• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Indian Perception Of History
#21
Kaushal:



I'm sorry to be disagreeing with you about Cowasjee, but the man is is a rank opportunist, and his "truths" are very selective. He constantly bemoans the lack of Jinnah's "secularism" but has always availed himself of what islamism has to offer in pakistan.



The broader points of history also need addressed. I do not see the advent of Islam into India by more or by lesser barbaric means (it was not "peaceful" in Sindh, eg), as anything to accept for perpetuity. India has distinct home grown religious traditions ranging from animist beliefs, Jain, Budhist, Sikh and a variety of Hindu schools. All these are contrary to the exclusivist & aggressive theologies of the middle eastern judaic ideologies. Those ideologies need to be confronted in India (if not there, where?). Those ideologies need to be altered, their theologies undermined and finally absorbed into an ethos compatable with Indian traditions. This should be the take home lesson of history in India. This requires a massive non governmental effort, and it is necessary not just for theological reasons, but more importantly, for the long term security of India, whose people do not need to constantly look west for inspiration and guidance.
  Reply
#22
parshuram, welcome to the forum. I hope you find the time to join in some of the key debates here.



As for Cowasjee, i was giving him the benefit of the doubt. I am only an occasional reader of his columns.



Apropos the broader questions you have raised regarding the role IM(and all Indians) need to play in the reform of Islam to conform and integrate with the ethos of the Indic civilization, you have raised very valid points. As a first step i have proposed a broad based dialog where everything is open for discussion. As a matter of fact, the issues you have raised are central to the debate we wish to foster in IF.



Once again we wish you many happy posts at IF. I will be temporarily away from the forum till the first week of December but i will participate in the debate as it progresses after my return.
  Reply
#23
Kaushal:



Thank you for the welcome, but we have, perhaps, met on BR. Anyway, I have strong views on the matter of a strong & assertive Indian theological ethos, views that perhaps do not belong on BR, and I hope I can voice them here. As an example of what India needs to counter is in [url="http://jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2003-weekly/nos-09-11-2003/foo.htm#1"]This Article[/url] . Clearly, Ayodhya predates Islam and mohammad, so bringing in its "muslim past" is not particularly relevant, and the reference to "brahminism" destroying buddist places of worship there is, ofcourse, without foundation. And this is written by a hindu/sikh (probably sikh, but definately punjabi).
  Reply
#24
Of course i know you from BR, but taht doesnt mean i shouldnt welcome you to this forum.



Yoginder Sikand is well known as a Hindu hater and a writer of garbage. The problem with refuting this kind of nonsense is one doesnt know where to begin.His name doesnt mean much since it probably is an alias anyway.
  Reply
#25
up
  Reply
#26
Guys,

Long time, no posting here.

BTW, I don't know if you guys were following an interesting debate in Outlook magazine. First we had this reportabout V.S.Naipaul attending a <i>chintan baithak</i> at the BJP HQ in New Delhi.

Then we had notes Islamophile William Dalrymple respond to what he called Naipaul's 'jaundiced notions of hisotry'

Today we have a stinging riposte from Tarun Vijay.

A quote from the last piece:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Despite some rare examples, the stark truth is that invaders brought loot, rape, plunder and the spread of Islam in 'one package'. It has continued till this date and our times are also witnessing the rape and killings of Hindu women in J&K and Bangladesh at the hands of Islamic zealots. <b>But Dalrymple and his Marxist cartel of Romila Thapar, Satish Chandra or Nurul Hasan would weep at a distant Palestinian sprain rather than feel the pain of the Hindu neighbour.</b> <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->  Naturally, they feel peeved at Sir Vidia's plainspeaking. I wonder why Rushdie's piece about it hasn't appeared yet.

It is the great sagacity of the Hindu heart that despite such continuous trails of Islamic barbarism, we have never treated Muslim society as a dushman of our land or dharma. Rahim, Raskhan, Jaysi, Taj Bibi, Ghalib remain on the most respected pedestals of Hindu reverence. The Khans are ruling Bollywood and a Muslim is our head of state. He may well prove to be the most popular head we ever had. We fought together under Bahadur Shah Zafar and none lamented. Dalrymple should not be worried about good Hindu-Muslim relations. After all, neither Raskhan's position in common Hindu households nor the Khan era in the same Bollywood where once Muslim actors had to adopt Hindu names was because of the efforts of Dalrymple's ilk. <b>Instead, it was because of the inherent Hindu sense of goodwill, even for those appallingly hateful. It's different from the culture Dalrymple belongs to.</b> Therefore, he should confine himself to his patriotic concerns.

In short, <b>leave the Hindus to their pain and sorrows for our coming generations—who would surely rise soon with a better spine than we see today.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#27
Nice to see your post here, rangudu.
Tarun vijay has captured the indian (nonsecularist ) viewpoint very well. No credit is given to the fact that India is one of the most inclusivist societies in the known galaxy. After all where will you find such diversity of views on every topic inlcuing religion.

The firengi sees our diversity as a weakness and seeks to exploit it by causing further partitions and splits in the subcontinent. But the fundamentall ethos (Hindutva for want of a better word) is about inclusiveness. Even the most die hard Sangh Parivari does not talk in Jihadi language but merely of regaining lost rights and equality under the law.
  Reply
#28
Ram is a mythological figure. Valimiki wrote the epic with Ram as a Hero. Interpretations and worship for Ram are not uniform in different sections of Hindu community. There is no archeological evidence to show that at the time when Ram is supposed to have been born there was any human habitation around Ayodhya - <b>Ram Puniyani</b>

There are 1000s of proof available now, but still professor of IIT denies it. It seems there business to deny any Hindu religion or culture or civilization.
  Reply
#29
But the fundamentall ethos (Hindutva for want of a better word) is about inclusiveness. Even the most die hard Sangh Parivari does not talk in Jihadi language but merely of regaining lost rights and equality under the law.

Shri. Kaushal,

That is highly interesting. If what you have said is true, why did the Deputy PM (a die hard Sangh Parivari) in his on-going yatra have to say that Hindutva/BJP political philosophy had to be modified/adapted to make it more inclusive? I agree with you that our fundamental ethos is inclusive. But that is not Hindutva.
  Reply
#30
Prof. Godbole,The fact that one wants to be more inclusive does not mean one is not already inclusive. My understanding of Hindutva is obviously different from yours. Instead of disagreeing on slogans, let us both agree that being inclusive is good and that we are both subscribers of such a philosophy . The point is not that India and Hindus are not inclusive, but that other creeds do not subscribe to such a inclusive philosophy. In fact all the semitic religions are explicitly exclusive.

To summarize, the separation between a secularist Hindu and a SP, wehn it comes to degree of inclusiveness, is far less than the distance between a Hindu and members of other creeds

I see also that you agree that a die Hard sangh parivari like the DPM believes that inclusiveness is a good thing. Incidentally i consider the PM to be a die hard Sangh parivari also. He has been a card carrying member of the RSS for over 50 years. These are merely examples that in general die hard SP are far more inclusive than their counterparts in other creeds.
  Reply
#31
Instead, it was because of the inherent Hindu sense of goodwill, even for those appallingly hateful. It's different from the culture Dalrymple belongs to. Therefore, he should confine himself to his patriotic concerns.

In short, leave the Hindus to their pain and sorrows for our coming generations—who would surely rise soon with a better spine than we see today.

_____________________________________________________________________ Hi Rangudu,
First let me complement you for all the letter writting to diffrent Newspapers as well as the articles on BR.

The inherent Hindu sense of good will is our classic problem, weakness and strength. Most probably , we are the only civilization that takes pity on the defeated enemies and treat them honourably e.g Prithviraj Chauhan, 1947,1971 etc . We dont apply the Chicago Rule and we have never acted exceptionally cruel as the West or Islam had / has done and how i wish otherwise as need to discuss this would not have arisen. Indian civilization fell because of this kind of attitude and survived because of this inherent strength ,as Kaushal puts the 'inclusiveness'or accomodation of vaierties of factors, even contradictions . Its a diffrent matter that this "inclusiveness " might nor work that good in 21st century as few will be adament about going back to 6th century.

I believe that foundation for the agenda of next generation is being laid down right now and we can see the glimpses of the new can do attitude and self confidence in society as whole and in international diplomacy by GoI.The current leader ship is trying its best to accomodate minority aspirations and concerns and take them along to achieve peace and prosperity for all Indians. Right now a really noisy , all round, all aspects" Great Indian Manthan" is going on and hopefully in next 10 years or so we find out what have we churned up... poison or nectar , or both ;-) and future Indians have to deal with it and i m confident they will do with much stiffer spine than the old or current generaion who are in awe of everything excpet Indian..
Just my 2 cent.

Thanks
  Reply
#32
http://www.indpride.com/tipu%20sultan.html

Tipu Sultan - the Hero?

In 1989, the national Indian TV, Doordarshan, ran a serial on Tipu Sultan, ruler of Mysore from 1782 to 1799 A.D. With the lofty objective of national integration and communal harmony, the national TV presented Tipu Sultan as a hero of Hindu -Muslim amity and a staunch freedom fighter against the British.
But what do the original sources tell us about Tipu? Here are some excerpts from Tipu's letters as researched by the distinguished Kerala historian K. M. Panicker, which he reviewed in the Bhasha Poshini magazine, August 1923:

1. Letter dated March 22, 1788, to Abdul Kadir: "Over 12,000 Hindus were honoured with Islam. There were many Namboodri Brahmins among them. This achievement should be widely publicised among the Hindus. Then the local Hindus should be brought before you and converted to Islam. No Namboodri Brahmin should be spared."

2. Letter dated December 14, 1788, to his army chief in Calicut: "I am sending two of my followers with Mir Hussain Ali. With their assistance, you should capture and kill all Hindus. Those below 20 may be kept in prison and 5000 from the rest should be killed from the tree-tops. These are my orders."

3. Letter dated January 18, 1790, to Syed Abdul Dulai: " ...almost all Hindus in Calicut are converted to Islam. I consider this as Jehad."

In 'A Voyage to the East Indies' Fra Barthoelomeo, a renowned Portuguese traveller and historian, who was present in Tipu's war zone in early 1790 wrote:

"First a corps of 30,000 barbarians who butchered everybody on the way ... followed by the field gun unit under the French commander, M. Lally. Tipu was riding on an elephant behind which another army of 30,000 soldiers followed. Most of the men and women were hanged in Calicut, first mothers were hanged with their children tied to necks of mothers. That barbarian Tipu Sultan tied the naked Christian and Hindus to the legs of elephants and made the elephants to move around till the bodies of the helpless victims were torn to pieces. Temples and churches were ordered to be burned down, desecrated, and destroyed. ... Those Christians who refused to be honoured with Islam were ordered to be killed by hanging immediately. These atrocities were told to me by the victims of Tipu Sultan who escaped from the clutches of his army and reached Varapphuza, which is the centre of Carmichael Christian Mission. I myself helped many victims to cross the Varapphuza river by boats."

Moreover, evidence of Tipu's atrocities abounds in many contemporary church records in Mangalore, Calicut, and Varapphuza.

In the words of writer Ravi Varma : "It was Tipu Sultan and his fanatic Muslim army who converted thousands of Hindus to Islam all along the invasion route and occupied areas in North Kerala, Coorg, Mangalore, and other parts of Karnataka. Besides over 8,000 Hindu temples were desecrated and/or destroyed by his Muslim army. Even today, one can see large concentrations of Muslims and ruins of hundreds of destroyed temples in North Kerala as standing evidence of the Islamic brutalities committed by Tipu Sultan ... He was, all through, waging a cruel Islamic war against the Hindu population of Kerala, with a large Muslim army and ably assisted by the French with powerful field guns and European troops. ...In spite of all this, historical documents and records are being suppressed, distorted, and falsified in order to project this fanatic Tipu Sultan of Mysore as a national hero like Chhatrapati Shivaji, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Rana Pratap Singh, and Pazhassi Raja of Kerala. It is an insult to our national pride and also to the Hindus of Kerala by our 'secular' government and the motivated Muslim and Marxist historians of Jawaharlal Nehru, Aligarh, and Islamia universities."

Does the Doordarshan serial's characterization of Tipu in "The Sword of Tipu Sultan" as a patron of Hindu temples have any historical basis at all? Yes, says C. Nandagopal Menon, the convenor of the Bombay Malayalee Samajam: "Tipu had immense faith in astrology. It was at the appeal of his Hindu astrologer and his own mother that Tipu spared two temples out of 12 within Sriangapatnam Fort. Moreover, by the end of 1790, Tipu was facing enemies from all sides. He was also defeated at the Travancore Defence Lines. It was only then, in order to appease the Hindus of Mysore, that he gave some land-grants to Hindu temples."

As to Tipu's struggle against the British, it was to maintain his usurped kingdom, not as a nationalist fight for freedom. This is clear from the historical documents in which he invited the French to join him to defeat the British and then divide South India between himself and the French.

Dr. P.C.C. Raja, a direct descendent of the Zamorin of Calicut, writes : "Tipu Sultan was one of the worst fanatics, and more inhuman than even the Nazis."

Historical evidence has clearly established that Tipu Sultan was, to put it mildly, no multicultural hero. Indian State TV's promotion of the serial's pseudo-history, in the name of secularism no less, was a flagrant exercise of pseudo-secularism.
  Reply
#33
http://www.indpride.com/drshyamaprasadmukherjee.html

Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee

"I have never felt happy about our attitude towards Pakistan. It has been weak, halting and inconsistent. Our goodness or inaction has been interpreted as weakness by Pakistan."


