Union Minister Giriraj Singh Declares India as a Hindu Nation, Critiques Post-Partition Dynamics
In a recent appearance on Rajat Sharma’s popular television show, Aap Ki Adalat, Union Minister Giriraj Singh made headlines by declaring that India fundamentally belongs to Hindus. He emphasized that the nation was partitioned in 1947 along religious lines, which led to the formation of Pakistan as a homeland for Muslims. His remarks ignited discussions about the historical context of partition and its implications for contemporary Indian society.
During the episode, Singh made a bold statement, asserting, “Main Danke Ki Chot Par Kehta Hoon (I am saying this emphatically).” He underscored that since India was partitioned based on religion, the existence of certain figures and institutions in India today would not have been possible had all Muslims been relocated to Pakistan. Singh provocatively suggested that the presence of political leaders like Asaduddin Owaisi and the legacy of Burhan Wani, a terrorist involved in violence in Jammu and Kashmir, are consequences of this post-Partition demographic reality.
He elaborated, saying, “If the country was partitioned on religious lines, and had Pandit Nehru sent all Muslims (to Pakistan), neither would we have a Waqf Board, nor Owaisi would have emerged, nor Burhan Wani.” Singh’s comments not only reflect his views on historical injustices but also aim to frame contemporary Muslim political identity in India within the context of the Partition.
Singh did not hold back when criticizing those he perceives as having divided loyalties. He pointed to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, stating, “Nasrallah dies in Lebanon, and our Bhais here in Delhi and Mumbai have stomach aches. Why? If you display your affection for Nasrallah, then we will have difficulty.” This statement underscores his belief that showing solidarity with foreign figures linked to religious extremism undermines national unity.
In response to remarks made by Maulana Arshad Madani regarding the impossibility of relocating 20 crore Muslims from India, Singh retorted by questioning the historical treatment of religious minorities in India. He challenged Muslims to recall whether any Hindus had ever vandalized their Muharram processions. His rhetoric points to a narrative that seeks to portray Hindus as peaceful and accommodating, while simultaneously casting suspicion on growing Muslim demographics and cultural practices.
Singh expressed particular concern over what he described as the promotion of “Love Jihad,” a term used by some Hindu nationalist groups to allege that Muslim men engage in deceptive practices to convert Hindu women to Islam. Citing Kerala as an example, he claimed, “It is only then that I feel pain and I start thinking it would have been better had they left India in 1947.” His comments reveal a deep-seated anxiety over inter-religious relationships and cultural integration in India.
Giriraj Singh’s declarations tap into a broader narrative prevalent among some segments of Indian politics, which emphasizes Hindu identity and national pride, often at the expense of the nation’s pluralistic heritage. His comments resonate with supporters who view the historical context of the Partition as a justification for current political and social policies aimed at asserting Hindu dominance.
However, Singh’s statements also risk exacerbating communal tensions and igniting further polarization within Indian society. As India continues to grapple with its diverse identity, the implications of such rhetoric can have far-reaching consequences for social cohesion.