After the partition of India in 1947, it should not have been difficult to bridge the gulf between Hindus and Muslims, if only there were not many anti-Hindu Hindus. It is they who nurture Muslim bigots and justify their wayward conduct. Remember that there is a paucity of non-clerical leadership amongst the Muslims.That vacuum in leadership is filled by anti-Hindu Hindus. It is difficult to think of their motivation other than emotional masochism. Which is rather like a psycho~sexual disorder in which an erotic release is achieved through having pain inflicted on oneself.

Dr Ram Manohar Lohia put it differently in "'The Guilty Men of India's Partition'': It is one thing not to acknowledge the rape of one's mother, it is quite another to refuse to accept the result. While the Muslim erred in acknowledging both the rape and its results, the Hindu should be faulted for refusing to acknowledge either.

Evidently, anti-Hindu Hindus derive satisfaction by inflicting humiliation upon their own community. Or else, how does one explain the phenomenon of journalist Kuldip Nayar, who had to run away to India from his home in Lahore in the wake of partition. Yet he writes and speaks for Pakistan day in and day out. On the floor of Parliament in December 1999, he said that it is but natural that thePakistani ISI should terrorise Hindus in Jammu, because Indian RAW instigates agitations in Karachi. Why does Mr. Nayar not go back to his beloved home in Pakistan?

The intention is not to focus on any one person. There is a galaxy of groups and individuals who have held anti-Hindu views ranging from the communists to Jawaharlal Nehru to Mohandas Gandhi. There are intellectuals like Ms Romila Thapar, Gargi Chakravartty, Harbans Mukhia, Bipan Chandra and N.E. Balaram whose views make even more rabid reading. In a democratic society, every citizen is free to hold his opinions but no responsible person should twist facts to back up his views.