Excerpts from statement by Dr.S.P.Mookerjee on his resignation as Minister of Industry and Supply (8th April, 1950)

I have never felt happy about our attitude towards Pakistan. It has been weak, halting and inconsistent. Our goodness or inaction has been interpreted as weakness by Pakistan. It has made Pakistan more and more intransigent and has made us suffer all the greater and even lowered us in the estimation of our own people. On every important occasion we have remained on the defensive and failed to expose or counteract the designs of Pakistan aimed at us. I am not, however, dealing today with general India-Pakistan relationship, for the circumstances that have led to my resignation are primarily concerned with the treatment of minorities in Pakistan, especially in East Bengal. Let me say at once the Bengal problem is not a provincial one. It raises issues of an all-India character and on its proper solution will depend the peace and prosperity, both economic and political, of the entire nation. There is an important difference in the approach to the problem of minorities in India and Pakistan. The vast majority of Muslims in India wanted the partition of the country on a communal basis, although I gladly recognise there has been a small section of patriotic Muslims who consistently have identified themselves with national interests and suffered for it. The Hindus on the other hand were almost to a man definitely opposed to partition. When the partition of India became inevitable, I played a very large part in creating public opinion in favour of the partition of Bengal, for I felt that if that was not done, the whole of Bengal and also perhaps Assam would fall into Pakistan. At that time little knowing that I would join the first Central Cabinet, I along with others, gave assurances to the Hindus of East Bengal, stating that if they suffered at the hands of the future Pakistan Government, if they were denied elementary rights of citizenship, if their lives and honour were jeopardised or attacked, Free India would not remain an idle spectator and their just cause would be boldly taken up by the Government and people of India. During the last 2 1/2 years their sufferings have been of a sufficiently tragic character. Today I have no hesitation in acknowledging that in spite f all efforts on my part, I have not been able to redeem by pledge and on this ground alone - if on no other - I have no moral right to be associated with Government any longer. Recent happenings in East Bengal have however overshadowed all their past woes and humiliation. Let us not forget that the Hindus of East Bengal are entitled to the protection of India, not on humanitarian considerations alone, but by virtue of their sufferings and sacrifices, made cheerfully for generations, not for advancing their own parochial interests, but for laying the foundations of India's political freedom and intellectual progress. It is the united voice of the leaders that are dead and of the youth that smilingly walked upto the gallows for India's cause that calls for justice and fairplay at the hands of Free India of today.

The recent Agreement, to my mind, offers no solution to the basic problem. The evil is far deeper and no patchwork can lead to peace. The establishment of a homogenous Islamic state is Pakistan's creed and a planned extermination of Hindus and Sikhs and expropriation of their properties constitute its settled policy. As a result of this policy, life for the minorities in Pakistan has become "nasty, brutish and short". Let us not be forgetful of the lessons of history. We will do so at our own peril. I am not talking of by-gone times; but if anyone analyses the course of events in Pakistan since its creation, it will be manifest that there is no honourable place for Hindus within that State. The problem is not communal. It is essentially political. The Agreement unfortunately tries to ignore the implications of an Islamic State. But anyone, who refers carefully to the Objectives Resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan and to the speech of its Prime Minister, will find that while talking in one place of protection of minority rights, the Resolution in another place emphatically declares " that the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and special justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed". The Prime Minister of Pakistan while moving the Resolution thus spoke :

"You would also notice that the State is not to play the part of a neutral observer wherein the Muslims may be merely free to profess and practice their religion, because such an attitude on the part of the State would be the very negation of the ideals which prompted the demand of Pakistan and it is these ideals which should be the corner stone of the State which we want to build. The State will create such conditions as are conducive to the building up of a truly Islamic Society which means that the State will have to play a positive part in this effort. You would remember that the Quaid-e-Azam and other leaders of the Muslim League always made unequivocal declarations that the Muslim demand for Pakistan was based upon the fact that the Muslims had their own way of life and a code of conduct. Indeed, Islam lays down specific directions for social behaviour and seeks to guide society in its attitude towards the problems which confront it day to day. Islam is not just a matter of private beliefs and conduct."

In such a Society, let me ask in all seriousness, can any Hindu expect to live with any sense of security in respect of his cultural, religious, economic and political rights. Indeed our Prime Minister analysed the basic difference between India and Pakistan only a few weeks ago on the floor of the House and his words will bear repetition.

"The people of Pakistan are of the same stock as we are and have the same virtues and failings. But the basic difficulty of the situation is that the policy of a religious and communal State followed by the Pakistan Government ineviitably produces a sense of lack of full citizenship and a continuous insecurity among those who do not belong to the majority community."

It is not the ideology preached by Pakistan that is the only disturbing factor. Its performances have been in full accord with its ideology and the minorities have had bitter experiences times without number of the true character and functioning of an Islamic State. The Agreement has totally failed to deal with this basic problem.

Public memory is sometimes very short. There is an impression in many quarters that the Agreement recently made is the first great attempt of its kind to solve the problem of minorities. I am leaving aside for the time being the disaster that took place in the Punjab; in spite of all assurances and undertakings there was a complete collapse of the administration and the problem was solved in a most brutal fashion. Afterwards we saw the gradual extermination of Hindus from North Western Frontier Province and Baluchistan and latterly from Sind as well. In East Bengal about 13 millions of Hindus were squeezed out of East Bengal. There were no major incidents as such; but circumstances so shaped themselves that they got no protection from the Government of Pakistan and were forced to come away to West Bengal for shelter. During that period there was no question of any provocation given by India where normal conditions had settled down; there was no question of Muslims being coerced t go away from India to Pakistan. In April, 1948, the First Inter-Dominion Agreement was reached in Calcutta, dealing specially with the problems of Bengal. If anyone analyses and compares the provisions of that Agreement with the recent one it will appear that in all essential matters they are similar to each other. This Agreement, however, did not produce any effective result. India generally observed its terms but the exodus from East Bengal continued unabated. It was a one-way traffic, just as Pakistan wished for. There were exchanges of correspondence; there were meetings of officials and Chief Ministers; there were consultations between Dominion Ministers. But judged by actual results Pakistan's attitude continued unchanged. There was a second Inter-Dominion Conference in Delhi, in December, 1948, and another Agreement was signed, sealed and delivered. It dealt with the same problem - the rights of minorities specially in Bengal. This also was a virtual repetition of the first Agreement. In the course of 1949 we witnessed a further deterioration of conditions in East Bengal and an exodus of a far larger number of helpless people, who were uprooted from their hearth and home and were thrown into India in a most miserable condition. The fact thus remains that inspite of two Inter Dominion Agreements as many as 16 to 20 lakhs of Hindus were sent away to India from East Bengal. About a million of uprooted Hindus had also to come away from Sind. During this period a large number of Muslims also came away from Pakistan mainly influenced by economic considerations. The economy of West Bengal received a rude shock and we continued as helpless spectators of a grim tragedy.
  Reply
#34
http://www.indpride.com/nathuramgodse.html

Nathuram Godse

“If devotion to one’s country amounts to a sin, I admit I have committed that sin. If it is meritorious, I humbly claim the merit thereof. I fully and confidently believe that if there be any other court of justice beyond the one founded by the mortals my act will not be taken as unjust. If after the death there be no such place to reach or to go, there is nothing to be said. I have resorted to the action I did purely for the benefit of the humanity. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to lakhs of Hindus.”

NATHURAM GODSE’S SELF DEFENCE
(Courtesy and Copyright Shri Gopal Godse. These excerpts are verbatim from the book, May it Please your Honor.)

It is obvious that the High Court was struck by the conduct and ability of Nathuram. It has made a special reference to it while recording the judgement. Says Justice Achhru Ram :

"Of all the appellants Nathuram V. Godse has not challenged his conviction under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, nor has he appealed from the sentence of death passed on him in respect of the offence. He has confined his appeal and also his arguments at the Bar only to the other charges, which have been found, proved against him--- He personally argued his appeal, I must say, with conspicuous ability evidencing a mastery of facts which would have done credit to any counsel."

As regards Nathuram's power of thinking, the Judge noted:

"Although he failed in his matriculation examination, he is widely read. While arguing his Appeal, he showed a fair knowledge of the English language and a remarkable capacity for clear thinking."

In the course of arguments, Nathuram had made a plea that on January 20, 1948 he was not present at the Birla House. The judges rejected the plea. In support of their rejection, they referred to their observations of the strong will power of Nathuram. Shri Achhru Ram says:

"We have seen quite enough of Nathuram during the period of more than five weeks we were hearing these appeals and particularly during the eight or nine days while he was arguing his own case, and I cannot imagine that a man of his caliber could have even entertained the idea (of remaining behind)."

Justice Khosla after retirement, in a pen picture of the Court scene as it then passed before his mind's eye has said:

“The highlight of the appeal before us was the discourse delivered by Nathuram Godse in his defence. He spoke for several hours, discussing, in the first instance, the facts of the case and then the motive, which had prompted him to take Mahatma Gandhi's life--

The audience was visibly and audibly moved. There was a deep silence when he ceased speaking. Many women were in tears and men coughing and searching for their handkerchiefs. The silence was accentuated and made deeper by the sound of an occasional subdued sniff or a muffled cough-

I have however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse's appeal. They would have brought in a verdict of 'not guilty' by an over-whelming majority.”

Nathuram had displayed the same ability while arguing his case before Shri Atma Charan Agrawal, the Judge of the Special Court, Red Fort, Delhi. These are excerpts of his defence before Judge Agrawal.

The number 15, 16,.. is the para number as it appears in the book.

The statement in the following pages is a part of the record of the Gandhi murder case, which can be found in Printed Volume II, Criminal Appeals Nos 66 to 72 of the 1949 Punjab High Court (then at) Simla.


2.1 Answer to Charge-sheet

15 - I have never made a secret about the fact that I supported the ideology, which was opposed to that of Gandhiji. I firmly believed that the teachings of absolute Ahimsa as advocated by Gandhiji would ultimately result in the emasculation of the Hindu community incapable of resisting the aggression of other communities especially the Muslims.

To counter this evil I decided to enter public life and as a part of the propaganda started a daily newspaper Agrani. I might mention that is not so much Gandhi's Ahimsa that we were opposed to but his bias for Muslims, prejudicial and detrimental to the Hindu Community and its interests. I have fully described my point of view and have quoted instances when how Gandhi became responsible for a number of calamities which the Hindu community had to suffer and undergo.

16. On 13th of January 1948. I learnt that Gandhiji had decided to go on fast unto death. The reason given for such fast was that he wanted an assurance of Hindu-Muslim unity in Indian Dominion. But I and many others could easily see that the real motive behind the fast was not merely the so-called Hindu-Muslim Unity, but to compel the Dominion Government to pay the sum of Rs. 55 crores to Pakistan, the payment of which was emphatically refused by the Government.

25. Having reached Delhi in great despair, I visited the refugee camps at Delhi. While moving in the camps my thoughts took a definite and final turn. Chancely I came across a refugee who was dealing in arms and he showed me the pistol. I was tempted to have it and I bought it from him. It is the pistol which I later used in the shots I fired. On coming to the Delhi Railway station I spent the night of 29th thinking and re-thinking about my resolve to end the present chaos and further destruction of the Hindus. I shall now deal about my relations with Veer Savarkar in political and other matters of which the prosecution has made so much.

26. Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctitively came to revere Hindu religion, history and culture. I had been instinctively proud of Hinduism as a whole. Nevertheless as I grew up I developed a tendency to free unthinking unfettered by a superstitious allegiance to any ism political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I publicly joined anti-caste movements and maintained all that Hindus should be treated with equal status as to rights social and religious, and should be high or low on merit alone, and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which of Hindus broke caste rules and dined the company of each other.

27. I have read the works of Dadabhai Naoraji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries in the world like England, France, America and Russia. Not only that I studied tolerably well the current tenets of socialism and Communism too. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gji had written or spoken, as to my mind, these two ideologies had contributed more to the thought and action of modern India during the last fifty years or so, than any other any single factor had done.

28. All this reading and thinking brought me to believe me that above all it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and the Hindu people.

29. I have worked for several years in the R.S.S. and later joined the Hindu Mahasabha and volunteered myself to fight as a soldier under its pan-Hindu flag. About this time Savarkar was elected as the president of the Sabha. The movement got electrified and millions of sanghatanists looked up to him as the chosen hero, as the ablest and most faithful advocate of the Hindu cause. I too was one of them, in the process came to be personally acquainted with Savarkarji.

30. Later on my friend Apte and myself decided to start a daily paper devoted to Hindu Sanghatan Movement. After securing sympathy and financial help from a number of Sanghatanist we met Savarkar as the President of the Mahasabha. He advanced a sum of Rs 15,000/ as his quota of the capital required, on the condition that a limited company should be registered at the earliest and his advance should be transformed into so many shares.

31. Accordingly, we started the Daily Marathi paper, Daily Agrani. The sums advanced by Savarkar and others were converted into shares of Rs 500 each. Among the directors and donors were such leading men as Seth Gulab Chand (brother of Seth Walchand Hirachandji), Mr Shingre, an ex-Minister of Bhor, Shreeman Bhalji Pendharkar, the film magnate of Kolhapur and others. I was the editor with Apte and myself being Managing Directors of the company.

33. But it must be specifically noted that our casual visits to Savarkar Sadan were restricted generally to this Hindu Sanghatan office, situated on the ground floor. Savarkar was residing on the first floor. It was rarely that we could meet Savarkar personally and that too by personal appointment.

34. Some three years ago, Savarkar's health got seriously impaired and since then he was confined to bed. Thus deprived of his virile leadership the activities and influence of the Mahasabha got crippled and when Dr Mookerjee became its President it was reduced to the position of a handmaid to the Congress. It became quite incapable of counteracting the dangerous anti-Hindu activities of Gandhite cabal on the one hand and the Muslim League on the other. Seeing this I lost all hope in the efficiency of the policy of running the Sanghatan movement on the constitutional lines of the Mahasabha and began to shift myself. I determined to organized a youthful group of Sanghatanists and adopt a fighting program against the Congress and the League without consulting any of those prominent but old leaders of the Mahasabha.

35. I shall just mention here two striking instances only out of a number of them which painfully opened my eyes about this time to the fact that Veer Savarkar and other old leaders of Mahasabha could no longer be relied upon by me and the Hindu youths of my persuasion to guide or even to appreciate the fighting program with which we aimed to counteract Gandhiji's activities inside and the Muslim League outside. In 1946 or thereabout the Muslim atrocities perpetrated on the Hindus under the Government patronage of Surhawardy in Noakhali, made our blood boil. Our shame and indignation knew no bounds, when we saw that Gandhiji had come forward to shield that very Surhawardy and began to style him as ‘Shahid Saheb-a Martyr Soul (!) even in his prayer meetings. Not only that but after coming to Delhi, Gandhiji began to hold his prayer meetings in a Hindu temple in Bhangi Colony and persisted in reading passages from Quoran as a part of the prayer in that Hindu temple in spite of the protest of the Hindu worshippers there. Of course he dared not read the Geeta in a mosque in the teeth of Muslim reaction would have been if he had done so. But he could safely trample over the feelings of the tolerant Hindu. To belie this belief I determined to prove to Gandhiji that the Hindu too could be intolerant when his honor was insulted.

