Rahul Gandhi Is The Ultimate 'Dhimmi'; He Will Harm Hindu Interests, Not Serve Them

Last week in Parliament, Rahul Gandhi made it clear where he stands when it comes to Hindus.

He seems to be indirectly, if not directly, Hinduphobic, and his use of Hindu symbolism (flashing Mahadev’s picture, linking the 'abhay mudra' to the Congress party’s election symbol) is likely to divide Hindu society and destroy it from within.

Before we come to his Parliament speech, consider what he said in Gujarat the other day: “By defeating the BJP in Ayodhya, (the) INDIA bloc has defeated the Ram Mandir movement that was launched by the BJP veteran Lal Krishna Advani. What I am saying is something very big... Congress party and INDIA defeated them in Ayodhya”.

He is indeed saying something big. If the goal of the Congress party (and his INDIA alliance) was to defeat the centuries-old Ram Janmabhoomi movement of ordinary Hindus for building a Ram Temple in Ayodhya, there can be no greater insult to the hundreds of Hindus who sacrificed their lives to make the temple a reality.

He is definitely anti-Hindu, and flashing pictures of Lord Shiva in Parliament is meant to deceive Hindus into voting for his party.

As for his claim that the Congress party’s (hand) symbol is akin to the Hindu and Buddhist “abhay mudra”, which conveys the sentiment of abandoning fear and eschewing the spreading of fear (“daro mat, darao mat”), it is laughable.

Rahul Gandhi’s actions suggest that he is not only deeply afraid, but also spreads fear. He is afraid of saying one word that will upset his minority community backers, and he is spreading fear of Hindus and Hindutva by indirectly calling them the nation’s enemies.

In his Parliament speech, he claimed that those who call themselves Hindu are always spreading hate and violence (“hinsa, nafrat”). He claimed later (when this drew outrage from several Hindu members of Parliament) that his statement was about the BJP and RSS, who he alleged were not Hindus at all (“Aap Hindu ho hi nahin”).

One may have a hundred complaints against the BJP and RSS, including the fact that they are not aggressively defending Hindu interests despite being in power for a decade, but to claim that the BJP is not Hindu at all is a deliberate attempt to cause confusion among a third of the voters who voted for this party, mostly Hindus from various social groups.

This is essentially the game of evangelical groups, Islamists and “secular” self-loathing Hindus: to ensure that Hindus and Hinduism give up their struggle for identity and live as “dhimmies” in their own country. He has been vociferously demanding a caste census, not to help those left behind, but to undercut any chance of Hindu unity in defence of the community's core interests.

The term dhimmi derives from Islamic history and jurisprudence, where countries under Islamic rule give some degree of protection to non-Muslim minorities to keep their faith and practise their religion, but strictly in a role subservient to Islam. In short, a dhimmi is a “protected person”, but he is clearly a second class citizen who has to live under Islamic Sharia rules. 

From the word dhimmi comes the term dhimmitude, the attitude of subservience to Muslims interests and Islam. The term was coined by Bat Ye’or, an Egyptian-born British Jewish writer. A Wikipedia entry on the word — and Wikipedia is no friend of the term — says the word dhimmitude describes the status of a dhimmi under Islamic rule, since it is combined with the French term “servitude”, ie, subjection.

Any Hindu who chooses to live in fear of Islamic opinion is a dhimmi, and Rahul Gandhi has demonstrated with words and deeds that he is the ultimate dhimmi, whose every act will be in line with what his minority community backers will accept, even if that means doing harm to Hindu interests.

He is not alone here, for many 'Left-liberals' go out of their way to defend Islamism in the US and Europe by using the term 'Islamophobia' to silence all criticism of Islam.

Funnily, Rahul Gandhi’s reference to the abhay mudra has drawn sharp criticism from Muslim and Sikh organisations, who do not like this Hindu-Buddhist symbol applied to their religions.

So, if anybody is trying to 'other' Hindus in their own country, it is Islamists and radical elements among Sikhs. And if Rahul Gandhi cannot even offer a weak counter, it shows how much he lives in fear of angering them. He is willing to anger and abuse only Hindus. A dhimmi who will do harm to Hindus.

Another example of Rahul’s dhimmitude came in the context of a conversation with a Christian pastor last year. During his Bharat Jodo Yatra, Rahul Gandhi asked a Hinduphobic pastor, George Ponniah, about the nature of Jesus.

In his interaction, Rahul asks Ponniah whether “Jesus Christ is a form of God? Is that right?” Ponniah replies: “He is the real God… God reveals him (self) as a man, a real person… not like Shakti… so we see a human person.”

If Rahul Gandhi had been a real Hindu, he would have countered this with his sense of what being Hindu means, what an avatar means, but he kept quiet. This is deep dhimmitude, where you accept the negative references to your own identity by your civilisational rivals, without even a murmur of protest. Or does this mean Rahul indirectly accepts what Ponniah said?

In February this year, at a rally in Mumbai, Rahul went in the other direction, opposing “shakti”. He said: “There is a word shakti in Hinduism. We are fighting against a shakti”.

By this he meant a force like the BJP, which, he said, was using all means (EVMs, CBI, ED, et al) to defeat the forces of good (ie, his own party and its allies). One wonders why he had to use the word “shakti” when his political enemy could easily have been directly mentioned by name.

Is there a subliminal hatred for Hindus or Hinduism that Rahul harbours? Where is this coming from?

On the other hand, he goes out of his way to defend Islam and its adherents. Some time last year, Rahul Gandhi was asked during his US tour whether his ally in Kerala, the Muslim League, was a secular party. He replied: “Muslim League is a completely secular party. There is nothing non-secular about the Muslim League. I think the person (who sent the question) has not studied the Muslim League”.

And this about a party whose pre-independence role was about dividing the country on communal lines. And which party continues to flirt with covert and overt forms of Islamism.

It is one thing to ally with parties who may not share your ideology in the interests of acquiring political power, quite another to whitewash their intentions.

When an alleged Shiv Bhakt will go out of his way to defend an ally whose very name says something about its sectarian identity, you cannot be called anything other than a Dhimmi.