Why Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya went against ‘Hindu Rashtra’?

“India was never a Hindu Rashtra and India cannot become Hindu Rashtra…”, says Swami Prasad Maurya with his anti-Hindu motivation and fathomless ignorance in Hindu and Buddhist tradition.

Upendra Bharti | HENB | Raebareli | Aug 26, 20023:: Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya spoke to the media on August 25 and stated that India was never a Hindu Rashtra till now and will not become one in the future because the Indian constitution is based on secular ideology, which believes in brotherhood among all in India. He went on to say that he believes in Sanatan Dharma and has no objections to anyone who practices it.

“When India was not a Hindu Rashtra till date, then it cannot be a Hindu Rashtra now, because our Indian constitution is based on secular ideology. We consider brotherhood among Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians as a culture and also accept it…I believe in Sanatan Dharm because Sanatan Dharm is the teachings given by Lord Buddha. If someone believes in Sanatan Dharm, I am not against him, I respect him a lot”, said Swami Prasad Maurya.

Swami Prasad replied to all these in reference to the Hindu Rashtra advocacy by Dhirendra Krishna Shastri of Bageshwar Dham.

Maurya also connected Khalistan with Hindu Rashtra in an odd interpretation.

Taking his X handle (formerly known as Twitter), eminent Hindutva leader, Upananda Brahmachari expressed his concern “This @SwamiPMaurya has no knowledge about Dharma and only has anti-Hindu ideas. He is both ignorant of Hindu and Buddha traditions. He doesn’t know what is ‘एष धर्मः सनातनः’ or ‘Hindu Rashtra’. Pity on him. Bharat will be a Constitutional and Sovereign Hindu Rashtra very soon. Brahmachari further clarified, “Bharat is a Cultural Hindu Rashtra now and will be a Constitutional and sovereign Hindu Rashtra soon”.

Months before this Samajwadi Party leader attacked RamCharitManas and the writer of it Goswami Tulsidas picking threads of disrespect to the Sudras (outcasts) and Women.

Completing his tour in BJP, Swami Prasad Maurya joined Samajwadi Party (many Hindus call it Namajwadi Party for its Muslim appeasement policy) with his full attempt to attack BJP and Hindutva as his primary agenda.

Swami Vivekananda described, “Buddhism was a rebel child of Hinduism” but he accepted,  “The relation between Hinduism (by Hinduism, I mean the religion of the Vedas) and what is called Buddhism at the present day is nearly the same as between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Shâkya Muni was a Hindu. The Jews rejected Jesus Christ, nay, crucified him, and the Hindus have accepted Shâkya Muni as God and worship him.” (Speech of Swami Vivekananda on 26th September 1893 in Chicago World Religion parliament series).

In the same lecture, Swami Vivekananda stressed, “Hinduism cannot live without Buddhism, nor Buddhism without Hinduism.”

But, the half-educated political leaders like Swami Prasad have no reach to the wisdom of Bharat as illuminated by legends like Bhuddha-Shankar-Chaitanya-Ramakrishna-Vivekananda and so on.

Before commenting against Hindu Rashtra, such Swami Prasad Maurya like people usually turn wild without any relevance to the facts or the consequences of it at all. Such people have a close connection with the Islamic lobby to promote ‘minority appeasement’ or ‘Dalit-Muslim coalition’ against Hindus at random.

Swami Prasad knows well that his effort of spreading lies on Hindu, Hindutva, and Bharat based upon many concoctions and conjectures will not be effective in a Hindu Bharat when it comes to a proper shape with the power of Hindutva.

Swami Prasad Maurya never contemplated why Shivaji Maharaj established the Hindu Pad Padsahi (the formation of Hindu Rashtra in another name) or Bal Gangadhar Tilak started the Swarajya movement on the basis of Hindavi Swaraj.

“If @SwamiPMaurya is not planted as Islamic Agent, these political morons could think, why India was separated and Pakistan was created. By virtue of partition, India is Hindusthan as the partition was made on a religious basis. Then what is the meaning of Secularism?” Brahmchari reacted in X.

The words, ‘SOCIALIST’ & ‘SECULAR’ were only inserted in the Indian constitution as the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India as enacted in 1976, by then Prime Minister India Gandhi during the emergency. The ‘SOCIALIST’ & ‘SECULAR’ words were not the original part of Indian Constitution. Those inclusions were both arbitrary and conspiratory.

…

__Inputs from ANI.

“