36 to 39 - Apte and I decided to stage a series of demonstrations in Delhi at his meeting and make it impossible for him to hold such prayers. Seeing the protest Gandhi slyly took shelter behind barred and guarded doors. But when Savarkar read about the report of this demonstration he blamed me for such anarchical tactics. Another incident was the treatment of the post Independence Indian government by the Mahasabhaites. Savarkar felt that the government needed all support to prevent a Civil War and enable Muslims to realize their mission to turn the whole of India into Pakistan. My friends and others were unconvinced. We felt that time had come to bid good-bye to Savarkar and cease to consult him in our future policy and programs, nor should we confide in him our plans.

40. Just after that followed the terrible outburst of Muslim fanaticism in the Punjab and other parts of India. The Congress Government began to persecute, prosecute, and shoot the Hindus themselves who dared to resist the Muslim forces in Bihar, Calcutta, Punjab and other places. Our worst fears seemed to be coming true; and yet how painful and disgraceful it was for us to find that the 15th of August 1947 was celebrated with illumination and festivities, while the whole of the Punjab was set by the Muslims in flames and Hindu blood ran rivers. The Hindu Mahasabhaites of my persuasion decided to boycott the festivities and the Congressite Government and to launch a fighting program to check Muslim onslaughts.

45. I began to criticize the Mahasabha and the policy of its old leaders in my daily paper Agrani.

47. I would not have referred to the above details in his statement but for the learned prosecutor's opening speech in which he painted me as a mere tool in the hands of Savarkar.

2.2 Gandhiji's Politics X-rayed

51. In my writings and speeches I have always advocated that the religious and communal consideration should be entirely eschewed in the public affairs of the country. At elections, inside and outside the legislatures and in the making and unmaking of Cabinets I have throughout stood for a secular State with joint electorates and to my mind this is the only sensible thing to do. (Here I read parts of the resolutions passed at the Bilaspur Session of the Hindu Mahasabha held in December, 1994. Annexure Pages 12 and 13), Under the influence of the Congress this ideal was steadily making headway amongst the Hindus. But the Muslims as a community first stood aloof and later on under the corroding influence of the Divide and Rule Policy of the foreign masters were encouraged to cherish the ambition of dominating the Hindus. The first indication of this outlook was the demand for separate electorates (conceded by the Congress firstly by the Lucknow Pact of 1916 and at each successive revision of the constitution thereafter) instigated by the then Viceroy Lord Minto in 1906. The British Government accepted this demand under the excuse of minority protection. While the Congress party offered a verbal opposition, it progressively supported separatism by ultimately adopting the notorious formula of neither accepting nor rejecting in 1934.

52. Thus had originated and intensified the demand for the disintegration of this country. What was the thin end of the wedge in the beginning became Pakistan in the end.

54. Under the inspiration of our British masters on one hand and encouragement under G's leadership on the other, the Muslim League went on increasing its demands on Communal basis. The Muslim community continuously backed the League, each successive election proved that the League was able to bank on the fanaticism and ignorance of the Muslim masses and the League was those encouraged, in its policy of separatisms on an ever-increasing scale year after year.

56. I will consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and if possible to overpower such an enemy by the use of force. Shree Ramchandra killed Ravan in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. Shree Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness. In the Mahabharat Arjun had to fight and slay, quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma, because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence is to betray a total ignorance of the springs of human action. It was the heroic fight put up by the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj that first checked and eventually destroyed Muslim tyranny: in India. It was absolutely correct tactics for Shivaji to kill Afzul Khan as the latter would otherwise have surely killed him. In condemning Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit.

59. As pointed out herein below Gandhi's political activities can be conveniently divided under three heads. He returned to India from Emgland sometime about the end of 1914 and plunged into the public life of the country almost immediately. Unfortunately after his arrival Sir Pherozeshah Mehta and G.K. Gokhale, Gandhi called the latter his Guru, died within a short span of time. Gandhi's began his work by starting an Ashram in Ahmedabad on the banks of the Sabarmati river, and made Truth and Non-Violence his slogans. He had often acted contrary to his professed principles and it was for the appeasing the Muslim he hardly had any scruple in doing so. Truth and non-violence are excellent as an ideal, to be practiced in day-today-life and not in the air. I am showing later on that Gandhiji himself was guilty of glaring breaches of his much-vaunted ideals.

61. When Gandhiji returned to India at the end of 1914, he brought with him a very high reputation for courageous leadership of Indians in South Africa. He had placed himself at the head of the struggle for the assertion and vindication of the national self-respect of India and for our rights of citizenship against white tyranny in that country. He was honored by Hindus, Muslims and Parsis alike and was universally acclaimed as the leader of all Indians in South Africa. His simplicity, devotion, self-sacrifice etc had raised the prestige of Indians. In India he had endeared himself to all.

62. In South Africa Indians had claimed nothing but elementary rights of citizenship, which were denied to them. Hindus, Muslims and Parsis therefore stood united against the common enemy. The Indian problem at home was quite different.

We were fighting for home-rule, self-government and independence. We were determined to overthrow an Imperial Power, which was determined to continue its sway over us by using all possible means including the policy of Divide and Rule which had intensified the cleavage between the Hindus and Muslims. Gandhiji was thus confronted at the very outset with a problem the like of which he had never encountered in South Africa. But in India communal franchise, separate electorates and the like had already undermined the solidarity of the nation. Gandhiji, therefore found it most difficult to obtain the unquestioned leadership of the Hindus and the Muslims in India as in South Africa. It was absurd for his honest mind to think of accepting the generalship of an army divided against itself.

63. For the first five years there was not much hope for the attainment by him of supreme leadership in Indian politics. The stalwarts Tilak, Naoroji others were still alive and Gandhi was still a junior compared to them in age and experience. But an inexplorable fate removed all of them in five years and with the death of Tilak in 1920, Gandhiji was at once thrown into the front line.

64. He saw that the foreign rulers by the policy of ‘Divide and Rule' were corrupting the patriotism of the Muslim and that there was little chance of his leading a united host to the battle for Freedom unless he was able to cement fellow feeling and common devotion to the Motherland. He, therefore, made Hindu-Muslim Unity the foundation of his polities. As a counter to the British tactics he started making the most friendly approaches to the Muslim community and reinforced them by making generous and extravagant promises to the Muslims. This, of course, was not wrong in itself so long as it was done consistently with India's struggle for democratic national freedom; but Gandhiji completely forgot this, the most essential aspect of his campaign for unity, with what results we all know by now.

65. Our British masters were able to make concessions to Muslims and to keep the various communities divided. By 1919 Gandhiji had become desperate in his endeavor to get Muslims to trust him and went from one absurd promise to another. He backed the Khilafat Movement in this country and was able to enlist the full support of the National Congress in that policy. For a time Gandhi appeared to succeed and prominent Muslim leaders became his followers. Jinnah was nowhere in 1920-21 and the Ali Brothers became defacto Muslim leaders. He made the most of the Ali Brothers, raised them to the skies by flattery and unending concessions. The Muslims ran the Khilafat Committee as a distinct political religious organization and throughout maintained it as a separate identity from the Congress, very soon the Moplah Rebellion showed that the Muslims had not the slightest idea of national unity on which Gandhiji had set his heart and had staked so much. There followed as usual in such cases, a huge slaughter of Hindus, forcible conversion and rape.

By the Act of 1919 separate electorates were enlarged and communal representation was continued not merely in the legislature and the local bodies but even extended within the Cabinet. The services began to be distributed on the communal basis and the Muslims obtained high jobs from our British Masters not on merit but by remaining aloof from the struggle for freedom and because of their being the followers of Islam.

Government patronage to Muslims in the name of Minority protection penetrated throughout the body politic of the Indian State and the Mahatma's meaningless slogans were no match against this wholesale corruption of the Muslim mind. By 1925 it had become clear that the Government won all the time but like the proverbial gambler Gandhiji increased his stake.

He agreed to the separation of Sind and to the creation of a separate province in the N.W.Frontier. He also went on conceding one demand after to another to the Muslim League in the vain hope of enlisting its support in the national struggle. By this time the stock of the Ali Brothers had gone down and Mr Jinnah who had staged a comeback was having the best of both the worlds. Whatever concessions the Government and the Congress made, Mr Jinnah accepted and asked for more.

Separation of Sind from Bombay and the creation of the N. W. Frontier were followed by the Round Table Conference in which the minority question loomed large. Mr. Jinnah stood out against the federation until Gandhiji himself requested Mr. Mc Donald, the Labour Premier, to give the Communal Award. Further seeds were thereby sown for the disintegration of this country. The communal principle became deeply imbeded in the Reforms of 1935. Mr Jinnah took the fullest advantage of every situation. The Federation of India, which was to consolidate Indian Nationhood, was in fact, defeated; Mr. Jinnah had never taken kindly to it.

The Congress continued to support the Communal Award neither supporting nor rejecting it, which really meant its tactical acceptance. During the War 1939-44, Mr. Jinnah took up openly one attitude - a sort of benevolent neutrality - and promised to support the war as soon as the Muslims rights were conceded, in April 1940, within six months of the War; Jinnah came out with the demand for Pakistan on the basis of the two-nation theory.

66. The Mahasabha realized that the War was an opportunity for our young men to have military training. The result was that nearly ½ million Hindus learnt the art of war and mastered the mechanized aspect of modern warfare. The troops being used today in Kashmir and Hyderabad would have not have been there ready made but for the effort of men with such outlook.

67. The 'Quit India' campaign of 1942 had completely failed. Britishers had triumphed and the Congress leaders decided to come to terms with them. Indeed in the subsequent years the Congress policy can be quite correctly described as 'Peace at any Price' and 'Congress in Office at all costs.' The Congress compromised with the British who placed it in office and in return the Congress surrendered to the violence of Mr. Jinnah, carved out one-third of India to him an explicitly racial and theological State and destroyed two million human beings in the process,

68. This section summarizes the background of the agony of India's partition and the tragedy of Gandhiji assassination. Neither the one nor the other gives me any pleasure to record or to remember, but the Indian people and the world at large need to know the history of the last thirty years during which Indian has been torn into pieces by the Imperialist Policy of the British and under a mistaken policy of communal amity. One hundred and ten millions of people have become homeless of which 4 million are Muslims and when I found that even after such terrible results Gandhiji continued to pursue the same policy of appeasement, my blood boiled, and I could not tolerate him any longer. Gandhiji in fact successed in doing what the British always wanted to do in pursuance of their policy of Divide and Rule. He helped them in dividing India and it is not yet certain whether their rule has ceased.

2.3 Gandhiji's Politics X-Rayed

69. The accumulating provocation of 32 years culminating in his latest pro-Muslim fast at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhiji should be brought to an end. On coming back to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership it had to accept his infallibility, if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on in his own way. He alone was the judge of everyone and everything, he was the master brain behind guiding the civil disobedience movement, nobody else knew the technique of that movement, he alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement may successed or fail, bring untold disasters and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. Many people thought his politics were irrational but had to either withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do what he liked with it. In such a position of such irresponsibility Gandhiji was guilty of blunder after blunder. Not one single political victory can be claimed to his credit during 33 years of his political predominance. Herein below I mention in some details the series of blunders, which he committed during 32 years of his undisputed leadership.

70. In the moment of opportunism the Mahatma misconceived the idea that by helping the Khilafat Movement he would become the leader of the Muslims in India as the already was of the Hindus and that with the Hindu-Muslim Unity thus achieved the British would soon have to concede Swaraj. But again, Gandhiji miscalculated and by leading the Indian National Congress to identify itself with the Khilafat Movement, he quite gratuitously introduced theological element. Which has proved a tragic and expensive calamity. For the moment the movement for the revival of the Khilafat appeared to be succeeding. The Muslims who were not with the Khilafat Movement soon became out of date and the Ali Brothers who were its foremen leaders swam on the crest of a wave of popularity and carried everything before them. Mr. Jinnha found himself a lonely figure and was of no consideration for a few years. The movement however failed.

Our British Masters were not unduly shaken and as a combined result of repression and the Montague Chelmsford Reforms they were able to tide over the Khilafat Movement in a few years time. The Muslims had kept the Khilafat Movement distinct from the Congress all along; they welcomed the Congress support but they did not merge with it. When failure came the Muslims became desperate with disappointment and their anger was sited on the Hindus. Innumerable riots in the various parts of India followed. The chief victims being the Hindus everywhere. The Hindu-Muslim Unity of the Mahatma became a mirage.

The Moplah rebellion as it was called was the most prolonged and concentrated attack on the Hindu religion, Hindu honor, Hindu life and Hindu property; hundreds of Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam, women were outraged. The Mahatma who had brought about all this calamity on India by his communal policy kept mum. He never uttered a single word of reproach against the aggressors nor did he allow the Congress to take any active steps whereby repetition of such outrages could be prevented. On the other hand he went to the length of denying the numerous cases of forcible conversions in Malabar and actually published in his paper 'Young India' that there was only one case of forcible conversion.

Afghan Amir Intrigue - "I cannot understand why the Ali Brothers are going to be arrested as the rumors go, and why I am to remain free. They have done nothing, which I would not do. If they had sent a message to Amir, I also would send one to inform the Amir that if he came, no Indian so long as I can help it would help the Government to drive him back."

Attack on Arya Samaj - Gandhiji ostentatiously displayed his love for Muslims by a most unworthy and unprovoked attack on the Arya Samaj in 1924. He publicly denounced the Samaj for its supposed sins of omission and commission; it was an utterly unwarranted reckless and discreditable attack, but whatever would please the Mohammedans was the heart's desire of Gandhiji

The late Lala Lajpat Rai, and Swami Shradhanand to mention only two names were staunch Arya Samajists but they were foremost amongst the leaders of the Congress till the end of their life. They did not stand for blind support to Gandhi, but were definitely opposed to his pro-Muslim policy, and openly fought him on that issue.

Gandhiji's attack did not improve his popularity with the Muslims but it provoked a Muslim youth to murder Swami Shraddhanandji within a few months.

Separation of Sind - By 1928 Mr. Jinnah's stock had risen very high and the Mahatma had already conceded many unfair and improper demands of Mr. Jinnah at the expense of Indian democracy and the Indian nation and the Hindus. The Mahatma even supported the separation of Sind from the Bombay Presidency and threw the Hindus of Sind to the communal wolves. Numerous riots took place in Sind- Karachi, Sukkur, Shikapur and other places in which the Hindus were the only sufferers and the Hindu-Muslim Unity receded further from the horizon.

