Quote:December 30, 1939



(A disciple There are some people who object to “Vande Mataram” as a national song. And some Congressmen support the removal of some parts of the song.



In that case the Hindus should give up their culture.



The argument is that the song speaks of Hindu gods, like Durga, and that is offensive to the Muslims.



But it is not a religious song: it is a national song and the Durga spoken of is India as the Mother. Why should not the Muslims accept it?[2] It is an image used in poetry. In the Indian conception of nationality, the Hindu view would naturally be there. If it cannot find a place there, the Hindus may as well be asked to give up their culture. The Hindus don't object to “Allah-ho-Akbar”....



Why should not the Hindu worship his god? Otherwise, the Hindus must either accept Mohammedanism or the European culture or become atheists....



I told C. R. Das [in 1923] that this Hindu-Muslim question must be solved before the Britishers go, otherwise there was a danger of civil war. He also agreed and wanted to solve it....



Instead of doing what was necessary the Congress is trying to flirt with Jinnah, and Jinnah simply thinks that he has to obstinately stick to his terms to get them. The more they try, the more Jinnah becomes intransigent.



May 28, 1940



Have you read what Gandhi has said in answer to a correspondent? He says that if eight crores of Muslims demand a separate State, what else are the twenty-five crores of Hindus to do but surrender? Otherwise there will be civil war.



(A disciple I hope that is not the type of conciliation he is thinking of.



Not thinking of it, you say? He has actually said that and almost yielded. If you yield to the opposite party beforehand, naturally they will stick strongly to their claims. It means that the minority will rule and the majority must submit. The minority is allowed its say, “We shall be the ruler and you our servants. Our harf [word] will be law; you will have to obey.” This shows a peculiar mind. I think this kind of people are a little cracked.



http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ir/IR_part5.htm

Quote:(Sri Aurobindo I am sorry they are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Otherwise, we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when in fact we have only shelved it.



http://voiceofdharma.com/books/ir/IR_part3.htm

Quote:On August 4, 1920, Mahatma Gandhi had written as follows in his Young India: “My advice to my Hindu brethren is: Simply help the Mussalmans in their sorrow in a generous and self-sacrificing spirit without counting the cost and you will automatically save the cow… Islam is a noble faith. Trust it and its followers. We must hold it a crime for any Hindu to talk to them about cow-protection or any other help in our religious matters, while the Khilafat struggle is going on.”1





But one day during his 21 days fast in September 1924, he confessed his error to Mahadev Desai in the following words: “My error? Why, I may be charged with having committed a breach of faith with the Hindus. I asked them to lay their lives and their property at the disposal of the Mussalmans for the protection of their Holy Places. Even to-day I am asking them to practise Ahimsa, to settle quarrels by dying but not by killing. And what do I find to be the result? How many temples have been desecrated? How many sisters came to me with complaints? As I was saying to Hakimji [Ajmal Khan] yesterday, Hindu women are in mortal fear of Mussalman goondas. I had a letter from… How can I bear the way in which his little children were molested? How can I now ask Hindus to put up with everything patiently? I gave the assurance that the friendship with Mussalmans was bound to bear fruit. I asked them to befriend them, regardless of results. It is not in my power to make good that assurance. And yet I must ask the Hindus even to-day to die rather than kill. I can only do so by laying down my own life. I can teach them the way to die by my own example.”2





This was the behaviour pattern of a gentleman who had put his trust in the pledges given by the foremost Muslim leaders in India while they were seeking his support for a Pan-Islamic cause. The gentleman had discovered that he had been duped. But still he was in no mood to call for a repudiation of his reading of Islam, or for revenge. Many people at that time had found fault with this behaviour pattern, as many other people continue to do today. But no one has ever questioned the sincerity of the Mahatma’s motives. And it has been conceded by everyone that he was not out to deceive the Muslims, that he had no ulterior designs, and that he never harboured any intention of using the other party as a pawn for his own purposes.





