NOTE: I do not know who tanslated this article of mine but I saw it in google search.
Proved years before that secularists are anti-Hindus
Author: Saurabh Shah
Publication: Gujarati Mid-Day
Date: April 29, 2002
Who comprises the ‘secularist’ group? They are the ones who are malicious towards the Hindu society, who abhor the Hindu culture, and who are ashamed to call themselves Hindu. The intelligentsia which call themselves rationalists and atheists can also be included in the “secularists” group. One can also include socialists and Marxists who, without any remorse, readily enjoy the five star facilities financed by others. Last not least, NGO’s which were funded by doubtful external sources. Hindus are disgusted with the TV channels of these secularists. The anti-Hindu stand taken by anchors of Aaj Tak, Star News and Zee News is reducing their credibility to zero. These diaper clad and immature pseudo secular boys and girls don’t have any intellectual background. From where do they learn all their secular lessons? Of course from their seniors whose “intellectual capability” is well known. If I start listing their names, more space will be needed. Therefore I have decided to take just one example and that of the former chief secretary of Maharashtra, JB D’souza. It has been proved beyond doubt that how the so-called secularism of these people is unnecessarily biased and spiteful of Hindus, and excessively appeasing and yielding to Muslims. The former chief secretary of Maharashtra Mr. JB D’souza and business journalist Dilip Thakur etc. had filed a petition against. They contended Bal Thackeray had written inflammatory articles in his daily ‘Samna’, igniting Hindus to attack Muslims. The petitioners alleged that Mr. Thackeray was the mastermind of the communal riots that took place in Mumbai in 1992-93. These writers repeatedly called Mr. Thackeray and the Shiv Sena ‘opportunist and communal’. Here I am not trying to defend Mr. Thackeray or what he had said or written. But I am going to deal with two questions here. First, how clean and upright are the people who have objected to him? Secondly, do they really have equal sympathies for all religions? Let’s see. During the Shrikrishna Commission deposition, the advocate for the Shiv Sena, Adhik Shirodkar had cross-examined Mr. D’souza. As an advocate, Shirodkar wanted to prove that D’souza was highly prejudiced against the Hindus in general and the Shiv Sena in particular. Mr. Shirodkar asked Mr. D’souza whether he had written any articles on the burning alive of seven Hindus in Jogeshwari and the killing of two Mathadi workers during the riots in Mumbai in January 1993. D’souza replied. ‘Although the incidents were distressing, I did not write anything against it in the newspapers’. (Readers please take note). Mr. Shirodkar reminded him of the killing of three Hindu constables in Paydhooni and Behrampara and the attacks on the police colony in Bhendi Bazaar. To this Mr. D’souza, who had worked as the chief secretary of the state, said that he was not aware of those incidents. The advocate also reminded him of the Shah Bano case, a seminal instance of minority appeasement. D’souza said, ‘Yes, even at that time I felt it was very sad.’ ‘Did you write any letters protesting it at that time?’ queried the advocate. ‘No’, said the secular D’souza. The advocate drew attention to an attack by Muslims on the poet and journalist Dom Moraes. Mr. Moraes was carrying his relative to a hospital in a critical condition and he found a huge mass of Muslims were offering Namaz on the road. He protested and they attacked. Mr. D’souza recollected the incident and even admitted that he knew Dom personally. “We have met formally at one or two occasions, but I neither gave a courtesy call to Mr. Moraes nor did I write an article or letter criticizing the incident.’’ Mr. D’souza even admitted during the cross examination that he had not written any article or letter criticizing the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid for opposing the Republic Day function by waving black flags in 1993. Mr. D’souza said that he did not hold high opinion about the Shiv Sena or Mr. Bal Thackeray. Mr. D’souza also admitted that he was the chief executive of a big housing project at Dindoshi in Mumbai and people such as Mrinal Gore, PB Samant and Suresh Narvekar were its trustees. When Justice Shrikrishna objected to the question, Shirodkar replied that it was necessary to throw light on the political connections between Janata Dal leaders Mrs. Mrinal Gore and Mr. Samant at the one hand and Mr. D’souza at the other. Mr. D’souza also admitted that he had not filed any petition or raised any voice against the provocative statements made by the Shahi Imam and other Muslim leaders as he did against Mr. Thackeray and Samna. He also said that the riots in Mumbai on March 12, 1993 by Muslims were sad but still he did not write any letter or article against it. When Mr. Shirodkar asked ‘Why?’, Mr. D’souza said, ‘I was too busy in my work.’ Advocate Mr. Shirodkar proved before the Shrikrishna Commission that Mr. D’souza had only written letters and articles during the communal riots blaming the Shiv Sena and its leaders. (All his articles and letters were anti-Hindu) Lastly, it also became evident during the course of the cross-examination by Mr. Shirodkar that Mr. D’souza was managing the administration of Jaslok hospital in Mumbai as the chief executive of the hospital and the Shiv Sena leader Sudhir Joshi (who was present in the court at that time) used to see him occasionally to represent workers, to settle labour issues with the management. After detailing the cross-examination, there is hardly a need to comment on the credibility of Mr. D’souza. The secularists and rationalists criticizing the Ayodhya issue should learn from the D’souza episode that they can also be cross-examined in the same way and exposed. The people, who kept mum about killings of 40,000 Hindus in Kashmir and burning alive of 58 Hindus in Godhra, should be cross-examined like this. Then it will be clear how poor is their understanding of culture and sentiments of people, and they are ones who create furor over the deaths of 900 people in Gujarat, on the issues of Hindutva and nationalism.
(The writer was editor of Gujarati Mid-Day during 1999-2002.)