League's Good Bye to Congress - With each defeat Gandhiji became even more keen on his method of achieving Hindu-Muslim Unity. Like the gambler who had lost heavily he became more desperate increasing his stakes each time and indulged in the most irrational concessions if only they could placate Mr. Jinnah and enlist his support under the Mahatma's leadership in the fight for freedom. But the aloofness of the Muslim from the Congress increased with the advance of years and the Muslim League refused to have anything to do with the Congress after 1928. The resolution of Independence passed by the Congress at its Lahore Session in 1929 found the Muslims conspicuous by their absence and strongly aloof from the Congress organization. The hope of Hindu Muslim Unity was hardly entertained by anybody thereafter; but Gandhiji continued to be resolutely optimistic and surrendered more and more to Muslim communalism.

Round -Table Conference and Communal Award - The British authorities both in India and in England, had realized that the demand for a bigger and truer installment of constitutional reforms was most insistent and clamant in India and that in spite of their unscrupulous policy of 'Divide and Rule' and the communal discord which it had generated, the resulting situation had brought them no permanence and security so far as British Rule in India was concerned.

The Congress however soon regretted its boycott of the First Round Table Conference and at the Karachi Congress of 1931 it was decided to send Gandhiji alone as the Congress Representative to Second Session of Round Table Conference. Anybody who reads the proceedings of that Session will realize that Gandhiji was the biggest factor in bringing about the total failure of the Conference. Not one of the decisions of the Round Table Conference was in support of democracy or nationalism and the Mahatma went to the length of inviting Mr. Ramsay McDonald to give what was called the communal Award, there by strengthening the disintegrating forces of communalism which had already corroded the body politic for 24 years past The Mahatma was thus responsible for a direct and substantial intrusion of communal electorate and communal franchise in the future Parliament of India.

No wonder under the garb of minority protection we got in the Government of India Act of 1935 a permanent statutory recognition of communal franchise, communal electorate and even weightage for the minorities especially the Muslim, both in the provinces and in the Centre. Those elected on the communal franchise would be naturally communal minded and would have no interest in bridging the gulf between communalism and nationalism.

Acceptance of Office and Resigning in Huff - Provincial Autonomy was introduced from the 1st of April, 1937 under the Government of India Act 1935. The act was bristling with safeguards, special powers, and protection to British personnel in the various services intact. The Congress therefore would not accept office at first but soon found out that in every Province a Ministry was constituted and that at least in five Provinces they were functioning in the normal manner.

In the other six Provinces the Ministers were in a minority but they were forging ahead with their nation building program and the Congress felt that it would be left out in the cold if it persisted in its policy of barren negation. It therefore decided to accept office in July, 1937; in doing so it committed a serious blunder in excluding the members of the Muslim League from effective participation in the Cabinet They only admitted into the Cabinet such Muslims as were congress-men.

Rejection of Muslim League Members as Ministers gave Mr. Jinnah a tactical advantage, which he utilized to the full and in 1939 when the Congress resigned Office in a huff; it completely played in the hand of the Muslim League and British Imperialism. Under Section 93 of the Government of India Act 1935 the Governments of the Congress Provinces were taken over by the Governors and the Muslim League Ministries remained in power and authority in the remaining Provinces. The Governors carried on the administration with a definite leaning towards the Muslims as an imperial policy of Britain and communalism reigned throughout the country through the Muslim Ministries on one hand and pro-Muslim Governors on the other.

The Hindu-Muslim Unity of Gandhiji became a dream, if it were ever anything else; but Gandhiji never cared. His ambition was to become the leader of Hindu and Muslims alike and in resigning the ministries the congress again sacrificed democracy and nationalism.

League taking Advantage of War - The congress opposed the war in one way or another. Mr. Jinnah and the League had a very clear policy. They remained neutral and created no trouble for the Government; but in the year following, the Lahore Session of the Muslim League passed a resolution for the partition of India as a condition for their co-operation in the war. Lord Linlithgow within a few months of the Lahore Resolution gave full support to the Muslims in their policy of separation by a declaration of Government Policy, which assured the Muslims that no change in the political constitution of India will be made without the consent of all the elements in India's national life. The Muslim League and Mr. Jinnah were thus vested with a veto over the political progress of this country by the pledge given by the Viceroy of India.

Quit-India' by Congress and Divide and Quit by League - Out of sheer desperation Gandhiji evolved the 'Quit India' policy which was endorsed by the Congress. It was supposed to be the greatest national rebellion against foreign rule. Gandhiji had ordered the people to 'do or die' But except that the leaders were quickly arrested and detained behind the prison bars some furtive acts of violence were practiced by Congressmen for some weeks. But in less than three months the whole movement was throttled by Government with firmness and discretion. The movement soon collapsed.

Hindi Versus Hindustani - Absurdly pro Muslim policy of Gandhiji is nowhere more blatantly illustrated than in his perverse attitude on the question of the National Language of India. By all the tests of a scientific language, Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the National Language of this country.

In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhiji gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslim did not like it, he became a turncoat and blossomed forth as the champion of what is called Hindustani. Every body in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary; it is a mere dialect; it is spoken but not written. It is a b@st@rd tongue and a crossbreed between Hindi and Urdu and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular; but in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind supporters of course blindly supported him and the so-called hybrid tongue began to be used. Words like 'Badshah Ram' and 'Begum Sita' were spoken and written but the Mahatma never dared to speak at Mr. Jinnah as Sita Jinnah and Maulana Azad Pandit Azad. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.

The bulk of the Hindus however proved to be stronger and more loyal to their culture and to their mother tongue and refused to bow down to the Mahatmic fiat. The result was that Gandhiji did not prevail in the Hindi Parishad and had to resign from that body; his pernicious influence however remains and the Congress Governments in India still hesitate whether to select Hindi or Hindustani as the National Language of India.

Vande Mataram not to be sung - It is notorious that some Muslim disliked the celebrated song of 'Vande Mataram' and the Mahatma forthwith stopped its singing or recital wherever he could. This song has been honored for a century as the most inspiring exhortation to the Bengalees to stand up like one man for their nation. In the anti-partition agitation of 1905 in Bengal the song came to a special prominence and popularity. The Bengalees swore by it and dedicated themselves to the Motherland at countless meetings where this song was sung. The British Administrator did not understand the true meaning of the song 'which simply meant 'Hail Motherland' Government therefore banned its singing forty years ago for some time, that only led to its increased popularity all over the country It continued to be sung at all Congress and other national gatherings but as soon as one Muslim objected to it Gandhiji utterly disregarded the national sentiment behind it and persuaded the Congress also not to insist upon the singing as the national song.

Quote from book The Tragic Story of Partition "It was at the Kakinada session of the Congress in 1923, that its President Mohammed Ali objected to the singing of the song on the premise that music was taboo in Islam. The singer V P Paluskar said - You have no authority from singing the Vande Mataram. Moreover, if singing in this place is against your religion, how is it that you tolerate music in your presidential procession? In 1922 it had adopted Iqbal's Sare jahanse see accha Hindustan hamara as the associate national anthem to satisfy the Muslims. In 1937 the League condemned the Congress for foisting Vande Mataram as the national song. Accordingly the Congress decided to cut those portions of the song that were likely to offend Muslim susceptibilities".

Shiva Bavani Banned - Gandhiji banned the public recital or perusal of Shiva Bavani a beautiful collection of 52 verses by a Hindu poet in which he had extolled the great power of Shivaji and the protection which he brought to the Hindu community and the Hindu religion. The refrain of that collection says if there were no Shivaji, the entire country would have been converted to Islam.

Quote from the book The Tragic Story of Partition " Bhajans were also not spared. The soul elevating chanting of ‘Raghupati Raja Rama patita pavana Sita Rama was intoned on the lips of millions of our countrymen for the last several centuries. A new line 'Ishwar Allah tere nam, sab so sanmati de Bhagavan' was added to the original".

Suhrawardy Patronized - When the Muslim League refused to join the provisional Government, which Lord Wavell invited Pandit Nehru to form; the League started a Council of Direct Action against any Government farmed by Pandit Nehru, On the 15th of August 1946. A little more than two weeks before Pandit Nehru was to take office, there broke out in Calcutta an open massacre of the Hindus which continued for three days unchecked

Gandhiji however went to Calcutta and contracted a strange friendship with the author of these massacres; in fact he intervened on behalf of Suhrawardy and the Muslim League. During the three days that the massacre of Hindus took place, the police in Calcutta did not interfere for the protection of life or property, innumerable outrages were practiced under the very eyes and nose of the guardians of law, but nothing mattered to Gandhiji. To him Suhrawardy was an object of admiration from which he could not be diverted and publicly described Suhrawardy as a Martyr. No wonder two months later there was the most virulent outbreak of Muslim fanaticism in Noakhali and Tipperah 30,000 Hindu women were forcibly converted according to a report of Arya Samaj, the total number of Hindus killed or wounded was three lacs not to say the crores of rupees worth of property looted and destroyed Gandhiji then undertook, ostensibly alone, a tour of Noakhali District

Attitude towards Hindu and Muslim Princes - Gandhiji's followers successfully humiliated the Jaipur, Bhavnagar and Rajkot States. They enthusiastically supported even a rebellion in Kashmir State against the Hindu Prince. This attitude strangely enough contrasts with what Gandhiji did about the affairs in Muslim States. There was a Muslim League intrigue in Gwalior States as a result of which the Maharaja was compelled to abandon the celebrations of the second millennium of the Vikram Calendar four years ago: the Muslim agitation was based on pure communalism The Maharaja is the liberal and impartial Ruler with a far sighted outlook. In a recent casual Hindu Muslim clash in Gwalior because the Musalmans suffered some casualties Gandhiji came down upon the Maharaja with a vitriolic attack wholly undeserved.

Gandhiji On Fast to Capacity - In 1943 while Gandhiji was on fast to capacity and nobody was allowed to interview him on political affairs, only the nearest and the dearest had the permission to go and enquire of his health.

Mr. C. Rajagopalachari smuggled himself into Gandhiji's room and hatched a plot of conceding Pakistan which Gandhiji allowed him to negotiate with Jinnah. Gandhiji later on discussed this matter for three weeks with Mr. Jinnah in the later part of 1944 and offered Mr. Jinnah virtually what is now called Pakistan. Gandhiji went every day to Mr. Jinnah's house, flattered him. Praised him, embraced him, but Mr Jinnah could not be cajoled out of his demand for the Pakistan pound of flesh. Hindu Muslim Unity was making progress in the negative direction,

In 1945 came the notorious Desai - Liaquat Agreement - It put one more, almost the last, nail on the coffin of the Congress as a National democratic body. Under that agreement, the late Mr. Bhulabhai Desai the then leader of the Congress party in the Central Legislative Assembly at Delhi entered into an agreement with Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, the League Leader in the Assembly, jointly to demand a Conference from the British Government for the solution of the stalemate in Indian politics which was growing since the beginning of the War. Mr. Desai was understood to have taken that step without consulting anybody of any importance in the Congress circle, as almost all the Congress leaders had been detained since the. Quit India' Resolution in 1942. Mr. Desai offered equal representation to the Muslims with Congress at the said Conference and this was the basis on which the Viceroy was approached to convene the Conference. The then Viceroy Lord Wavell flew to London on receipt of this joint request and brought back the consent of the Labor Government for the holding of the Conference.

The Viceroy also laid down other conditions for the holding of the Conference. The important ones were:

An unqualified undertaking on the part of the Congress and all political parties to support the war against Japan until victory was won.
A coalition Government would be formed in which the Congress and the Muslims would each have five representatives. There will besides be a representative of the depressed classes, of the Sikhs and other Minorities.
Cabinet Mission Plan - Early in the year 1946 the so-called Cabinet Mission arrived in India. It consisted of the then Secretary of State for India now Lord Lawrence, Mr. Alexander, the minister for War and Sir Stafford Cripps. Its arrival was heralded by a speech in Parliament by Mr. Atlee, the prime Minister. Mr. Atlee announced in most eloquent terms the determination of the British Government to transfer power to India if only the latter agreed upon common plan.

In paragrah 15 of the proposals the mission introduced six conditions under which the British Government would be prepared to convene a Constituent Assembly invested with the right of framing a Constitution of Free India. Each of these six proposals was calculated to prevent the unity of India being maintained or full freedom being attained even if the Constituent Assembly was an elected body.

The Congress party was so utterly exhausted by the failure of 'Quit India' that after some smoke screen about its unflinching nationalism it virtually submitted to Pakistan by accepting the mission's proposals, which made certain the dismemberment of India although in a roundabout manner. The Congress accepted the scheme but did not agree to form a Government. The long and short of it was that the Congress was called upon to form a Government and accept the whole scheme unconditionally. Mr. Jinnah denounced the British Government for treachery and started a direct action council of the Muslim League. The Bengal, the Punjab, the Bihar, the Bombay, and other places in various parts of India became scenes of bloodshed, arson, loot and rape on a scale unprecedented in history. The overwhelming members of victims were Hindus.

Ambiguous Statement about Pakistan - In one of his articles, Gandhiji while nominally ostensibly opposed to Pakistan, openly declared that if the Muslims wanted Pakistan at any cost, there was nothing to prevent them from achieving it. Only the Mahatma could understand what that declaration meant. Was it a prophecy or a declaration or disapproval of the demand for Pakistan?

Advice to Kashmir Maharaja - About Kashmir, Gandhiji again and again declared that Sheikh Abdullah should be entrusted the charge of the state and that the Maharaja of Kashmir should retire to Benares for no particular reason than that the Muslims formed the bulk of the Kashmir population. This also stands out in contrast with his attitude on Hyderbad where although the bulk of the population is Hindu, Gandhiji never called upon the Nizam to retire to Mecca.

Mountbatten vivisects India - Lord Wavell had to resign, as he could not bring about a settlement. He had some conscience, which prevented him from supporting the partition of India. He had openly declared it to be unnecessary and undesirable. But his retirement was followed by the appointment of Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork This Supreme Commander of the South East Asia was a purely Military man and he had a great reputation for daring, and tenacity. He came to India with a determination to do or die and he ''did'' namely he vivisected India. He was more indifferent to human slaughter. Rivers of blood flowed under his very eyes and nose. He apparently was thinking that by the slaughter of Hindus so many opponents of his mission were killed. The greater the slaughter of the enemies greater the victory, and he pursued his aim relentlessly to its logical conclusion. Long before June 1948 the official date for handing over power, the wholesale murders of the Hindus had their full effect. The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and democracy, secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Mr. Jinnah. India was vivisected. One third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from the 15th of august 1947.

