Let me say this first. I am aware of the boundless regard Aravindan has for me. This is true of many other persons who joined him malign me. Thus, there is nothing personal in these debates. Of course, there are a few other buffoons and nitwits who have used his post to take potshots at me. I hold them in utter contempt. Now, about my Brahmin birth. Aravindan has separately written to me and said that his intent was not to hurt me. I believe him and hence I would let that matter rest. I know this will be extremely disappointing to Periyarist Nazis and other Brahmin-hating – and Aravindan-hating – nuts, but I can’t help it. However, if Aravindan wants to continue the discussion on these lines and give a few minutes of amusement to these weirdoes, I am ready for it.  

I have been a lifelong fighter on the side of Secularism – especially the Nehruvian brand of secularism. Most of the persons, including Aravindan, were not even born when I started my journey. It is therefore natural for me to get irritated when some of these persons who have newly found secularism try to teach me how to couch my secularism in an acceptable language. If this irritation is mistaken for arrogance, as has been done by some dimwits, I can’t help it. One Ambedkar-worshipping worthy has made a snide remark that a lifelong reading of Gandhi doesn’t make one Gandhian. I have never claimed myself to be a Gandhian. I am a lifelong student of Marx, Gandhi, and Nehru. That is all. In any case, I would remind this worthy of what Ambedkar had to say about Muslims in his famous book on Pakistan. What he wrote doesn’t diminish his secular credentials.

What did I exactly write that made these self-appointed guardians of secularism to bristle and pounce on me? It is just one word, – Hindu. This was what I wrote: My heart goes out to the Hindu families who have lost their dear ones. If I had not added the word ‘Hindu,’ all hell would not have broken loose. The guardians’ contention was that I had dirtied secularism beyond dry-cleaning by adding the word ‘Hindu.’ I was going through what I wrote on the 22nd of April, and these words that I wrote struck me: “Defend Democracy! Defend Secularism! Defend our Supreme Court.” I was also taking on the Hindutva fanatics. I didn’t watch the television that day and got to know of the attack in Pahalgam pretty late at night on that day or the next morning. If I remember rightly, it was DNA’s headlines that caught my attention. It screamed “Hindus Killed in Pahalgam Terror Attack.” I was not then aware that a Muslim was also killed in that attack, and my reaction was spontaneous. I never imagined that it would be nitpicked by self appointed guardians of secularism who had not had a single word of sympathy, until then, for the victims. Their convoluted reasoning was that my mentioning the word ‘Hindu’ would bring the entire Muslim community to disrepute. Now, there have been many attacks by terrorists in the past. This attack is different for a single reason. The terrorists sought out and identified Hindus and trained their guns on them. Yes, terrorism doesn’t have a religion. Yes, terrorists don’t represent Islam. But the victims were butchered because the terrorists identified them to be Hindus. A Nepali was killed. They also killed a Muslim who tried to help the tourists. It is the height of dishonesty to claim that they were killed because they were Indians. Even left-leaning media doesn’t claim that. For instance, in an interview for Frontline, Nirupama Subramaniam clearly says that the terrorists pulled out the tourists after ascertaining their religious identity and shot them execution-style.

Now to Gandhi.

Gandhi’s reaction to mutual butchery in the years 1946 and 1947 was, without doubt, one of anguish. But he never tried to hide the religious identity of the perpetrators. This is what he said in Noakhali in November 1946:

I have heard nothing but condemnation of these acts from Shaheed Suhrawardy [the Chief Minister of Bengal] downwards since I have come here. Words of condemnation may tickle your ears, but they are no consolation to the unfortunate women whose houses have been laid desolate or who have been abducted, forcibly converted, and forcibly married. What a shame for Hindus, what a disgrace for Islam!

This is what he said at his prayer meeting on September 12, 1947:

Let us know our own dharma. In the light of our dharma, I would tell the people that our greatest duty is to see that the Hindus do not act in frenzy, nor the Sikhs indulge in acts of madness… I appeal to the Muslims that they should open-heartedly declare that they belong to India and are loyal to the Union. If they are true to God and wish to live in the Indian Union, they just cannot be enemies of the Hindus. And I want the Muslims here to tell the Muslims in Pakistan who have become the enemies of the Hindus, not to go mad: ‘If you are going to indulge in such madness, we cannot co-operate with you. We will remain faithful to the Union, and salute the tricolour.’

Will these faux guardians accuse Gandhi of suspecting the loyalty of Indian Muslims?

There were instances in the 1920s when Muslims sought out Hindus and butchered them. The Moplah Rebellion of 1921 in Malabar, Kerala, began as an anti-British and anti-landlord uprising by Mappila (Moplah) Muslims but escalated into communal violence targeting Hindus, resulting in significant loss of life and property. Estimates vary, but official figures suggest around 2,339 rebels and sympathizers were killed, with unofficial claims of up to 10,000 deaths, alongside hundreds of Hindus killed, forcibly converted, or displaced. Mahatma Gandhi’s response to the Moplah violence was complex, reflecting his commitment to Hindu-Muslim unity, his support for the Khilafat movement, and his non-violent principles. He appealed to the Hindus to forgive the Mappilas for what they did in ‘ignorance’.

But Gandhi’s reaction to the Kohat massacre of Hindus and Sikhs in September 1924 was different. In fact, Gandhi said this even before the Kohat massacre:

Though the majority of the Mussalmans of India and the Hindus belong to the same stock, the religious environment has made them different… Though, in my opinion, non-violence has a predominant place in the Koran, the thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion has made the Mussalmans fighters as a body. They are therefore aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of an aggressive spirit. The Hindu has an age-old civilisation. He is essentially non-violent. (Young India, June 19, 1924)

On the Kohat butchery, he was forthright in condemning the Muslims:

On the 10th, the Muslim fury knew no bounds. Destruction of life and property, in which the Constabulary freely partook, which was witnessed by the officials and which they could have prevented, was general. (Young India, September 25, 1924) Some of the Khilafat volunteers, who were expected to protect the Hindus, neglected their duty, and not only joined in the loot but also took part in the previous incitement. (Young India, September 25, 1924)

On September 18, 1924, Gandhi started a 21-day fast at Mohammad Ali’s residence. This is what he said:

The recent events in Kohat have overwhelmed me with grief… Hindu-Muslim unity has received a rude shock. I have no desire to live if I cannot see Hindus and Mussalmans living as brothers. I undertake this fast as a penance for my failure and as a prayer to God to purify the hearts of both communities.

This is what he said on February 26, 1925, in a letter written to Motilal Nehru:

I have discovered a wide gulf between Shaukat Ali and myself… He believes the riots were provoked by a Hindu poem derogatory to Islam, while I am convinced the conversions of Hindus and the general atmosphere of intolerance were the chief causes. It was as if I found a snake under my quilt.

How would Gandhi have reacted to the butchery of Pahalgam? He would have visited the place. He would have tried to heal the wounds. He would have undertaken a fast to emphasize Hindu-Muslim unity. But he would not have shown cowardice in hiding the fact that those who were butchered were overwhelmingly Hindus and that they were butchered solely because of their Hindu identity. Gandhi was never a coward.

                                                                                                                                                                          Ar