised people within my articles, it has always been based on particular contexts and episodes, and usually in the context of some other topic. This is the first time I feel impelled to write an article in full praise and support of an individual who arouses my heartfelt respect and admiration for her courage, integrity and intrepid persistence in the pursuit (and public exposure) of Truth. Ritu Rathaur, in my opinion, deserves the title of "Last Hindu Standing" (or maybe even "Hinduhridaysamrajni"), because she not only stands by Hindu interests fearlessly through thick and thin (even withstanding the vicious verbal insults, accusations and assaults of other Fair-Weather Hindutvites), but she brings out into public knowledge every single known and unknown fact about the activities of anti-Hindus and pseudo-Hindutvites (like the BJP) generally forgotten by others or hidden in the midst of obscurity. She is a one-woman army of first-hand data on the treacheries and shenanigans of the backstabbers of Hinduism.
I feel impelled to write this because something that I have written countless times is about the Fair-Weather Hindutvites who fearlessly speak the truth on matters involving Hindu interests and fiercely criticize the BJP for its countless and unending back-stabbing acts against Hindus − though never in the thorough and complete way that Ritu Rathaur does it − but, when it is election time, they suddenly switch over to the TINA (there-is-no-alternative) Mode. The BJP does not care two pins about the criticism that it gets from these Fair-Weather Hindutvites, since it knows that the criticism is just for the record and in order to keep up their reputation for being fair critics, and that when it comes to where it matters − i.e. election time − they will completely change their stand: the BJP uses criticism from Hindus as toilet-paper, and only wants votes and money, and these critics will never fall short or fail where it really matters, so why the bloody f*****g hell does the BJP need to make any corrections or modifications in its anti-Hindu behavior? The BJP will always be labeled as "Hindu", and the Congress as "anti-Hindu", whatever they do, so why bother?
I wrote about this in the Voice of India Volume, "India's Only Communalist: In Commemoration of Sita Ram Goel" (Voice of India, Delhi, 2005):
"It would seem that such a situation would have its drawbacks, in the sense that it would place serious doubts on the integrity and credibility of these organisations. But the Sangh Parivar organisations have two master-techniques at hand, which are expected to calm down or rein in any disgruntlement among the ranks of their cadres and supporters, and preserve their reputation. The first technique is for its leaders to periodically abuse the BJP leadership in public, whenever its particular acts go too blatantly against the particular ideological aspects supposedly represented by the particular organisation (the RSS-VHP, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, or whatever, as the case may be), even occasionally going so far as to accuse them of being worse than the Secularists [In private, they resort to their favourite justification: Strategy. Or they downplay the relevance of the “pseudo-secular” acts as something to be expected from politicians, with the sage advice: “we should not depend on them.”]. But, when push comes to shove ¾ in short, when its Election Time ¾ the leaders swiftly tone down their voices, and get down to the task of mobilising the cadres and supporters to work for the BJP on the basis of the TINA (There Is No Alternative) argument. The second technique is, if the BJP loses despite their best efforts, to loudly proclaim, or spread the word, that the BJP lost because they worked against it, or failed to work for it: the BJP defeat is, therefore, not a defeat for these organisations; and they are free to continue the pursuit of their activities, aimed at the sole objective of slowly leading their cadres and supporters back to the Only Alternative" (pp.337-338).
Though published in 2005, the article was completed in 2004 when the BJP (Vajpayee) government was still in power. At that time, the main pro-BJP propaganda was done by BJP magazines, newspapers, cadres and supporters. There was no internet then, but with the rise of the "social media" sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc. (filled with BJP supporters and trolls), and the rise of a large number of pro-Hindu writers and journalists, the propaganda has been outsourced to these people. It is they who now play the role of defending and even glorifying the anti-Hindu acts of the BJP, or alternately stridently criticizing these acts only to fall back on TINA when elections are around the corner.
In these circumstances, True Hindus like Ritu Rathaur are extremely rare. I am not saying she is the only one: there must be many, many more such True Hindus, − the first name that comes to mind is that of M. Nageswara Rao. And, even as the BJP propagandists label them as Congress supporters or anti-Hindus (for exposing and opposing the anti-Hindu acts of the BJP!!), these are people who have spent decades of their lives fighting for Hindu rights and Hindu Causes and for Justice to Hindus, Hinduism and Indian Culture. I have personally been in communication (at that time on the long-distance phone) since 1993 with M. Nageswara Rao, after none other than Sita Ram Goel brought us into contact with each other, and I can testify to his unswerving and genuine dedication to the Hindu Cause.