Hindu Muslim Unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic and communal State dissociated from everything that smacked of United India was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called it 'Freedom won by them at sacrifice' Whose sacrifice?

Gandhiji on Cow-slaughter - ‘Today Rajendra Babu informed me that he had received some fifty thousand postcards, 20-30 thousand telegrams urging prohibition of cow slaughter by law. In this connection I have spoken to you before also. After all why are so many letters and telegrams sent to me. They have not served any purpose. No law prohibiting cow slaughter in India can be enacted. How can I impose my will upon a person who does not wish voluntarily to abandon cow-slaughter? India does not belong exclusively to the Hindus. Muslims, Parsees, Christians also live here. The claim of the Hindus that India has become the land of the Hindus is totally incorrect. This land belongs to all who live here. I know an orthodox Vaishnava Hindu. He used to give beef soup to his child.

Quote from the book The Tragic Story of Partition " In the Muslim All Parties Congress held in January 1929, Aga Khan pointed out that in the home of islam-Arabia there was no custom of cow sacrifice. It was also pointed out that in other Muslim countries no one took religious objection to the playing of music before mosques. Said Dr Ambedkar: Islamic Law does not insist upon the slaughter of the cow for sacrificial purposes and no Muslim, when he goes to Haj, sacrifices the cow in Mecca or Medina. In a letter to Jinnah 6-4-1938 Nehru assured him that the Congress does not wish to undertake any legislative action in this matter to restrict the established rights of the Muslims".

Removal of Tri-Color Flag - The tricolour flag with Charkha on it was adopted by the Congress as the National Flag out of deference to Gandhiji. There were flag salutations on innumerable occasions. The flag was unfurled at every Congress meeting. It fluttered in hundreds at every session of National Congress, The Prabhat Pheries were never complete unless the flag was carried while the march was on. On the occasion of every imaginary or real success of the Congress Party, public buildings, shops and private residences were decorated with that flag. If any Hindu attached any importance to Shivaji's Hindu flag, "Bhagva Zenda" the flag which freed India from the Muslim - domination it was considered communal. Gandhiji's tri-colored flag never protected any Hindu woman from outrage or a Hindu temple from desecration, yet the late Bhai Parmanand was once mobbed by enthusiastic Congressmen for not paying homage to that flag.

When the Mahatma was touring Noakhali and Tipperah in 1946 after the beastly outrages on the Hindus, the flag was flying on his temporary hut. But when a Muslim came there and objected to the presence of the flag on his head, Gandhiji quickly directed its removal. All the reverential sentiments of millions of Congressmen towards that flag were affronted in a minute, because that would please an isolated muslim fanatic yet the so-called Hindu-Muslim unity never took shape.

Quote from the book The Tragic Story of Partition "The Flag Committee in 1931 consisted of Patel, Nehru, Maulana Azad, Master Tara Singh, D B Kalelkar, N S Hardikar and Pattabhi Sitaramayya recommended that the National Flag should be of kesari or saffron color having on it at the left top quarter the Charkha in blue. However, the A.I.C.C. dare not differ from Gandhi's choice of the tricolor scheme, simply okayed his decision.

2.4 Gandhiji and Independence

71. Some good number of people are laboring under the delusion that the freedom movement in India started with the advent of Gandhiji in 1914-15. There has always been alive in India a freedom movement that was never suppressed. When the Maratha Empire was finally subdued in 1818 as the British thought the forces of freedom were lying low in some part but elsewhere the supremacy of the British was being challenged through the rise of Sikh power. And when by 1848 the Sikhs were defeated the rebellion of 1857 was being actively organized. By the time the British had established full control the Congress was established in 1885 to challenge British domination. This developed into armed resistance which openly asserted itself through the bomb of Khudi Ram Bose in 1906.

72. Gandhiji arrived in India in 1914-15. After his arrival, initial fads of Ahimsa the movement began to suffer eclipse. Thanks however to Subhash Bose and the revolutionaries in Maharashtra, Punjab and Bengal the movement continued to flourish parallel to Gandhiji's rise to leadership after the death of Tilak.

75. I have already mentioned the revolutionary party, which existed independent of the Congress. Amongst its sympathizers were many active Congressmen. This latter section was never reconciled to the yoke of Britain. During the First World War between 1914-19 the Congress began to turn left and the terrorist movement outside was running parallel to the leftist party within. The Gadar Party was operating simultaneously in Europe and America in an effort to overthrow British Rule in India with the help of the Axis Powers. The 'Comagata Maru' incident is well known, and it is by no means clear that the "Emden" incident on the Madras beach was not due to the knowledge of the German Commander that India was seething with discontent. But from 1920 upwards Gandhiji discouraged, put his foot down on the use of force although he himself had carried on an active campaign for recruitment for soldiers of Britain only a few years earlier.

The Rowlatt Repert described at length the strength of the revolutionaries in India, From 1906 till 1918 one Britisher after another and his Indian stooges were shot dead by the revolutionary nationalists and the British authorities were trembling about their very existence. It was then that Mr. Montague came to his country as Secretary of State for India and promised the introduction of responsibility; even he was only partially successful to stern the tide of revolutionary fervor.

The Government of India Act 1919 was over-shadowed by the Jallianwalla Bagh Tragedy in which hundreds of Indians were shot dead by General Dyer at a public meeting for the crime of holding a protest against the Rowlatt Act. Sir Michael O'Dwyer became notorious for callous and unscrupulous reprisals against those who had denounced the Rowlatt Act. Twenty years later he had to pay for it, when Udham Singh shot him dead in London Chafekar brothers of Maharashtra, Pt. Shamji Krishna Verma the back bone of the Revolutionaries, Lala Hardayal, Virendranath Chatopadhyaya, Rash Behari Bose, Babu Arvind Ghosh Khudiram Bose, Ulhaskar Datta, Madanlal Dhingra, Kanhere, Bhagatsingh, Rajguru, Sukhdeo, Chandrashekhar Azad were the living protest by Indian youth against the alien yoke. They had unfurled and held aloft the flag of Independence, some of them long before Gandhiji's name was heard of an even when he was the accepted leader of the constitutional movement of the Indian National Congress.

77. And the more the Mahatma condemned the use of force in the country's battle for freedom the more popular it became. This fact was amply demonstrated at the Karachi Session of the Congress in March 1931; in the teeth of Gandhiji's opposition a resolution was passed in the open Session admiring the courage and the spirit of sacrifice of Bhagat Singh when he threw the bomb in the Legislative Assembly in 1929. Gandhiji never forgot this defeat and when a few months later Mr. Hotson, the Acting Governor of Bombay was shot at by Gogate, Gandhiji returned to the charge at an All-India Congress Committee meeting and asserted that the admiration expressed by the Karachi Congress for Bhagat Singh was at the bottom of Gogate's action in shooting at Hotson. This astounding statement was challenged by Subash Chandra Bose. He immediately came into disfavor with Gandhiji. To sum up, the share of revolutionary youth in the fight for Indian Freedom, is by no means negligible and those who talk of India's freedom having been secured by Gandhiji are not only ungrateful but trying to write false history

78. An outrageous example of his dislike of people with whom he did not agree is furnished by the case of Subash Chandra Bose. So far as I am aware no protest was ever made by Gandhiji against the deportation of Subash for six years and Bose's election to the Presidential Chair of the Congress was rendered possible only after he had personally disavowed any sympathy for violence. In actual practice however Subash never toed the line that Gandhiji wanted during his term of office. And yet Subash was so popular in the country that against the declared wishes of Gandhiji in favor of Dr. Pattabhai he was elected president of the Congress for a second time with a substantial majority even from the Andhra Desha, the province of Dr. Pattabhi himself. This upset Gandhiji beyond endurance and the expressed his anger in the Mahatmic manner full of concentrated venom by stating that the success of Subash was his defeat and not that of Dr. Pattabhi. Even after this declaration, his anger against Subash Bose was not gratified. Out of sheer cussedness he absented him-self from the Tripuri Congress Session, staged a rival show at Rajkot by a wholly mischievous fast and not until Subhas was overthrown from the Congress Gadi that the venom of Gandhiji became completely gutted.

80. In the Quit India Movement launched by the Congress, on 8/8/1942 the statement of Gandhi exhorting people to do or die was interpreted by that section as giving them full scope for all kinds of sabotage and obstruction. In fact they did everything to paralyze the war effort of the Government to the fullest extent. In North Bihar and other places, nearly 900 railway stations were wither burnt or destroyed.

81. These activities were directly opposed to the Congress creed of non-violence and to the Satyagrah technique.

Meanwhile Subhash escaped from the country in January 1941. He went to Germany and then to Japan who agreed to assist him against the British in the invasion of the country.

83. Subhash Chandra Bose was thereby enabled to start a provisional Indian Republican Government on Indian territory. By 1944 he was equipped to start on an invasion of India with the help of the Japanese. Pandit Nehru had declared that if Subhash Chandra Bose came into India with the support of the Japanese he would fight Subhash. Early in 1944, Japanese and the Indian National Army organized by Subash were thundering at the gates of India and they had already entered Manipur State and some part of the Assam Frontier. The I. N. A. consisted of volunteers from the Indian population of the Far East and of those Indians who had deserted to the I. N. A. from the Japanese prisons. That the campaign eventually failed was no fault of Subhash; his men fought like the Trojans. But his difficulties were far too great and his army was not sufficiently equipped with modern armaments. The I. N. A. had no aeroplanes and their supply-line was weak. Many died of starvation and illness, as there was no adequate medical treatment available to them. But the spirit which Subhash engendered in them was wonderful

84. But Gandhiji was again more lucky. Lokmanya Tilak died in 1920 and Gandhiji became the unchallenged leader. Success of Subhash Chandra would have a crushing defeat for Gandhiji, but luck was again on his side and Subhash Chandra died outside India. It then became easy for the Congress party to profess love and admiration for Subhash Chandra Bose and the I. N. A. and even to defend some of its officers and men in the Great State Trial in 1946. They even adopted 'Jai Hind' as the slogan which Subhash had introduced in the East. They traded on the name of Subhash and the I. N. A. and the two issues, which led them to victory during the election in 1945-46, were their hypocritical homage to Subhash's memory. More over the Congress party had promised they were opposed to Pakistan and would resist it all costs.

85. All this time the Muslim League was carrying on treasonable activities, disturbing the peace and tranquility of India carrying on a murderous campaign against the Hindus. The Congress would not venture to condemn or to stop these wholesale massacres in pursuit of its policy of appeasement at all costs. Gandhiji suppressed everything which did not fit in with his pattern of public activities. I am therefore surprised when claims are made over and again the winning of the freedom was due to Gandhiji. My own view is that constant pandering of the Muslim League was not the way to winning freedom. It only created a Frankenstein, which ultimately devoured its own creator-swallowing one third of hostile, unfriendly and aggressive Indian territory, and permanently stationing a neighbor on what was once Indian territory. About the winning of Swaraj and freedom, I maintain the Mahatma's contribution was negligible. But I am prepared to give him a place as a sincere patriot. His teachings however have produced opposite result and his leadership has stultified the nation. In my opinion S. C. Bose is the supreme hero and martyr of modern India. He kept alive and fostered the revolutionary mentality of the masses, advocating all honorable means, Including the use of force when necessary for the liberation of India. Gandhiji and his crowed of self seekers tried to destroy him. It is thus entirely incorrect to represent the Mahatma as the architect of Indian Independence.

86. The real cause of the British leaving India was three fold and it does not include the Gandhian method. One - the movements of the Indian Revolutionaries from 1857 to 1932 i.e. up to the death of Chandra Shekhar Azad at Allahabad, then next, the movement of revolutionary character not that of Gandhian type in the countrywide rebellion of 1942, and an armed revolt put by Subhash Bose the result of which was a spread of the revolutionary mentality in the armed forces of India are the real factors that shattered the very foundation of the British rule in India. And all these effective efforts to freedom were opposed by Gandhi.

Two - a good deal of credit must be given to those, who imbibed with a spirit of patriotisms, fought with the Britishers strictly on constitutional lines on the Assembly floors and made a notable progress in Indian politics. Names are Tilak, N C Kelkar, C R Das, Vithalbhai Patel, Pandit Malaviya, Bhai Parmanand and during the last ten years by prominent Hindu Mahasabha leaders. But these people were also ridiculed by Gandhiji himself and his followers by calling them as job hunters or power seekers.

Three - is the advent of the Labor Government and an overthrow of Mr Churchill, superimposed by frightful economic conditions and financial bankruptcy to which the war had reduced Britain.

2.5 Frustration of an Ideal
  Reply
#35
Godse continued
----

2.5 Frustration of an Ideal

88. Really speaking the idea of Hindu-Muslim Unity which Gandhiji had put forward when he entered Indian Politics, came to an end from the moment Pakistan was established, because the Muslim league was opposed to regard India as one whole nation; and over again they had stated with great obstinacy, that they were not Indians. The Hindu-Muslim Unity which Gandhiji himself had put forward many a time was not of this type. What he wanted was that they both should take part in the struggle for independence as comrades. That was his idea of Hindu-Muslim Unity. The Hindus followed Gandhiji's advice but Muslims on every occasion, disregarded it and indulged in such behavior as would be insulting to the Hindus, and at last it has culminated in the vivisection and division of the country.

90. Gandhiji had seen Mr. Jinnah many a time and called upon him. Every time he had to plead to him as "Brother Jinnah." He even offered to him the Premiership of the whole of India; but there was not a single occasion on which Mr. Jinnah had shown any inclination even to co-operate.

93. Constantly for nearly one year after the horrible Noakhali massacre, our nation was as if, bathing in the pool of blood. The Muslims indulged in horrible and dreadful massacre of humanity followed by reactions from Hindus in some parts. The attacks of Hindus on Muslims in the East Punjab, Bihar, or Delhi, were simply acts of reaction. It is not that Gandhiji did not know that the basic cause of these reactions was the outrages on Hindus by the Muslims in the Muslim majority Provinces.

But still Gandhiji went on condemning strongly such actions of Hindus only, and the Congress Government went to the extent of threatening to even bombard the Hindu in Bihar to check their discontent and reactions against Muslims which was mainly due to the Muslim outbursts and atrocities in Noakhali and elsewhere. Gandhiji had often advocated during the course of his prayers that the Hindus in India should treat the Muslims with respect and generosity even though the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan may be completely massacred, and though Mr. Suhrawardy may be the leader of the Goondas, he should be allowed to move about freely and safely in Delhi. This will be evident from extracts given below from Gandhiji's prayer speeches:

(a)"We should with a cool mind reflect when we are being swept away. Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo eve their existence. If they put all of us to the sword, we should court death bravely, may they, even rule the world, we shall inhabit the world. At least we should never fear death. We are destined to be born and die; then why need we feel gloomy over it? If all of us die with a smile on our lips, we shall enter a new life. We shall originate a new Hindustan." (6th April 1947).

