Secularism as a concept sounds extremely amazing and humanitarian. It seems to enforce a belief that everyone is equal and it evokes extreme support from a lot of people from various demographies thanks to its allure. But then again, the one question any Indian would fail to ask themselves is ‘If it were such an amazing idea, how it is that in India the very same idea is able to ensure that 20% of the population can hold 80% to ransom?’

The fundamental flaw in secularism which most Indians fail to see, is its Christian origins. Christianity in Europe for long had a strangle hold over every aspect of every person’s life that in over nearly 2 millennia, it ended up painting itself permanently on the minds of even the most fervent anti-Church political movements. By the time of the Renaissance, although much of the Renaissance was anti-Church politically, a major failure of the Renaissance was that it argued for an alternate Christianity rather than the very undoing of Christianity. The Renaissance is funnily believed to be a time of anti-Christian social changes but paradoxically enough was an era that saw the rise of the most puritanical form of Christianity – Protestantism. And yet, the rulers of Northern Europe used this puritanical movement as a means to undermine the Vatican whilst retaining every single aspect of Christian social puritanism firmly in place.

The Renaissance therefore was a time when the Vatican merely lost its political grip on Europe, but at the same time, it was a time in which a very puritanical Christian worldview gripped many powerful nations of Europe such as Britain and Prussia. Down to the colonial era, Christian apologism became a culture. Even today, we see the writings of colonial era authors who portray non-Christian non-white lands as uncivilized and therefore as necessary targets for Christian civilizing and Christian decency. In this manner, they took advantage of the inherently tolerant natures of religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism which in turn made it easy for them to establish the church across the globe. What ended up happening in the colonies was quite remarkable – those pro-colonial natives who had inculcated European culture created a uniquely perverted narrative that the already tolerant should always be a little more tolerant, while the inherently intolerant can remain intolerant unquestioned.

This was indeed the inception of western secularism – the belief that a religion such as Hinduism has a duty of being tolerant to any level of injustice done to it, while Abrahamic religions which are inherently intolerant to anything other than themselves are to be put up with because that way, 2 incompatible sides can exist at the cost of the more tolerant side. No doubt, such a system would lead to the eventual cultural annihilation of the more inherently tolerant side – but then again that is precisely Christianity’s objective – to overcome a pagan religion whilst creating a narrative of being the more moral and more civilized side. Ever since the end of the Renaissance in Europe, the rulers of Europe feverishly tried to separate church and state whilst having no intention to de-Christianize society. Therefore, church or no church, Christianity as a statement of political chauvinism and theological apologism would remain untouched in Europe’s fabric. Be it the Hussite wars, Protestantism or even Nazism – Christianity became a statement of political chauvinism that encouraged violent repression of anyone of disagreed with a dogma (ironically the Nazis promoted Norse paganism in parallel to their claim of enforcing ‘good Christian values’ on Germany).

William McKinley – the President of the United States during the 1900s clearly showed the world what American western secularism stood for when his armies invaded the already Catholic Philippines. He made a public speech calling the Philippinos ‘pagans who needed Christianization.’ In the genocide that followed and claimed over a million Phillipino lives, the US media portrayed the Philippines as a barbarian land that needed civilization. The Colonial era’s comics and novels are replete with caricatures of African natives being portrayed like animals and the white man being shown as his saviour. Why, Belgium held a ‘human exhibition’ in 1915 wherein Africans of various nations where paraded on the streets of Brussels in cages showcasing them as animals from exotic lands. And despite all this, in no modern textbook of history in Europe will one even find mentions of such events.

Now one may ask how and why Christianity as a culture is so inherently hypocritic in its application of morals.

Christianity throughout its history always tried to shift narratives and twist narratives. In Sassanid Iran for instance, the writing of Nestorian church fathers always portrayed the Zoroastrian side as fundamentally immoral and therefore justified Roman Christian military action against them. During the Baltic Crusades, the pagan Prussians and Livonians were portrayed in Latin chronicles as cannibals, rapists and marauders while the Christian European was portrayed as his saviour from the grasp of pagan savagery. Likewise, the chronicles of various Church Synods (such as the synod of Szyabolcs that fought tooth and nail to outlaw and ban Hungarian paganism on pain of death) across Europe showcase how Christian authors were experts at generating lies and defamations against non-Christians whilst automatically assuming the more moral argument of the discourse.

