I must admit that I have found the intent of AK Ramanujan’s essay patently un-Indian not only because of the tone set by the Romila Thapar’s undesirable comments quoted by Paul but also because it seems that there is a sinister design to place a few exceptions and rare extremes in such a manner that they just appear to be five simple examples and thoughts on the 300 Ramayanas. After a fair reading of the essay anyone who has never come across any Ramayana will extrapolate that if five of the examples are so diverse then reading other 300 will make no sense of any story. It would appear that anybody can be called anybody’s wife or anybody’s daughter in these Ramayanas and the author concludes with his effort in making the readers believe that there is nothing to read about in these texts since there is no distinction between reality and imagination.

At this point let me state some facts even if a few of them have a potential to make some of us uncomfortable since I would like to place here the reasons as to why I love my country and what I think about Indianness from the perspective of Hinduism that I am proud of. I must also admit here that I have inherited all these by understanding many discourses based on many religious Hindu texts including the Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagvat Gita.
 
I love India not because Indians ‘tolerate’ or ‘accommodate’ other faiths, views and religions but because we genuinely ‘respect’ them all. I love India because I inherit an enviable attitude of bowing down to a place of any faith and also feel a great sense of proud and satisfaction in doing this. I love India because Indians never hesitate in promoting changes and modifications in our thoughts if it is hurting the interest of this land. I love India because nobody can think of getting any support even from diehard 'Ram-bhakts' if one deserts his wife when she is pregnant for any reason citing that even Rama did this. I love India as I can never even imagine someone garnering any support from even staunch believers of Hinduism for keeping many wives by citing any number of examples from the Ramayana and Mahabharata. I love India as we Indians, instead of reciting a religious book to classify an act as right or wrong, follow our hearts and the law of the land to know the difference between right and wrong.

That is why we know that when Mahatma Gandhi conceptualised ‘Ramrajya’ in India everybody knew that he did not intend to put other religions, Harijan and women out of the canvas. I love India and Indianness as we are always ready to apologise and also ready to appreciate all gestures of apologies extended by anybody for unintentionally hurting the sensibilities of other faiths/religions.

For me it was un-Indian to prefer leaving India and accept another citizenship instead of feeling sorry for hurting sensibilities of other faith (even if it was done unintentionally) and owning those hate-paintings. Here a ‘Narender Modi’ cannot think of getting any support by saying that yes he allowed the riots to happen and instead has the support of his state only because he has convinced them that he was unable to control it. I also believe that instead of offering not to slaughter cows for at least some days in a year to express it as a token of their concerns for others’ sensibilities, it is un-Indian that some of us feel unapologetic about this. To me hurting sensibilities of any faith is patently un-Indian. And therefore for me it is difficult to find Indianness in the name of diversity that is always directed to hurt Hindus only.

Advani to get support because he could convince us that some fringe element in our society was trying to provoke a certain section of our society by using the word ‘Masjid’ when a structure built by a king was targeted as he was consciously avoiding this term in order to take everybody along. I hate those who were involved in demolishing a structure before making everybody feel that it was necessary and that is why I admire all those who genuinely feel that demolition of the structure can never be celebrated.

If you cannot accept to put Godse’s views on Gandhi and his last speech in the reading list just because it can hurt sensibilities, and will also like to avoid putting Taslima Nasrin’s views on Islam into it then you have no right to fight for inclusion of Ramanujam’s essay in the compulsory reading list for undergraduate students. Don’t ban the essay (as it will be un-Indian) but don’t force those innocent students to read those views. I did not find the attitude of Romila Thapar as Indian when the growing popularity of Ramayana serial was termed as 'dangerous' and also found Ramanujam’s essay un-Indian as the essay intends to hurt Hindu-believers.

I can never call it Indian to put the terrorists’ definition of Jihad even in the name of an essay named as ‘Many meanings of Jihad: few examples and thoughts’ and start an agitation to put it into the curriculum of the ‘mature’ Kashmiri students! Although we know that we can find more than many uncomfortable meanings of ‘Jihad’ and ‘Kafir’ in different ‘tellings’ (Ramanujam has tried to distinguish between ‘tellings’ and ‘versions’ to put forward his view that nothing is original in Ramayana) those can be found in several avoidable contexts that we can never promote.

Before some of us start twisting my words I would like to place here that all the characteristics that I have pointed out as Indian are synonym not only to Hinduism but also to other religions but remarkably this shade is noticeable only in their Indian versions. Some of the religions that started in India itself out of some genuine grudges felt by a section of the Hindu-society have ultimately ended up in developing a mutual respect for each others’ faiths as Hinduism tried accommodating and respecting their concerns by going beyond their own religious texts/beliefs.

I know that we have created a situation where calling myself a Hindu can brand me a fanatic and fundamentalist but I will still love to call myself a Hindu not only because I am indeed a Hindu but because it has helped me to imbibe all those invaluable Indian values automatically without which I cannot imagine my existence. My heart bleeds as I witness this situation where a devout Muslim and a practicing Christian can proudly announce themselves as secular and I am left to choose between calling myself either a secular or a Hindu although I know that the characteristics of ‘secularism’ that we inherit has a clear mark of Hinduism and hence cannot be found anywhere else on this earth.