Today, in the sea of "strong critics" of the BJP's anti-Hindu acts who suddenly turn into passionate TINA advocates (and it is not only writers and activists: I know so many relatives, friends and acquaintances who have been castigating the anti-Hindu acts of the BJP in strong terms in the last few years, but, when it comes to voting, they say; "who else is there to vote for? The Congress is so anti-Hindu!". It is as if Hindus in general have come under some kind of mass-hypnosis which paralyzes their reasoning powers), True Hindus like Ritu Rathaur and M. Nageswara Rao stand out shining as beacons in a dark world getting darker by the day.
While most pro-Hindu and "pro-Hindu" writers and media activists are busy feathering their nests with golden feathers in the glow of BJP patronage, these True Hindus stand for the Truth, and as I wrote above, bring to the light all the viciously anti-Hindu acts of the BJP which its bhakts are determined to ignore, defend or even glorify.
I think some scholar should do research on all these issues brought out by Ritu Rathaur and others and bring them all together in the form of one book. Even people like me who pride ourselves on knowing quite a lot about political history in this country, will find much to amaze and shock. For example, I always had some idea that "waqf" represented some kind of anti-Hindu concept in India. But it is only when I read chapter 3, "The Waqf Act, 1995" of Anand Ranganathan's book "Hindus in Hindu Rashtra - Eighth-Class Citizens and Victims of State-Sanctioned Apartheid" (2023), that I got an inkling of the full horror behind this Act. I refuse to quote any points from this chapter: it is the duty of every Hindu to read the chapter for himself/herself and to understand the utterly unnerving, terrifying and depressing state of affairs in this matter.
However, surprisingly, while Ranganathan, among so many things, pointed out that the Statute of Limitations Act (1963), which applies everywhere else, does not apply to waqf properties as per Section 107 of the Act, he did not clarify who decided this: maybe some Congress government?
It was left to Ritu Rathaur to bring out the fact that this was done by a BJP MP!!
All kinds of properties in India are considered to be waqf properties. As per Ranganathan, this includes "the Gyanwapi mosque built atop the grand Kashi Vishwanath temple", "the 1500-year old iconic Manendiyavalli Chandrashekhara Swami Temple in Tamil Nadu" (built. long before even the birth of Islam in Arabia) and countless other temples all over India, countless administrative buildings of the Central and State governments, all the properties of Muslims who fled to Pakistan in 1947, "seventy-seven per cent of (land in) Delhi", and even "Mukesh Ambani's house" in Mumbai!!!
In order to further clinch the stranglehold of the waqf authorities over all "its" properties, and after having excepted waqf properties from the Statute of Limitations Act in 1995 through its MP, The BJP made it its life mission to digitize all waqf properties in India. During its first tenure, 2014-2019, a tenure highlighted by the total absence of even the pretence of doing anything for Hindus:
As usual, every BJP bhakt on the internet (in google, facebook and elsewhere) is busy trying to terrorize Hindus into voting for BJP on the ground that a vote for the Congress is a vote against Hinduism, and a vote for the creators of the concept of "Hindu Terror" and the supporters of reservations for Muslims. And assuring the Hindu voter that even at its most anti-Hindu the BJP is not as bad as the Congress.
Even staunch and extremely intelligent Hindus
(like Anand Ranganathan and Sankrant Sanu) and pro-Hindu writers, who regularly
criticize the anti-Hindu acts of the BJP in non-election times, get into the
act when elections are nigh. They do not let Hindu voters use their judgment to
decide whom or what (e.g. NOTA) to vote for: they expressly hasten to assure
them that that the BJP is the only option for Hindus. Worst of all, True Hindus
like Ritu Rathaur face all kinds of abusive allegations from the
"tactical critics" about being secret supporters of the
Congress, and of, in fact having been "bought by", or
having "sold themselves to", the Congress![To be fair, Anand Ranganathan earned my admiration by revealing in an interview recently that he always voted NOTA]
I have always referred to this phenomenon of "tactical critics" in my books and article. For example, in my article "Why is the "Hindutvavadi" BJP more Dangerously Anti-Hindu Than the Openly Anti-Hindu "Breaking India Forces"?", I wrote:
"It is true that an examination of the internet shows an increasing number of thinking Hindus (especially after the Nupur Sharma episode) getting disillusioned with the BJP Parivar and criticizing the BJP dispensation in no uncertain terms. But it must be remembered that these critics include tactical critics (including members of BJP Parivar affiliate organizations, and pro-BJP intellectuals) who tactically criticize the BJP to keep their flock in line, but then swerve back to the TINA line when elections come up. And their tactical criticism sometimes shows up in actual tactics: recently, after the Nupur Sharma episode, many such intellectuals criticized the BJP, and, after an appropriate interval, came up with a new stand expressing regret at having criticized too hastily and expressing a new understanding of the important factors and aspects (which had apparently escaped their attention earlier when they expressed their hasty criticisms) which made the actions of the BJP Parivar in that episode not just excusable but in fact necessary and even based on pragmatic wisdom born out of concern for long-term Indian and Hindu interests!"