Chronicles left behind by authors like Mesrop Mashtots, Jacob of Sarug, Rabbula of Edessa, Henry of Livonia showcase how the Christians left behind elaborate written explanations portraying only one side of the story – all of which justify Christian military aggressions against pagans who never even harmed or bothered the Christians in question. And it is well known that the only available side will automatically become the only acceptable source of history for any historian. And hence, modern historians will easily believe the only narrative available – the Christian narrative. Christians also ensured that pagan libraries and pagan literates be annihilated so that the only people who knew how to wield a pen were Christians – (similar to a technique used by Arabs during the invasion of Iran, particularly the invasion of Khwarazmia wherein the Arab governor of Khorasan Hajjaj ibn Sayyar ensured that the entire literate priesthood of Khwarazmia be put to death.)

But in all these justifications, the Christians of Europe developed a habit of never acknowledging the truth of what they themselves had perpetrated. And hence, this moral cowardice to acknowledge one’s own faults led to the formation of an elaborate and seemingly noble idea that an inherently tolerant side must remain tolerant at all times at its own peril, while an inherently violent and intolerant side can continue to do so provided it can spontaneously generate a covering narrative for itself.

And with this in mind, when we observe modern times, we see the western media going out of its way to create a sympathetic narrative to anti-Hindu forces while creating a villainous narrative about those who defend dharma. The reason is simple and time tested – Christianity as a culture uses any and every means as its weapon to overcome a pagan anti-Christian side. In Armenia for instance, the church used Iranian aggression against Armenia as a justification for Armenia’s noble houses to recruit Christians as soldiers, and later used Islamic aggression against Armenia to solidify its base as Armenia’s sole human resource regulatory body. Likewise in the Baltics, the Christian military orders used Mongol invasions against pagan lands as a means to attract pagan refugees into their castles and convert them in exchange for refuge. Said refugees would later be asked to fight alongside Christians against their own pagan brethren to prove their faith. The Roman Empire used its elaborate church network in Mesopotamia to stew up rebellion against Iran’s Zoroastrian leadership for centuries.

The method clearly is an old and reliable one and is today being deployed against the last pagan bastion on Earth – India, and its ancient religion of Hinduism which thanks to its tradition of bhakti fuelled by sagely wisdom has managed to hold its flock against a storm of Abrahamic invaders. And who are Christianity’s rebel agents in India? Liberals, Communists, Christians themselves, Muslims, the so-called Hindu atheists, Dravidianists, etc. And thus in trying to show the Hindu nationalist camp as evil ever since 1991, western secularism has lost many adherents in India by exposing its true face. As fortuitous as this may be, the one place the Hindu nationalist camp underestimated the west is their media potential. Western culture has fuelled a sudden rise of Indian authorship – most of which is targeted at defaming Hinduism.

Shashi Tharoor, Amish Tripathi, Devdutt Patnaik – are all of the same camp in which the likes of Audrey Truschke and Wendy Doniger sit, dictating the industrial churning out of libellous anti-Hindu venom. Christian control over the internet is staggering as well, as sites such as Facebook promptly ban and shut down Hindu voices while allowing the flourishing of Islamist pages such as those of Zakir Naik. How Hinduism will withstand this new test of technological proselytization is yet to be found out.

The beauty of the Christian secular system is that at some point, its followers will spontaneously promote it merely out of belief without even an incentive for reward. And that is clearly visible in India’s secular middle class Hindus who for no other reason than the westernism inherent in the idea, will support western secularism.

In the meanwhile, the latest addition to this arsenal are the Rohingyas whose Islamic potential to start a civil war is being exploited to ‘test just how tolerantly and secularly India will accept them,’ failing, which, India will be branded yet again as an evil nation of pagan blood drinkers and snake charmers desperately in need of an armed western intervention to ensure the continuity of civilization here.