94. Gandhiji need have taken into consideration that the desire for reprisals springing up in the Hindu mind was simply a natural. Thousands of Hindus in the Muslim Provinces were being massacred simply because of the fault of their being Hindus, and our Government was quite unable to render these unfortunate people any help or protection. Could it be in any way unnatural if the waves of sorrow and grief of the Hindus in those Provinces should redound on the mind and hearts of the Hindus in other Provinces?

97. He first gave out the principle that no help should be given by India to the war between England and Germany. ""War meant Violence and How could I help' was his saying. But the wealthy companions and followers of Gandhiji enormously added to their wealth by undertaking contracts from the Government for the supply of materials for war. It is needless for me to mention names but all know the wealthy personalities like Birla, Dalmia, Walchand Hirachand, Nanjibhai Kalidas, etc. Gandhiji and his Congress colleagues have been much helped by everyone of them. But Gandhiji never refused to accept the moneys offered by these wealthy people although it was got from this blood-filled war. Nor did he prevent these wealthy people from carrying out their contracts with the Government for the supply of the materials for war. Not only that but Gandhiji had given his consent to taking up the contract for supplying blankets to the army from the Congress Khadi Bhandar. 'Honestly this is a irrational argument'.

98. Gandhiji's release from jail in 1944 was followed by the release of other leaders also, but the Government had to be assured by the Congress leaders of their help in the war against Japan. Gandhiji not only did not oppose this but actually supported the Government proposal.

103. Had Gandhiji been a firm believer in the doctrine of non-violence; he should have made a suggestion for sending Satyagrahis instead of the armed troops and tried the experiment. Orders should have been issued to send 'Takalis' in place of rifles and 'Spinning wheels' (i.e. Charkhas) instead of the guns. It was a golden opportunity for Gandhiji to show the power of his Satyagraha by following his precept as an experiment at the beginning of our freedom.

104. But Gandhiji did nothing of the sort. He had begun a new war by his own will, at the very beginning of the existence of Free India. What does this inconsistency mean? Why did Gandhiji himself so violently trample down the doctrines of non-violence, he had championed? To my mind, the reason for his doing so is quite obvious; and it is that this war is being fought for Sheikh Abdullah. The administrative power of Kashmir was going in the hands of Muslims and for this reason and this reason alone did Gandhiji consent to the destruction of the raiders by Armed Forces. Gandhiji was reading the dreadful news of Kashmir war, while at the same time fasting to death only because a few Muslims could not live safely in Delhi. But he was not bold enough to go on fast in front of the raiders of Kashmir, nor had he the courage to practice Satyagraha against them. All his fats were to coerce Hindus.

105. I thought it rather a very unfortunate thing that in the present 20th Century such a hypocrite should have been regarded as the leader of the All-India politics. The mind of this Mahatma was not affected by the attacks on the Hindus in Hyderabad State; and this Mahatma never asked the Nizam of Hyderabad to abandon his throne. If the Indian politics proceeded in this way under the guiding dominance of Gandhiji, even the preservation of freedom obtained today even though in partitioned India would be impossible. These thoughts arose in my mind again and again and it was full with them. As the above incidents were taking place, Gandhiji's fast for the Hindu-Muslim Unity was announced on 13th January 1948, and then I lost nearly my control on my feelings.

111. But the Congress under the leadership of Gandhiji commenced its surrender to the Muslims; right from the time the 14 demands of Mr. Jinnah were made till the establishment of the Pakistan. Is it not a deplorable sight for people to see the Congress celebrate the occasion of the establishment of a Dominion Government in the rest of country shattered and vivisected by the Pakistan in the East and West and with the pricking thorn of Hyderbad it its midst. On seeing this downfall of the Congress under the dominance of Gandhiji, I am reminded of the well-known verse of Raja Bhartrihari to the effect:

(The Ganges has fallen from the Heavens on the head of Shiva, thence on the Himalayas, thence on the earth, and thence in the sea. In this manner, down and down she went and reached a very low stage. Truly it is said that indiscriminate persons deteriorate to the low position in a hundred ways).

2.6 Climax of Anti-National Appeasement

112. The day on which I decided to remove Gandhiji from the political stage, it was clear to me that personally I shall be lost to everything that could be mine. I am not a moneyed person but I did have a place of honor and respect amongst those known as middle class society. I have been in the public life of my Province and the service that I have been able to render so far has given me a place of honor and respect amongst my people. Ideas of culture and civilization are not strange to me. I had in my view before me some schemes of constructive work to be taken in hand in my future life and I felt I had enough strength and enthusiasm to undertake them and carry them out successfully. I have maintained robust health and I do not suffer from any bodily defect and I am not addicted to any vice. Although I myself am not a much-learned man, I have a great regard and admiration for the learned.

114. About the year 1932 late Dr. Hedgewar of Nagpur founded the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangha in Maharashtra also. His oration greatly impressed me and I joined the Sangha as a volunteer thereof. I am one of those volunteers of Maharashtra who joined the Sangha in its initial stage. I also worked for a few years on the intellectual side in the Province of Maharashtra. Having worked for the uplift of the Hindus I felt it necessary to take part in the political activities of the country for the protection of the just rights of Hindus. I therefore left the Sangha and joined the Hindu Mahasabha.

115. In the year 1938, I led first batch of volunteers who marched into the territory of the Hyderabad State when the passive resistance movement was started by the Hindu Mahasabha, with a demand for Responsible Government in the State. I was arrested and sentenced to one year's imprisonment. I have a personal experience of the uncivilized, nay barbarous rule of Hyderabad, and have undergone the corporal punishment of dozens of cane slashes for the offence of singing the 'Vande Mataram' song at the time of prayer.

117. Those, who personally know me, take me as a person of quiet temperament. But when the top-rank leaders of the Congress with the consent of Gandhiji divided and tore the country-which we consider as a deity of worship-my mind became full with the thoughts of direful anger.

I wish to make it clear that I am not an enemy of the Congress. I have always regarded that body as the premier institution, which has worked for the political uplift of the country. I had and have my differences with its leaders. This will be clearly seen from my letter addressed to Veer Savarkar on 28th February 1933 (Rx D/30), which is in my hand and signed by me and I admit its contents.

120. It is stated in some quarters that people could not have got the independence unless Pakistan was conceded. But I took it to be an utterly incorrect and untrue view. To me it appears to be merely a poor excuse to justify the action taken by the leaders. The leaders of the Gandhian creed often claim to have conquered 'Swarajya' by their struggle.

If they had conquered Swarajya, then it would be clearly seen that it is most ridiculous to say that those Britishers who yielded, were in a position to lay down the condition of Pakistan before the grant of independence could be only one reason for Gandhiji and his followers to give their consent to the creation of Pakistan and it is that these people were accustomed to make a show of hesitation and resistance in the beginning and ultimately to surrender to the Muslim demands.

121. But even after the establishment of Pakistan if this Gandhian Government had taken any steps to protect the interests of Hindus in Pakistan it could have been possible for me to control my mind which was terribly shaken on account of this terrible deception of the people. But after handing over crores of Hindus to the mercy of the Muslims of Pakistan Gandhiji and his followers have been advising them not to leave Pakistan but continue to stay on. The Hindus thus were caught in the hands of Muslim authorities quite unawares and in such circumstances series of calamities followed one after the other. When I bring to my mind all these happenings my body simply feels a horror of burning fire, even now.

122. Every day that dawned brought forth the news about thousands of Hindus being massacred. Sikhs numbering 15000 having been shot dead, hundreds of women torn of their clothes being made naked and taken into procession and that Hindu women were being sold in the market places like cattle. Thousands and thousands of Hindus had to run away for their lives and they had lost everything of theirs. A long line of refugees extending over the length of 40 miles was moving towards the Indian Union. How was this terrible happening counter acted by the Union Government? Oh! by throwing bread to the refugees from the air!

123. These atrocities and the blood-bath would have to some extent been checked if the Indian Government had lodged strong protests against the treatment meted out to the Minorities in Pakistan or even if a cold threat had been held out to the Muslims in Indian of being treated in the same manner as a measure of retaliation. But the Government which was under the thumb of Gandhiji resorted to absolutely different ways. If the grievances of the minorities in Pakistan were voiced in the Press, it was dubbed as an attempt to spread disaffection amongst the communities and made an offence and the Congress Governments in several Provinces started demanding securities under the press Emergency Powers Act, one after the other. ' Is it not the same situation today, try and criticize a Muslim even when he deserves to be criticized and you would be called Communal as if a Muslim can do no wrongs!'

124. When all these happenings were taking place in Pakistan, Gandhiji did not even by a single word protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. The Muslim atrocities resorted to in Pakistan to root out the Hindu culture and the Hindu society have been entirely due to the teachings of Gandhiji and his behavior. 'Is it not the same case today. Hindus in Bangladesh were recently killed, raped, ill-treated but the Indian government did not raise a finger, blame it on Gandhian/Nehruvian influence buddy.'

127. One of the seven conditions imposed by Gandhiji for the breaking of his fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Refugees. This condition was to the effect that all the mosques in Delhi, which were occupied by the Refugees, should be vacated or got vacated and be made over to the Muslims. Gandhiji got this condition accepted by the Government and a number of leaders by sheer coercion brought to bear upon them by his fast. On that day I happened to be in Delhi and I have personally seen some of the events that have occurred in getting this condition carried out to its full. Those were the days of bitter or extreme cold and on the day Gandhiji broke his fast it was also raining. Owing to this unusual weather condition, the pricking atmosphere made even person in well-placed positions shiver. Families after families of refugees who had come to Delhi for shelter were driven out and while doing so no provision was made for their shelter and stay. One or two families taking with them their children, women-folk and what little belongings they had with them and saying, 'Gandhiji, do give us a place for shelter' even approached and came to Birla House. But was it ever possible for the cries of these poor Hindu people to reach Gandhiji living in the palatial Birla House!

While Gandhiji made a demand for the evacuation of the mosques by the refugees had he also imposed a condition to the effect that the temples in Pakistan should be handed over to the Hindus by the Muslims, or some other condition, that would have shown that Gandhiji's teaching of non-violence, his anxiety for Hindu-Muslim Unity and his belief in soul force would have been taken or understood as being impartial, spiritual and non-communal. Gandhiji was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found any Muslim who could have shown some grief if the fast ended in the death of Gandhiji.

129. Let us then take the case of 55 crores. Here read from the Indian Information dated 2nd February 1948 the following extracts:

Extracts from the speech of the honorable Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel at the press conference held on 12th January, 1948.
Extract from the speech of the honorable Sir Shanmukham Chetty.
India's spontaneous gesture of good will, and
An extract from the Honorable the Prime Minister's statement.
Gandhiji himself has said about these 55 crores that it is always very difficult to make Government to alter its decisions. But the Government have altered and changed their original decision of withholding the payment of Rs.55 crores of Pakistan and the reason for doing so was his fast unto death. ( Gandhiji's sermon at Prayer Meeting held on or about the 21st of January 1948 ). The decision to withhold the payment of Rs.55 cores to Pakistan was taken up by our Government, which claims to be the people's Government. But this decision of the people's Government was reversed to suit the tune of Gandhiji's fast. It was evident to my mind that the force of public opinion was nothing but a trifle when compared with the leanings of Gandhiji favorable to Pakistan.

Had Gandhiji really maintained his opposition to the creation of Pakistan, the Muslim League could have had no strength to claim it and the Britishers also could not have created it in spite of all their utmost efforts for its establishment. The reason for this is not far to seek. The people of this country were eager and vehement in their opposition to Pakistan. But Gandhiji played false with the people and give parts of the country to the Muslims for the creation of Pakistan. I stoutly maintain that Gandhiji in doing so has failed in his duty, which was incumbent up on him to carry out, as the Father of the Nation. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan.

134. The practice of non-violence according to Gandhiji is to endure or put up with the blows of the aggressor without showing any resistance either by weapon or by physical force. Gandhiji has, while describing his nonviolence given the example of a ‘tiger becoming a follower of the creed of non-violence after the cows allowed themselves to be killed and swallowed in such large numbers that the tiger ultimately god tired of killing them.' It will be remembered that at Kanpur, Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi fell a victim to the murderous assault by the Muslims of the place on him. Gandhiji has often cited this submission to the Muslims' blows as an ideal example of embracing death for the creed of non-violence. I firmly believed and believe that the non-violence of the type described above will lead the nation to ruin and make it easy for Pakistan to enter the remaining India and occupy the same.

Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw that I shall be totally ruined and the only thing that I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honor even more valuable than my life, if I were for kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be practical, able to retaliate and would surely be practical, able to retaliate and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt my own future would be totally ruined but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter but I did not speak about it to any one whatsoever. I took courage in my both hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948 on the prayer grounds in Birla House.

139. I am prepared to concede that Gandhiji did undergo sufferings for the sake of the nation. He did bring about an awakening in the minds of the people. He also did nothing for personal gain; but it pains me to say that he was not honest enough to acknowledge the defeat and failure of the principle of non-violence on all sides. I have read the lives of other intelligent and powerful Indian patriots who have made sacrifices even greater than those done by Gandhiji. I have seen personally some of them. But whatever that may de, I shall bow in respect to the service done by Gandhiji to the country, and to Gandhiji himself for the said service and before I fired the shots I actually wished him and bowed to him in reverence. But I do maintain that even this servant of the country had no right to vivisect the country-the image of our worship-by deceiving the people. But he did it all the same. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and it was therefore that I resorted to the firing of shots at Gandhiji as that was the only thing for me to do.

148. I have now finished; but before I sit down must sincerely and respectfully express my gratitude to Your Honour for the patient hearing given, courtesy shown and facilities given to me. Similarly I express my gratitude to my legal advisers and counsel for their legal help in this great trial. I have no ill will towards the Police Officers concerned with this case I sincerely thank them for the kindness and the treatment given by them to me. Similarly, I also thank the Jail authorities for the good treatment given by them.
  Reply
#36
http://www.indpride.com/drbrambedkar.html

Dr. B.R.Ambedkar

"The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity."


(The following are the extracts from Dr.Ambedkar's book Pakistan or The Partition of India.)