Note this recent twitter exchange between Sankrant Sanu and Ritu Rathaur
The truth is, Ritu Rathaur has been in the forefront of highlighting the anti-Hindu and minority-appeasement policies of the BJP, and has showed how in every case they have put the Congress completely in the shade − all the while claiming to stand for Hindus and accusing the Congress of minority/Muslim appeasement.
And, as to "Hindu terror":
In the present elections, much hoo-ha is being made about the BJP candidate from Hyderabad, Madhavi Latha posing a truly Hindu challenge to the monopoly of the AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi over this lok Sabha seat. But is she a "Hindu" candidate just because she is standing against Owaisi (who, in any case, is a sort of collaborator of the BJP in the matter of dividing Muslim votes which might have gone to the Congress or some other "Secular" party, in Lok Sabha seats elsewhere all over the country)? Here is the degree of "Hinduness" that Madhavi Latha represents:
("Arab, Sayyad and Shia Muslims do not get the benefits of reservations. We are asking for reservations for all Muslims").
And again:
https://twitter.com/RituRathaur/status/1789637345605546144
(BJP candidate Madhavi Lata quietly whispers to a Muslim lady that we (BJP) have kept 500 crores separately for you).
The refrain that the Secularism of the Congress is nothing but anti-Hinduism is something that I myself have been saying right from my very first book, "The Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism" (1993), and the fact remains. But I have not allowed myself to get so hypnotized by this fact that I cannot recognize that in many ways the Congress has often shown itself to be less anti-Hindu than the BJP, to the extent that the BJP has often hastened to correct earlier pro-Hindu acts of the Congress! In my earlier article, "Is the BJP or its "Parivar" a Friend of the Muslims?", I showed none other than the darling of the BJP, Smriti Irani, making this claim:
In fact, let me repeat out that whole article here:
"What exactly are the facts beyond this sloganeering? Here is a prominent and typical BJP minister saying loudly, clearly, and in very categorical terms, and in Parliament itself, what I and many others have long been saying (and Koenraad Elst also in the above tweet) in our writings: that the BJP is far more zealous in "appeasing" the "minorities" than the Congress ever was or ever could be.
[The BJP leadership gets a kick out of getting their female ministers to speak out loudly and proudly what any of its various critics are saying against them ─ remember Uma Bharati declaring that the Ayodhya issue was a political "card" and "you cannot play the same card twice" ─ and they know all this will not make any dent in the fervent and worshipful faith of its "Hindu" followers. Remember also in a different context Sushma Swaraj proudly announcing that foreign participation in (i.e. foreign control of) the Indian media was "an idea whose time has come", as the Vajpayee regime overturned the all-party consensus, till then, of not allowing foreign participation in the Indian media].
The question arises: Is the BJP really a friend of Muslims, striving hard to correct the "injustices" done to the Muslims by previous Congress regimes? The BJP has certainly always tried to present such an idea in order to try to convince Muslims that they are a better bet for Muslims than the Congress or any of the other "secular" parties. I distinctly remember the live-televised (on Doordarshan) Parliamentary debates on the Vajpayee government's confidence motions (or alternately the opposition parties' No-Confidence motions) during the turbulent 1996-1998 period of three Parliamentary elections (1996, 1998, 1999), where the BJP and non-BJP ministers made every effort to push this line of thinking. Unfortunately, I have not been able to locate the recorded videos of those Parliamentary debates, but I still remember vividly a speech (in support of the Vajpayee government) during those debates where George Fernandes "revealed" that after the 1971 war, the Indira Gandhi government had passed secret circulars seeing to it that Muslims were kept away from vital and sensitive national security departments and data, and that this situation prevailed till the Vajpayee government, immediately after coming to (then temporary) power, reversed the secret circulars and orders!