On the other hand, we have the behaviour pattern exhibited by Abdul Bari, the leading Mullah from Firangi Mahal in Lucknow, and the topmost spokesmen for the Muslims during the Khilafat agitation. In September 1920, he had advised the Muslims as follows: “The Muslim honour would be at stake if they forget the co-operation of the Hindus. I for my part will say that we should stop killing cows, irrespective of their cooperation, because we are children of the same soil. As a maulvi I say that in voluntarily stopping cow-killing we shall not offend against the canons of our religion. Nothing has so helped the Hindu-Muslim unity as the Hindus’ co-operation with us on the Khilafat question.”3





The same Abdul Bari spoke in a different tone in September 1923. Professor Francis Robinson reports: “Abdul Bari, the erstwhile apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity, came to the fore again. Now he spoke the language of the zealot. He urged the Muslims to sacrifice cows without regard to Hindu feelings, and declared: ‘If the commandments of the Shariat are to be trampled under foot then it will be the same to us whether the decision is arrived on the plains of Delhi or on the hilltops of Simla. We are determined to non-cooperate with every enemy of Islam, be he in Anatolia or Arabia or at Agra or Benares.”4





The immediate provocation for Abdul Bari’s outburst was the Shuddhi Movement started by Swami Shraddhananda in the summer of 1923. Swamiji in turn had been led to pursue this path in response to a book, Fãtimî Dãwat-i-Islãm, by Hasan Nizami, another Muslim Mullah hailing from the dargah of Nizam-ud-Din Awliya, the famous Sufi of Delhi. Swamiji had written a pamphlet, The Hour of Danger, in which he had warned Hindu society to be on its guard against mischievous Muslim machinations. According to his biographer, J.T.F. Jordens, “In his pamphlet the Swami went on to show how Nizami in his own introduction referred to his consultations with many Muslim leaders, including the Agha Khan, and how all had agreed that the publication of his work should remain a carefully kept secret, within the Muslim community. The single purpose of the pamphlet was to describe all the means, fair and foul, by which Hindus could be induced to become Muslims. It said that the attack should strongly concentrate on the untouchables because ‘if all untouchable castes become Muslims then the Muslim part (of the population) will become equal to that of the Hindus’. The Swami felt that he had uncovered a giant conspiracy. His pamphlet consisted practically entirely of quotations from Nizami’s work, showing how all Muslims should be involved in the fight for the spread of Islam: how pirs, fakirs, politicians, peasants, zamindars, hakims, etc. could be used and what their allotted task should be. It also stressed the need for secrecy and for an extensive spy network.’5





Abdul Bari clean forgot that Swami Shraddhananda had unconditionally supported the Khilafat agitation under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. It was Swamiji who had bared his breast in Chandni Chowk on March 30, 1919, and dared the British soldiers to try their bullets on him. It was Swamiji whom the Muslims of Delhi had invited to address them from the mimbar of the Jama Masjid on March 31, 1919. Abdul Bari should have denounced Hasan Nizami who had hatched a plot against the Hindus without any provocation whatsoever on the part of the latter. But the self-righteous Mullah and the authoritative interpreter of the Shariat, had done just the opposite. He had joined his voice with that of the other Mullahs in egging upon a Muslim fanatic to murder Swami Shraddhananda. The Mullahs of Deoband had offered special prayers for the soul of the assassin.





In fact, the Mullahs had been fretting and fuming ever since Mahatma Gandhi had withdrawn in February 1922 the Non-Cooperation Movement which he had led in support of the Khilafat agitation. They were in search of an excuse for reversing their fatwa against cow-killing and for co-operation with the Hindus. That fatwa had gone against the whole history of Islam in India in spite of the brave face which the Khilafat leaders had put on it.6 The Shuddhi Movement had provided that excuse and the Mullahs had plumped for it. They were swift to terminate what Ishtiq Husain Qureshi has called “A Brief Honeymoon”.7 Now they incited Muslim mobs to stage riots all over the country. Hindus were to be taught how to behave towards the ‘master race’.





