Audrey Trushcke has organised an event on 6th December where she will deliver a so-called “lecture” in Paris on Hindutva and on her questionable re-writing of Hindu History. We’re not holding our breath on the content – which will be a predictable dose of brazen anti-Hindu propaganda manifest as “facts”, that in practice are well-rehearsed tropes and fallacies aimed at Indians in general and Hindus in particular. So far, her impaired intellect has been unable to muster any worthy arguments or insights. But there is no lack of imagination in her ceaseless derisory remarks against Hindus and Hinduism generally.
To live in a democratic society means that all voices, including ones we find distasteful or which have no factual arguments, have the right to be heard. However, we as Hindus & Indians, feel it utterly necessary to raise our voices and offer our perspective on matters which she claims to be authoritative.
Audrey a self-proclaimed expert on South Asian History, has a track record of output exhibiting a litany of biased anti-Hindu statements and theories which are well off the mark and deviate from recognised historical facts. These emanate from shallow research consisting mainly of conjecture, leaving no doubts about the intention. Her books and theories amply demonstrate an excellent penchant for misstating or twisting information to spread hate against Hindus and Hinduism. We find this situation utterly unacceptable and morally reprehensible. Whilst we unequivocally condemn her commentary on our Hindu heritage, we also want to emphasise that India and South Asia as a whole are filled with a rich Hindu culture with a far-reaching history that is many thousands of years old.
We also wish to highlight one of Audrey’s more controversial statements from the recent past regarding the role played by Aurangzeb, a Mughal period emperor who ruled between 1658 – 1707. Mughals left a rich archive of documents which have been an invaluable source of the historical record for understanding the events which took place during their rule. One consistent feature under Aurangzeb’s rule was the ruthlessness with which he attacked Hindu temples, robbing them of their wealth and destroying vast swathes of territory which he overran while murdering millions of Hindus.
A photo of one such document from the Mughal Archive gives a sense of the terrible suffering wreaked on innocent Hindus during that period. In this document, Aurangzeb instructs his governors to destroy all Hindu temples in their provinces to stop the spread of “false teachings” and to prevent other Muslims from having access to centres of Hindu learning.
According to Audrey the fangirl, Aurangzeb was a generous ruler who provided employment to many Hindus. Who else would have been available to “employ,” we ask? More than 95 per cent of the population of that period was Hindu. Hindus were treated as slaves, subject to Jizya and his Fatwa-E-Almgiri. Therefore, Hindus of the time would have had little choice in offers of “employment”.
Another one of her great causes has been the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Audrey has been particularly playing up this controversy to garner non-Hindu sympathies and support for herself. She has blatantly gone about accusing the ruling BJP government of hate-mongering and citing an infamous incident at Babri Masjid as evidence. Ayodhya is to Hindus, what Jerusalem is to Christians (and Jews of course). More specifically, the sanctity with which the birthplace of Jesus Christ is revered, is what the birthplace of Lord Rama means to Hindus. And the Babri Masjid was built by Babar the invader, over the destroyed temple dedicated to the birthplace of Lord Rama. Hindus have laid claim to this site for centuries. But the archaeological and historical evidence curated and presented to the Supreme Court in India resulted in a final settlement with a ruling in favour of the Hindu side only as recently as 9th November 2019. The final settlement was accepted by the opposing side which also included an allotment of land within Ayodhya’s city limits for a new mosque in lieu of the disputed site. The parcel of land awarded to the losing side was roughly double in size of the disputed property, as per the Supreme Court of India’s final judgement.
Audrey will not concede that the dispute between the parties had been settled amicably as per the law of the land. Furthermore, on the day of the ruling and the ensuing period thereafter, there were no conflicts or riots reported anywhere in the country. This was a great example of governance and bonhomie across religious institutions and government in India. However very little about this is known outside of India as unfortunately, good news does not make good headlines in global media.
For Audrey to even mention any of this in her lecture is a pipe dream as only the worst depiction of Hindus and India will satiate her ingrained anti-Hindu, anti-India prejudices.