[It was after this that the BJP government, in its five years of rule, made every effort to (among many other things) rope in as many Muslim mullahs, religious leaders and communal politicians into its folds, and confidently thought that a large section of Muslims had been won over and would add their sizable strength to the captive Hindu BJP-vote-bank kitty. To avoid misunderstanding, let me clarify that this does not refer to genuinely great Muslims like Arif Mohammad Khan, and a few others, who also happened to have joined the BJP then]
The answer to the above question, to give it first and in short, is: The BJP is not a "friend" of anyone ─ Hindu or Muslim (or ghar-wapasi), murdered sadhu or targeted Hindu writer/speaker/film-maker, rich or poor, Indian or foreigner, political-foe or political-ally ─ not even of its own supporters or members: the fate of Bengali Hindus who rallied behind the BJP in the last assembly elections and paid heavily for it (to the utter and total indifference of the BJP leadership) is too well-known to bear repetition here. And a glance at the MP/MLA/MLC/local-elections candidates of the BJP, and the lists of its ministers and office-bearers in every state, will show how every new and formerly "anti-BJP" individual, who joins the party, is rewarded with prime positions and control of the party organization and election apparatus. While the horses, cows and sheep of the BJP Animal Farm, who have toiled devotedly for the party for years and even for decades, are neglected or cast aside (like used "cards") and left to do the only work they are perhaps worthy of doing: shouting slogans, getting worked-up with devotional fervour, filling up rallies, doing intensive election campaigning, sometimes being thrown a few monetary and positional crumbs, and finally casting their votes (and the votes of all those whom they are in any position to influence) for the BJP and the neo-BJP candidates.
Then what exactly is the BJP doing: endless multi-crore-rupee schemes (funded by Hindu tax-payers and by income from Hindu temples and institutions controlled by the government) meant only for the "minorities"; special laws, acts and commissions meant to empower them and them alone; deliberate reiteration and perpetuation of pro-"minority" and anti-Hindu historical accounts and myths; special encouragement and facilities to missionaries converting Hindus; looting and draining-out of temple lands and funds; calculated westernization, de-Indianization and de-Hinduization of the Hindu youth, etc., etc.? If not out of special love for Muslims (and other minorities), what exactly is their motive?
I have already pointed out the basic motive in my earlier article, "Why is the "Hindutvavadi" BJP more Dangerously Anti-Hindu Than the Openly Anti-Hindu "Breaking India Forces"?". The BJP is showering all kinds of massive monetary and other crucial benefits on sections of Muslims (certain sects or classes of Muslims, Muslim students, talaq-oppressed women, etc.) with the aim of making a dent in the Muslim bloc votes which go against it and to thereby add to their more-or-less unshakeable "Hindu" vote-banks, which, as I have written many times before, will continue to consider the BJP the "Only Alternative" for Hindus even if the BJP government opens up concentration camps and gas-chambers for Hindu sadhus and genuinely Hindu thinkers and activists. They have little fear of large losses from among their Hindu voters, but a few losses here and there can be filled up with the few Muslim votes they expect to gain by these tactics, apart from the fact that even those few losses can easily be reversed by strategic last minute (pre-election) Hindu issues, Hindu-Muslim riots and India-Pakistan skirmishes!
Muslims who genuinely come to believe the BJP is their "friend" in any way will certainly be fools, but not if they realize that the BJP's crocodile friendship can be used to their own personal advantage and for the furtherance of their own ideological agendas, and therefore willingly and consciously become ready to play "friends-friends" with the BJP with such an aim in mind. The only fools in the whole game will be Hindus (but I am really beginning to believe that being made fools is what Hindus in general like best). And the only winners will be the BJP and their crony Capitalists in the short run, and the enemies of Indian culture and Hinduism in the long run ─ whether Islamists, Christian Evangelists, hard-core leftists, or any other class of Hindu-haters."
So, while I cannot answer for Ritu Rathaur (whom I salute from the bottom of my heart), let me give my personal answer to the question being asked of her (of whether she advocates voting for the Congress rather than the BJP).
Yes, I will vote for the Congress against the BJP if there is no better and stronger alternative among the anti-BJP candidates in the constituency where I vote.