This was the behaviour pattern of hoodlums who got extremely annoyed with the donkey which had carried them so far but which did not have the strength left to carry the load any farther. This was the behaviour pattern of gangsters who felt frustrated because the victims of their deep-laid designs had seen through their wiles and refused to be duped any longer. But, at the same time, these Mullahs were in the forefront of Muslim society. Leading politicians like the Ali Brothers had bowed before them in reverence. The behaviour pattern of the exponents and custodians of Islam, therefore, cannot but lead us to the inescapable conclusion that Islam itself has always been, and remains, a thinly veiled theorisation of gangsterism.





RABINDRANATH ON HINDU-MUSLIM UNITY





One aspect of this behaviour pattern had been noticed by the great poet, Rabindranath, who was reported as follows in an interview to The Times of India published on April 18, 1924: “Another very important fact which according to the poet was making it almost impossible for Hindu-Mohammedan unity to become an accomplished fact was that the Mohammedans could not confine their patriotism to any one country. The poet said that he had very frankly asked many Mohammedans whether, in the event of any Mohammedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. He could not be satisfied with the reply he got from them. He said that he could definitely state that even men like Mr. Mohammed Ali had declared that under no circumstances was it permissible for any Mohammedan, whatever his country might be, to stand against any other Mohammedan.”8





LALA LAJPAT RAI ON THE SAME THEME





At about the same time Lala Lajpat Rai came to the conclusion that this behaviour pattern had its primary source in the Quran and the Hadis. Lalaji wrote as follows in a confidential letter to Deshbandhu C.R. Das: “I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim Law and I am inclined to think that Hindu-Muslim unity is neither possible nor practicable... Assuming and admitting the sincerity of the Mohammedan leaders in the Non-Co-operation Movement, I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind. There is no finer Mohammedan than Hakim [Ajmal Khan] Sahab, but can any Muslim leader override the Koran? I can only hope that my reading of the Islamic Law is incorrect and nothing would relieve me more than to be convinced that it is so… I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity and desirability of Hindu-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Koran and the Hadis? The leaders cannot override them.”9





SARAT CHANDRA SUMS UP THE SUBJECT





Shri Sarat Chandra Chatterji, the noted Bengali novelist and a Congressman of long standing, had commented on the overt behaviour of Muslims ever since Islam arrived in India. Pained by the humiliations which Muslim hooligans had heaped on Hindus in the countryside of East Bengal, he had written as follows in October, 1926: “If we go by the lessons of history we have to accept that the goal of Hindu-Muslim unity is a mirage. When Muslims first entered India, they looted the country, destroyed the temples, broke the idols, raped the women and heaped innumberable indignities on the people of this country. Today it appears that such noxious behaviour has entered the bone-marrow of Muslims. Unity can be achieved among equals. In view of the big gap between the cultural level of Hindus and Muslims which can hardly be bridged, I am of the view that Hindu-Muslim unity which could not be achieved during the last thousand years will not materialise during the ensuing thousand years. If we are to drive away the English people depending upon this elusive capital of Hindu-Muslim unity, I would rather advise its postponement.”10





HINDU FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND ISLAM





In an article in Young India dated May 29, 1924, Mahatma Gandhi had himself noted that “my own experience confirms that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully”. Only he did not trace this Muslim behaviour pattern to the tenets of Islam which continued to be a “noble faith” for him till he himself was consumed by the flames ignited by this faith. But the Mahatma was neither the first nor the last Hindu to commit this mistake about Islam. Hindu society has been a wilful victim of this folly ever since Islam arrived India on the shoulders of Arab armies in the second half of the 7th century AD.





This imperialist ideology of terrorism has been in India for the last thirteen centuries and more. But with the exception of Swami Dayananda and the Arya Samaj, no Hindu thinker or organization has made a serious or systematic study of its mind or methods. The Hindu response to Islam has invariably been a series of slogans - Ram and Rahim are one and the same, Allah and Ishwar describe the same Supreme Power, Kashi and Ka‘abah are equally holy, the mosque is a variation of the mandir even when the former has been built on the site and with the debris of the latter, namãz is another name for upãsanã (worship), in short, Islam is as good as Sanãtana Dharma.