On Hindu-Muslim Relations

Are there any common historical antecedents which the Hindus and Muslims can be said to share together as matters of pride or as matters of sorrow? That is the crux of the question. That is the question which the Hindus must answer, if they wish to maintain that Hindus and Musalmans together form a nation. So far as this aspect of their relationship is concerned, they have been just two armed battalions warring against each other. There was no common cycle of participation for a common achievement. Their past is a past of mutual destruction - a past of mutual animosities, both in the political as well as in the religious fields. As Bhai Parmanand points out in his pamphlet called "The Hindu National Movement": - "In history the Hindus revere the memory of Prithvi Raj, Partap, Shivaji and Be-ragi Bir who fought for the honour and freedom of this land (against the Muslims), while the Mahomedans look upon the invaders of India, like Muhammad bin Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb as their national heroes." In the religious field, the Hindus draw their inspiration from the Ramayan, the Mahabharat and the Geeta. The Musalmans, on the other hand, derive their inspiration from the Quran and the Hadis. Thus, the things that divide are far more vital than the things which unite. In depending upon certain common features of Hindu and Mahomedan social life, in relying upon common language, common race and common country, the Hindu is mistaking what is accidental and superficial for what is essential and fundamental. The political and religious antagonisms divide the Hindus and the Musalmans far more deeply than the so-called common things are able to bind them together. The prospects might perhaps be different if the past of the two communities can be forgotten by both. (page 18)

The pity of it is that the two communities can never forget or obliterate their past. Their past is imbedded in their religions and for each to give up its past is to give up its religion. To hope for this is to hope in vain. (page 19)

In the absence of common historical antecedents, the Hindu view that Hindus and Musalmans form one nation falls to the ground. To maintain it is to keep up a hallucination. There is no such longing between the Hindus and the Musalmans to belong together as there is among the Musalmans of India. (page 19)

What is, however, important to bear in mind is that with all their internecine conflicts they (the Muslim invaders) were all united by one common objective and that was to destroy the Hindu faith. (page 39)

The Muslim invaders, no doubt, came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus. But they did not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back burning a few temples on the way. That would have been a blessing. They were not content with so negative a result. They did a positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam. The growth of this plant is remarkable. It is not a summer sapling. It is as great and as strong as an oak. Its growth is the thickest in Northern India. The successive invasions have deposited their 'silt' more there than any where else, and have served as watering exercises of devoted gardeners. Its growth is so thick in Northern India that the remnants of Hindu and Buddhist culture are just shrubs. Even the Sikh axe could not fell this oak. Sikhs, no doubt, became the political masters of Northern India, but they did not gain back Northern India to that spiritual and cultural unity by which it was bound to the rest of India before Hsuan Tsang. (pages 47-48)

Muslim politics takes no note of purely secular categories of life, namely, the differences between rich and poor. Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognises only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. (pages 222-23)

How the Muslim mind will work and by what factors it is likely to be swayed will be clear if the fundamental tenets of Islam which dominate Muslim politics and the views expressed by prominent Muslims bearing on Muslim attitude towards an Indian government are taken into consideration....

Among the tenets one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail over the latter and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land. (page 285)

According to Muslim Canon Law the world is divided into two camps - Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans - but it cannot be the land of the 'Hindus and Musalmans living as equals'....

It must not be supposed that this view is only of academic interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable of influencing the conduct of the Muslims. It did greatly influence the conduct of the Muslims when the British occupied India. (page 287)

It may also be mentioned that Hijrat (emigration) is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Canon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes "incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rule of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway....And just as there are instances of the Muslims in India resorting to Hijrat, there are instances showing that they have not hesitated to proclaim Jihad....Not only can they proclaim Jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad a success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavour a success. (pages 288-89)

A third tenet which calls for notice as being relevant to the issue is that Islam does not recognise territorial affinities. Its affinities are social and religious and therefore extraterritorial....This is the basis of Pan-Islamism. It is this which leads every Musalman in India to say that he is a Muslim first and Indian afterwards. It is this sentiment which explains why the Indian Muslim has taken so small a part in the advancement of India but has spent himself to exhaustion by taking up the cause of Muslim countries and why Muslim countries occupy the first place and India occupies a second place in his thoughts. (pages 290-91)

Past experience shows that they are too irreconcilable and too incompatible to permit Hindus and Muslims ever forming one single nation or even two harmonious parts of one whole. These differences have the sure effect of not only of keeping them asunder but also of keeping them at war. The differences are permanent and the Hindu-Muslim problem bids fair to be eternal......(page298)

There are other defects in Hinduism and in Islam which are responsible for keeping the sore between Hindus and Muslims open and running. Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the Universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi partia is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin. That is probably the reason why Maulana Mahomed Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India. (page 325)

It might be said that it was unfortunate that mass contact was conceived and employed as a political lever and that it might have been used as a force for social unity with greater success. But could it have succeeded in breaking the social wall which divided the Hindus and the Muslims? It cannot but be matter of the deepest regret to every Indian that there is no social tie to draw them together. There is no inter-dining and no inter marriage between the two. Can they be introduced ? Their festivals are different. Their cultures are different, their literatures and their histories are different. They are not only different, but so distasteful to each other, that they are sure to cause aversion and nausea. Can any-one make them drink from the same fount of these perennial sources of life? No common meeting ground exists. None can be cultivated. There is not even sufficient physical contact, let alone their sharing a common cultural and emotional life. They do not live together. Hindus and Muslims live in separate worlds of their own. Hindus live in villages and Muslims in towns in those provinces where the Hindus are in a majority. Muslims live in villages and Hindus in town in those provinces where the Muslims are in a majority. Wherever they live, they live apart. Every town, every village has its Hindu quarters and Muslim quarters, which are quite separate from each other. There is no common continuous cycle of participation. They meet to trade or they meet to murder. They do not meet to befriend one another. When there is no call to trade or when there is no call to murder, they cease to meet. When there is peace, the Hindu quarters and the Muslim quarters appear like two alien settlements. The moment war is declared, the settlements become armed camps. The period of peace and the periods of war are brief. But the interval is one of continuous tension. What can mass contact do against such barriers? It cannot even get over on the other side of the barrier, much less can it produce organic unity. (pages 338-39)

The Musalmans are scattered all over Hindustan - though they are mostly congregated in towns - and no ingenuity in the matter of redrawing of boundaries can make it homogeneous. The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted that even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority vs. minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan. (page 104)
  Reply
#37
http://www.indpride.com/sardarpatel.html


Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel

"I want to ask the Indian Muslims only one question. In the recent All-India Muslim Conference why did you not open your mouth on Kashmir? Why did you not condemn the action of Pakistan?......It is your duty now to sail in the same boat and sink or swim together. I want to tell you very clearly that you cannot ride on two horses. You select one horse, whichever you like best."


(The following speech was delivered on January 6, 1948 in a public meeting held at Lucknow)

Our achievements of the last four months have to some extent restored the country's prestige which it had lost in the eyes of the world because of the unfortunate happenings following partition. I appeal to the younger generation to assist us in consolidating India and making her impregnable.

The maintenance of communal and industrial peace is essential if the newly-born independent democratic state of India is to lead the Asian countries on the road to progress and emancipation from foreign domination.

I am a true friend of the Muslims although I have been described as their greatest enemy. I believe in plain speaking. I do not know how to mince matters. I want to tell them frankly that mere declarations of loyalty to the Indian Union will not help them at this critical juncture. They must give practical proof of their declarations.

I ask them why they do not unequivocally denounce Pakistan for attacking Indian territory with the connivance of Frontier tribesmen. Is it not their duty to condemn all acts of aggression against India?

I invite the R.S.S. to join the Congress and not to weaken the administration by creating unrest in the country. I realize that they are not actuated by selfish motives but the situation warrants that they should strengthen the hands of the Government and assist in maintaining peace. By using violence they cannot render true service to the country.

The ever-changing, undevisive and non-committal attitude of Pakistan must be changed. Pakistan should change policy in her own interest. The Junagadh and Kashmir incidents have demonstrated her intention. If you want to divide the rest of India also, say it boldly, and let us decide the issue openly.

The Pakistan leaders have accused the Congress of sabotaging Pakistan. That is far from the truth. The establishment of Pakistan has been advocated as a heaven for Muslims. We should be glad if they make it a heaven for Muslims. They must realize that the enemies of Pakistan are inside it and not outside. If Pakistan collapses, she will collapse by her own mistake and sins.

Today I think of those days when in this city of Lucknow the foundation of the two-nation theory was laid. It said Muslim culture and tradition were not akin to those of the Hindus. Muslims were a separate nation. Muslims of this place played a very important role in advocating this theory.

A few Nationalist Muslims protested against it. They combined with the Hindus because both were perturbed at the advocacy of such a theory and raised their voice. But my Muslim League brothers made a strong plea for separation. They said that they were not satisfied with separate electorates and safeguard of minority rights. They wanted separatism and the establishment of a separate state.

Throughout the length and breadth of India the Muslim Leaguers spread the doctrine of separation. Muslim youth mostly came under their influence. They accepted it as the whole truth. Consequently, a wall was raised between them and those who were in the Congress.

In Calcutta, on August 15th, the "Direct Action Movement" was launched by them to give a direct blow to those who still did not believe in the two-nation theory. We then thought if there was to be a division of the country, let it be so. Let them manage their own affairs and we will manage our own. After all, we had to drive out a foreign power. We were then facing the problem of getting rid of an alien rule. So we accepted the division of the country and thought we would consider the partition question later.

I will be glad if the Muslim Leaguers can make Pakistan a 'heaven'. I will be happy if Pakistan becomes strong, happy and prosperous. But we did not think that even after separation we would not have breathing time. It is said today that plans for sabotaging Pakistan are being hatched in Hindustan. But I assure you all that the plan of destroying Pakistan is not being hatched in Hindustan. If it is being hatched, it is being done in Pakistan. It is the situation in Pakistan that will ruin Pakistan.

Sometimes they accuse the Hindus, the Sikhs and the Central Government of creating troubles. But, I tell you that if Pakistan falls, it will fall not on account of us but on account of its own enemies within.

The Muslim Leaguers call me their greatest enemy. Formerly they used to call Mahatma Gandhi as Enemy Number One. Now they think Gandhiji is their friend and have substituted me in his place, but I too speak the truth. They believed that if they got Pakistan, they would ensure full protection for the Muslims. But have they ever sympathised with them?

When freedom was won, there came the Punjab massacre which lowered our prestige. Then came the Junagadh issue followed by Kashmir Problem.

We raised the question with Pakistan. They replied : "We are not concerned". It was the Azad Government Dal in Kashmir and Kashmir Muslims who were responsible for aggression. But it is no secret that the Frontier tribesmen are receiving rations, war material, motor trucks and petrol.

As a last resort, the India Government referred the Kashmir issue to the U.N.O. Mr. Mohammed Zafrullah Khan asks why we went out to wash the dirty linen. Are they not satisfied with washing their dirt in the Punjab in the last four months? It is a deliberate falsehood.

I want to ask the Indian Muslims only one question. In the recent All-India Muslim Conference why did you not open your mouth on Kashmir? Why did you not condemn the action of Pakistan?

These things create doubt in the minds of the people. So I want to say a word as a friend of Muslims and it is the duty of a good friend to speak frankly. It is your duty now to sail in the same boat and sink or swim together. I want to tell you very clearly that you cannot ride on two horses. You select one horse, whichever you like best.

In the Constituent Assembly, one of the Lucknow Muslim Leaguers pleaded for separate electorates and reservation of seats. I had to open my mouth and say that he could not have it both ways. Now he is in Pakistan. Those who want to go to Pakistan can go there and live in peace. Let us live here in peace to work for ourselves.

The Muslim League Government in Pakistan declared that they would make suitable arrangements for the minorities living there. But ask the Sind Hindu refugees today. They say it is impossible to remain there. Pakistan is drifting towards lawlessness. There are about eight to ten lakhs of Hindus who want to come out of Pakistan. Some say eight to ten lakhs of Muslims should be driven out of Hindustan. But this is not a sound policy.

Let them leave Pakistan alone to pursue their policy. We are not at all disturbed. If they want to fight, we are thirty-four crores here. We have also men, materials and resources. Pakistan is a baby of yesterday. But it is not wise to mete out the same treatment to the Muslims as the Hindus are receiving there.

I understand there is an urge for military training among the youth. Military training is good and there is great need of it. You should now discard fighting with lathis, daggers and brickbats. I appeal to young men of India to unify India on all sides; do not forget that India was lost on account of foolishness. That foolishness should not be repeated in future. But unfortunately I find the same foolishness prevailing everywhere.

If the States problem had not been properly handled, there would have been a 'Rajasthan'. The screen of a Political Department between us and the States has been withdrawn. I contacted Rajas of various states as soon as Paramountcy was over. Most of them are real patriots. I explained to them the present political situation and apprised them of the situation in Pakistan. I also stressed the point that India was lost on account of internal feuds. They have agreed with me and I am happy that they have understood me.

There are many who criticize us and complain : this has not been done, that has not been done. I have all along told them, and still I say, let us have some time and then see what we have done and what we are doing.

To critics I want to say that since August 15, when we took charge, we have done an enormous amount of work. What about the partition work, the smashing of the steel frame of bureaucracy, the division of assets and liabilities and refugee problem? We called a meeting of the Constituent Assembly and settled with the States. I assure you that if so much burden had fallen all of a sudden on any Government's shoulders, it would have crashed. But we have discharged our onerous duties, have raised our prestige in the world.

Now two things are needed for the reconstruction of India - a strong Central Government and a formidable army. By army I mean all the branches - naval, air and land forces.

If the relation between Pakistan and Hindustan continues as at present, the consequences cannot be foreseen. I am not hiding anything but I am telling bare facts. I would not like anybody to throw dust into your eyes.

I appeal to the Hindu Mahasabhaites to join the Congress. No good will be served by remaining aloof. If you think that you are the only custodians of Hinduism, you are mistaken. Hinduism preaches a broader outlook on life. There is much more of tolerance in Hinduism than is interpreted.

I appeal to the R.S.S. to use their wisdom and work judiciously. I ask them not to be rash and tactless. Do not be aggressive.

Those who are disloyal will have to go to Pakistan. Those who are still riding on two horses will have to quit Hindustan.

In the Congress those who are in power feel that by virtue of authority they will be able to crush the R.S.S. By "danda" you cannot suppress an organization. Moreover "danda" is meant for thieves and "dakus". Using of "danda" will not help much. After all, R.S.S. men are not thieves and dacoits. They are patriots. They love their country. Only their trend of thought is diverted. They are to be won over by Congressmen with love.