In fact, while I loathe Asaduddin Owaisi as an anti-Hindu − firstly because he and his party represent the present-day version of the pre-1947 Muslim league, and secondly because he is making it easy for the BJP to be able to backstab Hindus by dividing the anti-BJP Muslim votes in the role of a B-team of the BJP − nevertheless I have less disrespect for him than I have for the treacherous "Hindu", Madhavi Latha, standing against him, who wants to give reservations to all Muslims. So, if I were a voter in the Hyderabad constituency, I would vote for the open enemy Asaduddin Owaisi rather than for the treacherous hidden enemy Madhavi Latha.
The opinion of those who advocate voting for the BJP, despite its never-ending betrayals and back-stabbings, does not matter to me. If they are not ashamed or embarrassed about voting for the backstabbing BJP, no-one else has any cause to feel ashamed or embarrassed as a Hindu at voting for anyone else. I myself believe in always speaking the truth as I see it. So, I do not care if I earn the hatred of anyone who objects to what I say. I will sincerely treat both, appreciation of my stand, as well as vicious and hate-filled or pseudo-contemptuous condemnation of my stand, with the same stoic acceptance.
If I am going to be forced to bear five more years of unbridled and unrelenting anti-Hindu backstabbings by a freshly elected BJP government, then bearing the hatred and abuse of its bhakts (for speaking the bitter truth) is only a minor corollary.
Note added one day later:
As I wrote, I only have contempt for people who would hate and abuse me for what I wrote above. Sadly, even those who do not abuse but object equally strongly also show only illogic and hypocrisy.
Among reactions to Koenraad Elst's tweet about this article of mine, one person apparently writes: "TINA who else to vote for? Congress, INDI alliance? I think Your love for Talageri is distorting your view, BJP has a million flaws, but is million times better than the other lot", and another writes: "Having said that, what will a Hindu gain from voting for Cong as Shri Talageri is ready to do? Nothing!" I would really be interested in knowing the logic by which the BJP is "million times better than the other lot" − and exactly which "other lot": those who have not yet joined the BJP? And exactly what is "a Hindu" gaining from voting for the BJP? Such comments are typical of people who refuse to even glance at the facts and data presented, and only keep repeating the formula "BJP good, Congress bad" like zombies or programmed robots.
Let me compare myself (as a representative of a Hindu voting against the BJP) with a bhakt voting for the BJP, assuming both of us to be voters in Jaunpur: I would be voting for the non-BJP candidate (I believe it is the SP in that seat and not Congress). The bhakt would be voting for the BJP.
In effect:
a) From the point of view of integrity, the bhakt will be voting for a candidate who has jumped from one party to another. I will be voting for a candidate who has more party loyalty.
b) From the point of view of Hindutva, the bhakt will be voting for a candidate who released a book on "Hindu Terror". I will be voting for a candidate who has not played a part in the manufacture of the concept of "Hindu Terror".
c) From the point of view of Corruption, the bhakt will be voting for a candidate who became a byword for corruption in Mumbai. I will be voting for a candidate whose record in the matter of corruption is relatively less celebrated.
d) From the point of view of intra-party justice, the bhakt will be voting for a candidate who came from another party and managed to get the BJP candidature at the expense of local RSS-BJP members who have loyally toiled for the party for decades. I will be voting for a candidate who has done no such harm to the local RSS-BJP members.
In exactly which way is the "BJP" candidate from Jaunpur "million times better than" the non-BJP candidate, and "what will a Hindu gain" from voting for him?
The only answer is the programmed answer "BJP good, Congress bad". And this is the case not just this in this Lok Sabha seat, but in countless seats all over the country where the "BJP" candidates are of pure non-BJP vintage.
I have said I will vote for the strongest candidate in my constituency, even, if I were a voter in Hyderabad, for Asaduddin Owaisi of the AIMIM, because I feel the first priority is teaching the BJP that backstabbing Hindus does not pay. Those who criticize this on high moral grounds are those very bhakts who would vote for Asaduddin Owaisi if he were a candidate or ally of the BJP. If the BJP gave its candidature to Imran Khan of Pakistan (if he took up Indian citizenship and joined the BJP) or to an "ex" Kashmiri terrorist, these bhakts would vote for him chanting slogans about "strengthening Modiji's hands".
I am proud to be myself, and not a programmed-robot or bhakt.