Prime Minister Narendra Modi has rightly slammed the Congress over the issue of ‘Hindu terror.’ For the term was coined with an eye on political, electoral interests. The grand old party almost absolved the Pakistan-based terror groups of their role in the Samjhauta Express blast.

However, the US Department of the Treasury said over 10 years ago that Lashkar-e-Tayyeba (LeT) was behind the blast. It accused Fazeel-A-Tul Shaykh Abu Mohammed Ameen Al-Peshawari, Arif Qasmani, Mohammed Yahya Mujahid. and Nasir Javaid of carrying out the bombing in India. It was also pointed out that Dawood Ibrahim had funded these terrorists. Under political pressure, though, the Central Bureau of Investigation reportedly ignored the role of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (Simi) in the crime. Simi had assisted LeT.

“The Congress and the NCP can stoop to the lowest level for the sake of vote-bank politics. The Congress attempted to defame the crores of Indians by using the term ‘Hindu terror’,” Modi said at a rally at Wardha in Maharashtra’s Vidarbha region.

Swami Aseemanand and others were prosecuted but could not be convicted in the Samjhauta Express blast case. This, Modi insisted, exposed the Congress’ hand. “How can the Congress be forgiven for insulting the Hindus in front of the world? Weren’t you hurt when you heard the word ‘Hindu terror’? How can a community known for peace, brotherhood and harmony be linked with terrorism? In the thousand years of history, not a single incident shows an act of Hindu terrorism. Even the British historians could never find it,” Modi said.

While Modi is bang-on with his charge against the Congress over coining the term ‘Hindu terror,’ the same cannot be said about his statement that “not a single incident shows an act of Hindu terrorism.” The activists who are accused of Hindu terror may be innocent people but there is at least one instance of Hindu terror: the murder of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse. 

It is indisputable that Godse was a Hindu nationalist, and his reckless act meant that the ideology he espoused, Hindutva, was stigmatized for a long time. Indeed it took half a century for the leader of the party that stood for the Hindu cause, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, to become prime minister. 

It is true that there has not been a single instance in recorded history that Hindus behaved ignominiously in their treatment of the Muslims in the pre-British era. The Rajputs, Jats, Sikhs, Marathas, Bundelas, etc., fought with the Muslims for centuries, but there is no evidence to suggest that after winning a battle they slaughtered men and enslaved women and children—in sharp contrast to Islamic warfare practiced by all Muslim dynasties. 

Therefore, while Modi’s assertion is correct on the whole, there is at least one exception, a very big one.