I appeal to labour leaders not to foment strikes and create disturbances. There is no alien power. It is easy to approach us now. Why should labour leaders not come straight to us and tell about grievances of labour? The Trade Union Congress is working under the influence of Communists. The days of strike and hartal are gone. They were needed when we were fighting against a foreign power. Those tactics must cease now.

Give us time at least. Let us have three or four years' truce and see what we do.

For a strong army, industries for the production of necessary material are needed. And if there is labour unrest, a strong and formidable army cannot be built up.

At the last Industrial Conference the labour leaders agreed with but still there was a one-day strike in Bombay.

If we all proceed on these lines, India will meet a disastrous end. Unless you produce more, how will you share the profits? India is not an industrial country. She is to be industrialized first. This sort of foolishness will only put obstacles in the way of the country.
  Reply
#38
http://www.indpride.com/Somnath.html

Somnath - The Symbol of National Pride

"By rising from its ashes again, this temple of Somnath will proclaim to the world that no man and no power in the world can destroy that for which people have boundless faith and love in their hearts... Today, our attempt is not to rectify history. Our only aim is to proclaim anew our attachment to the faith, convictions and to the values on which our religion has rested since immemorial ages."
- Dr. Rajendra Prasad

The shrine of Somnath has risen like the phoenix from its ruins a number of times. The present shrine is the seventh temple built on the original site.

A reference of the presiding deity of the temple, Lord Someshwar is available in the Rig Veda. It was also a sacred place in the days of the Mahabharat. It was called Bhairavashwar in Satya Yug, Shravanikeshwar in Treta Yug and Shrigaleshwar in Dwapur Yug. The Prabhas Khanda in Skand Purana giving description of the Linga of Somnath says that it is a Swayambhu Linga of great prowess, as bright as the disc of Sun, surrounded by a serpent, of the size of the egg of a hen, called Sparalinga and situated underground.

The first temple of Somnath can be said to have existed about the beginning of the Christian era. The second temple replaced the first one on the very site somewhere around 649 A.D.

In 725 A.D. Junayad, the Governor of Sind sent Arab armies and both Vallabhi, the capital of Saurashtra and Prabhas were destroyed in this onslaught. The second temple was probably destroyed during this attack. Nagabhatta II, of the later Pratihara line of Kanauj, constructed the third temple, a large structure of red sandstone sometime in 815 A.D.

Zeal for Islam was the dominant role of the tenth-century Turks, as of most new converts. The great missionary creed of Mohammed, which to the Arabs and Persians had become a familiar matter of routine, was a source of fiery inspiration to the untutored men of the steppes. To spread the faith by conquest doubled their natural zest for battle and endowed them with the devoted valour of martyrs.

Lane Poole, author of Medieval India, has said that Mahommad of Ghazni, “who had vowed that every year should see him wage a holy war against the infidels of Hindustan” could not rest from his idol-breaking campaign so long as the temple of Somnath remained inviolate. It was for this specific purpose that he, at the very close of his career, undertook his arduous march across the desert from Multan to Anhilwada on the coast, fighting as he went, until he saw at last the famous temple.

Mahmud Ghazni attacked this temple in 1026 A.D. and after a week-long resistance, captured it. When the soldiers scaled the walls with ladders all they found inside were defenseless worshippers. Fifty thousand devotees praying to the linga and weeping passionately with hands clasped were massacred in cold blood. The Shiva Linga, adorned with gems and precious stones was broken and the temple burnt. After the battle, Mahmud and his troops are described as having carried away across the desert the equivalent of 6.5 tons of gold. The fragments of the idol were carried off to grace the conquerors’ palace and the temple gates were set up at Ghazni.

Mahmud was hailed throughout the Islamic world as a second Mohammed and his smashing of Somnath was lauded in the Sufi poetry of Attar, Sanai and Omar Khayyam. These poets equated Somnath with the temples to the pagan goddess Al-Manat destroyed by Mohammed and viewed its destruction as the 'will of Allah' and the 'enlightened march of Islam.' The sack of Somnath made Mahmud of Ghazni a champion of the faith in the eyes of every Muslim.

Minhaj-as-Siraj tells us how Mahmud became widely known for having destroyed as many as thousand temples, and of his great feat in destroying the temple of Somnath and carrying off its idol, which he asserts was broken into four parts. One part he deposited in the Jami Masjid of Ghazni, one he placed at the entrance of the royal palace, the third he sent to Mecca, and the fourth to Medina.

The fourth temple was built by King Bhoja Parmar of Malwa and Bhima Chalukya of Anhilwada Patan during 1024-1042 A.D.

In 1169 A.D. the fifth temple, along with its integrated complex rose again during the reign of Kumarapala, the Chalukya King of Anhilwada Patan, Pasupat Acharya Bhava Brahaspati being the head of the shrine. Chalukya King Bhimadeva II added Megalanad Mandap in 1216 A.D. In 1287 A.D. further additions were made to the temple by Pasupat Acharya Tripurantaka under Sarang Deva Vaghela, King of Gujarat.

Then came the invasion of Allauddin Khilji's general Alaf Khan, who captured and once again destroyed the temple and idol in 1296 A.D. According to Taj-ul-Ma'sir of Hasan Nizami, Raja Karan of Gujarat was defeated and forced to flee, "fifty thousand infidels were dispatched to hell by the sword" and "more than twenty thousand slaves, and cattle beyond all calculation fell into the hands of the victors".

This fifth destroyed temple was repaired by Mahipala Deva, the Chudasama king of Saurashtra in 1308 A.D. and the Linga was installed by his son Khengar sometime between 1326 and 1351 A.D.

In 1375 A.D., the temple was once again destroyed by Muzaffar Shah I, the Sultan of Gujarat. About 1400 A.D. it was reconstructed by the local public.

In the year 1451 A.D. Mahmud Begda became the Sultan of Gujarat. In few years he became very powerful and after continuously attacking the Hindu rulers of Junagadh for five years, he finally defeated them in 1469 A.D. and the temple once again faced destruction. The idol was removed from the temple and the temple was desecrated. The temples in the entire state were demolished and Hindus were forcefully converted to Islam.

In 1560 A.D., possibly after Akbar's conquest of Somnath, extensive repairs and renovation of the temple was carried out. During Akbar's reign the temple remained unmolested.

Thus, the Hindus rebuilt the temple several times, but the Muslims destroyed it again. The temple was last destroyed by the Mughal tyrant, Aurangzeb. In 1701 A.D. he ordered Prince Mohammed Azam, the Viceroy of Gujarat, to destroy the temple of Somnath. Aurangzeb, as history records, was a brutal ruler who left a trail of genocide and destruction, mainly aimed at converting Hindus. Aurangzeb built a mosque on the site of the Somnath temple, using some columns from the temple, whose Hindu sculptural motifs remained visible.

Queen Ahilyabai Holkar of Indore built the temple again in 1783 at a site adjacent to the ruined temple.

Somnath, thus, withstood the shocks of time and the attacks of the destroyers. Aged, infirm, desecrated it stood up once again when Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Deputy Prime Minister of India, rescued it from neglect and pledged on November 13, 1947 for its reconstruction. Mahatma Gandhi also approved of the retaking of Somnath but did not live to see it happen. Bhoomi-Khana for the Garbha-Grih was performed by Shri U.N. Dhebar on April 8, 1950 and Maharaja Jamsaheb Digwijay Singhji laid the foundation stone on May 8, 1950. The Linga Pratishtha ceremony was performed by the first President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad on May 11, 1951. On December 1, 1995 the President of India, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, performed the Kalash Pratishtha of the temple's Nritya Mandap and dedicated the temple to the nation.

If Hindus honor Somnath, they should not look down upon attempts to restore Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi, but, on the contrary, help accomplish this aim. If Somnath is a matter of national pride, then certainly Ayodhya and the others deserve to be as well. If a legal process could be created to reclaim Somnath, a similar process can be created to reclaim these other three sites. If Somnath can be dedicated to the nation, so can the other sites
  Reply
#39
This is a passage from a book I am editing from passages, conversations with and notes provided by another india forumite. This particular passage deals with the idea of a 'force of history' and is part of chapter 2 on Western Studies of the Indic civilization'. Tell me what you think of the thesis and the readability of the passage and whether the message is coming thorugh. All comments welcome.
<b>
Force of History</b>

This doctrine says that a certain evolution of history is always going on and in a particular direction and there is a historical order of things. In the case of India and the sub-continent it means that the process of Islamization going on from 1000 years will continue to its logical end. Hindus do not pay much attention to the historical order of things," wrote Al Biruni in 1030 CE. "They are very careless in relating the chronological succession of things." The millennium-old censure of the Hindus' lack of historic sense by a medieval Muslim historian appears to still apply, particularly to the Indian historians of the present day.

Such a cavalier approach to History has been exploited by the Islamists, British and modern day communists in India for the last 200 years and continued by the western academics. The Islamist believes in this doctrine of history since it is part of the Islamic history as represented by Islam and is read by all the students who train under the ulema and madrassas. Islamic history has been preserved for a long time with accuracy and also has been presented with a sense of the inevitability of the force of history. This makes the faithful believe that the faith will take them to the destination, which they strive for. This is the reason why the Pakistan army and the Islamic parties are confident in the long run of changing the history of South Asia to their advantage. By showing Islam as a winning religion in the sub-continent the non-Muslim tradition could be totally wiped out of the sub-continent or made a minority. According to this doctrine of force of history, creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh is part of the evolution from the Middle Ages (a third phase of expansion of Islam) and the entire sub-continent will also one day will be a Islamic country. During the cold war the US and Pakistan forced this history as the final destiny of south Asia. The hatred of Hindus particularly the Brahmanas by the Ashrafs and sections of the Anglo Saxon world (the British credited the independence of India in 1947 to the Brahmana community) created a powerful pact between them along with Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which resulted in a cold war plan to change the history of South Asia forever to their advantage.

The protection of Pakistan by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), US and China for so many decades, a strategy that is otherwise inexplicable to the average Indian Ashok, begins to make sense when viewed in the light of the force of history. Such a policy can then be rationalized as being consonant with the geo-political goals of the hyper power. The reason is that by supporting and protecting the center of Islam inside the sub-continent the force of history will work its own way to force change with the population. This process of evolution is still going on for the last 35 years even after 1971 and the collapse of FSU. The US with its vast resources and control of the world media is providing the powerful push to this force of history to become a reality. The latest development in US Pakistan relations as we write this chapter in the spring of 2004, namely the designation of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally by the Secretary of State Colin Powell is consonant with the scenario that we have hypothesized. It is clear that the aim of the US continues to remain the creation of a Islamic political center in the subcontinent. What is particularly galling from the Indian point of view is that the US seems to think that India will be happy with purely symbolic acts of friendship designed merely to salve the ego, while the US is busily aiding and abetting those who would dismantle India.

The US with the help of proxies inside India is also engaging in social re-engineering and religious conversion to break the Indian society (kinship and old traditions) and accept an Islamic government. The US policy to treat the entire South Asia as one consisting of Muslims and non-Muslims is to make sure that non-Muslims do not gain dominance, both from a cultural standpoint as well as in a leadership sense over the Muslims. In due time over the course of history the expectation is that all the people will be of the same religious ethnicity.

The communists have been a willing and enthusiastic partner in this process, since they believe in this doctrine and since they consider revolution as the modern version of the process of the evolution of history. Revolution in the communist world is similar to Jihad in the Islamic world and employs the same vocabulary and much the same metaphor. Hence Indian leftists and communists have a similar weltanschauung as do the Islamists when it comes to the future destiny of India and are collaborating with various external organizations to bring about such a change.

Why do such disparate groups as the foreign policy establishment (by no means monolithic) of the US and the leftists of India desire the demise of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious Indian Republic with such fervor and single minded purpose? The answer to this question is multifaceted and one can only speculate, listing the obvious reasons. We have already alluded to some of these reasons. There is the commonality of the Abrahamic faith. Much of the weltanschauung of the western world is one that they share with the Islamic Ummah namely the concept of a monotheistic ideology, the aggressive proselytization of their belief systems, and the facile resort to violence, crusades and Jihad for purely religious reasons. In contrast, the Sanatana Dharma is regarded as a Pagan and moribund faith bedeviled by exotic forms of idolatry and steeped in superstition or worse. Politics makes for strange bedfellows and in this instance the Indian left, under the tutelage of China, has made common cause with influential sections of the media, church, and the State Department in the US in undermining and preventing the maturation of democratic institutions in the Indian Republic. It is difficult at this point in time to gage the depth of the relationship.

There is one other point to be made. The relationship between the Hindu and Muslim during the insurrection of 1857 was by and large amicable. Immediately after the quelling of the rebellion in 1857 and the initial orgy of recrimination and revenge against the Muslims of Delhi and other urban centers, the British realized that a unified India, with a harmonious relationship between Hindus and Muslims would make their job of holding on to their ill gotten gains and conquest, that much more difficult. There was also the tacit assumption that the educated Hindu was far from being as malleable and pliable as the inhabitants of some of their other possessions, or even the reputedly aggressive Muslim. Ergo, if there were no differences to be found, they would have to be manufactured. It was imperative that the cultural unity of the subcontinent be ridiculed and the differences accentuated. The plan to institutionalize a ‘divide and rule’ strategy was therefore executed with efficiency and a single-minded focus. The completion of the 1881 census with the extensive enumeration of the Schedule of Castes and Tribes, was the first step among many to diminish and trash the cultural unity of the subcontinent, and to replace her Puranic Itihasa (History) with one that was more consonant with the notion that there was no indigenous civilization in the Indian subcontinent. Max Mueller was hired by Macaulay with the express intent of devaluing the Vedic tradition and to invent a chronology for the Vedas in order to dethrone them from their premier position as the source of Indic traditions.

The second major decision the British made during the later half of the nineteenth century, was to systematically appease the Indian Muslim to discourage him from being absorbed into the Indian cultural ethos. This was the beginning of the conscious policy of preferentially recruiting Indian Muslims, especially from the Punjab, for the Indian Army. Simultaneously, the British manufactured the myth of the martial races, in order to emphasize that the vast majority of the people in the subcontinent did not fall into this category.

The perception of the leftists and communists about non-Muslims in the subcontinent is the same as that of their earlier colonial masters. The force of history is believed to change the non-Muslims and reconcile them to their final destiny.
  Reply
#40
Kaushal,
Excellent passage.
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)