The narrative pushed by the anti-Hindu brigade in India (and from other countries) is that Hindutva is not acceptable in a secular democratic country like India. They want India to emulate the western countries, which they claim are secular and do not favour one religion over another.

Surprisingly, it’s the opposite and it needs to be brought to light. To make this case, instead of using the narrative of Islamic countries with their sharia laws (whHinduhe hindu-phobic liberals will argue are not secular countries), lets take the example of a couple of western countries – United States, United Kingdom and Germany which our fake-liberal brigade would whole-heartedly endorse as the “beacons of a secularism”, in this oh-so intolerant world.

The United States:

There have been studies done by well-established professors of political sciences in the US recently, where they have examined 10’s of thousands of documents of the men who were involved in the framing of the US constitution. These professors have come back with some very interesting similarities of the US constitution having Christian influence –

Influence on the constitution which declares the tripartite division of government — judicial, legislative and executive – Isaiah 33:22 [For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; it is he who will save us.]

Recognizing that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” and that mankind is basically sinful/evil – Jeremiah 17:9[The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?], the Founding Fathers sought the separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. Articles I, II and III provide for the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.

The welcome extended to immigrants (Article 1, section 8) is mandated by Leviticus 19:34] [But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.]

According to Deuteronomy 17:15 [Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother], the nation’s leader must be a natural-born citizen. That is the restriction of the person elected to serve as president by Article II, section 1.

The exception for Sundays in the time limit for the president to sign a bill into law in Article VII, Section 2 hints at the assumption that Sunday was a day of rest as set forth in Exodus 20 […For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy]

Benjamin Rush (one of the founding fathers of the US) talked about the religious [Christian] foundation of the republic that demanded virtuous leadership. He said that “the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid on the foundation of religion. Without this, there can be no virtue, and without virtue, there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments”.

[Source: bible.org and other sources etc]

A couple of examples in judgments passed by the US Supreme court makes it clearly evident –

Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” [Church of the Holy Trinity v. the United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226. (1892).]

A distinctively Christian view of the law is also reflected in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890):

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho . . . It was never intended or supposed that the (First) amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. ….. Probably never before in the history of this country has it seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.

Now let’s move on to the UK (also called Great Britain – however, one might question what about it, or ever was, great).

The United Kingdom:

The Upper house of UK parliament (also called the House of Lords) scrutinizes and amends bills (proposed laws) that have been approved by the House of Commons. While it is unable to prevent Bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances, it can delay Bills and force the Commons to reconsider their decisions. There are 26 bishops of the established Church of England who serves in the House of Lords. Which basically means that every bill that gets enacted first gets scrutinized by a Christian religious body in England before it gets passed into law. If they were truly secular, wouldn’t they have members from all religions represented in the Upper House, or have the current 26 bishops excluded?

How if we set up 26 Hindu priests from all the established Hindu sects from India, in the Rajya Sabha and include them in the decision-making process of new proposed laws in India? What kind of reaction do you think that will garner from the numb-minded pseudo-intellectuals who espouse everything western and keep complaining about the Hindutva dangers prevalent in India?

While we are at it, let’s talk about Germany, whose majority religion is Christianity.

Germany:

A German citizen can only officially renounce membership in a church through a legal civil registry office or at a municipal court. This heavily discourages Christians from renouncing their faith by creating road-blocks. Imagine a government in India trying to stop Hindus from legally renouncing their faith – it would stop the conversion shops being run by the others.

German state public schools offer Christian religion courses, and public universities in Germany continue to train future theologians. Other religion studies are not encouraged by the German government at the same level as Christianity.

The German state tax authority is responsible for collecting the so-called church tax. This goes towards financing staff, houses of worship, and social welfare institutions such as hospitals and kindergartens, which are often run by church groups. The same is not followed for other religions.

The Christian denominations get special privileges such as tax breaks, which do not apply to other religious groups in Germany.

Conclusion:

On one hand, you have western countries (and obviously Islamic countries) that favor the majority faith in their countries through legal means within their constitution, while on the other hand, you have state govts in India that discriminate against the Hindus who are in the majority. You have state govts that take over hindu temples on the pretext of improving administration but then themselves are embroiled in mismanagement of the temple funds, stealing murtis, jewelry and land. You have politicians who discourage Hindus from celebrating their festivals and openly criticize the Hindu religion in public forums. This is the sad state of India.

In order for the true ethos of India and its people to flourish, we need to accept that India is a Hindu democratic country, run by its constitution, with equal rights and respect to all people and religions – much better than the western countries. The Hindu way of life and its traditions should not be trampled upon so that the majority do not get alienated.