What is worse, Hindu society has fallen into an inveterate habit of white-washing and wishing away the dark deeds of Islam by dressing them up in Hindu verbiage. Hindus never allow the spokesmen of Islam to speak for themselves. Instead, they interpret Islam in terms of the Indian spiritual traditions, and try their utmost to force this diabolical creed into divine moulds. And they flaunt this habit as a sine qua non of their liberalism and large-heartedness, their capacity to digest and transform into nector even the most potent poison.





Hindu society has never paused to find out how Islamic theologians respond to its cherished slogans and sentiments. It has always been in a hurry to sell some patent prescriptions like sarva-dharma-samabhãva so that the slogans may be put into practice unilaterally. That is why all Hindu slogans have so far fallen on deaf ears, or have invited contempt from the Muslims who know their Dîn A to Z. That is why all Hindu prescriptions have proved to be costly mistakes. That is why a great Hindu like Mahatma Gandhi who succeeded against all other odds, ended as a total and tragic failure when it came to the followers of Islam.





We blamed the British for Hindu-Muslim conflict so long as the British controlled this country. Then we lulled ourselves into the fond belief that the ‘communal problem’ had been finally solved by the Partition in 1947, and that we could settle down to solving the problems of poverty and social injustice. But the belief has been shattered by the increasing frequency of riots staged by Muslim hooligans. And the British are no more there to take the blame except for those morons who will continue to explain in terms of British machinations everything that goes wrong in India till the end of time.





IT IS ISLAM THAT SEPARATES THE MUSLIMS FROM THE HINDUS





The Muslims in India are, by and large, the same people as the Hindus, except for a microscopic minority which takes pride in its descent from foreign forefathers. The Muslims in India share a lot with the Hindus in such externalia as race, language, dress, mores and manners. What is it, then, which divides the Muslims from the Hindus and sets them as a people apart? A correct answer to this question will go a long way in putting the problem in its proper perspective.





The answer is obvious as well as inescapable, unless we fall victim to the Marxist metaphysics according to which the Hindus are the haves and the Muslims the have-nots, and the conflict between the two is a disguised form of class conflict. There should be no doubt that it is Islam which divides the Muslims from the Hindus. Hindus would have to understand Islam if they want to understand Muslim Separatism, and thus rise to the challenge with an adequate response.



http://voiceofdharma.com/books/muslimsep/ch11.htm

Quote:Lala Hardayal said:—



"I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu nation does not accomplish these four things, the safely of our children and great-grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of the Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogeneous. But the Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam. . . .Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise it is useless to win Swaraj. For mountain tribes are always warlike and hungry. If they become our enemies, the age of Nadirshah and Zamanshah will begin anew. At present English officers are protecting the frontiers; but it cannot always be. . . .If Hindus want to protect themselves, they must conquer Afghanistan and the frontiers and convert all the mountain tribes."



http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/307a.html

Quote:AGENDA | Sunday, October 17, 2010 | Email | Print | | Back





He foresaw tragedy, but could do nothing

October 19, 2010 1:23:20 AM





India Divided

Author: Rajendra PrasadPublisher: Penguin

Price: 499



Rajendra Prasad understood the complexities of Partition, but had simplistic solutions, writes Saradindu Mukherji



A gentle colossus and a front-ranking freedom fighter, Rajendra Prasad was our first President. Like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, he often challenged Jawaharlal Nehru on matters of politics.



India Divided was written mostly in jail. Prasad admits that as some parts of this book were written in jail, those “naturally bear the inevitable marks of work done under some limitations”, and he had no time to revise them. That explains his reliance on books written by the likes of Tarachand, a favourite of the Nehruvian establishment, and Ishwari Prasad, and the exclusion of titans like Sir Jadunanth Sarkar and RC Majumdar. The viewpoints of the Hindu nationalists are missing.



Hence, the first chapter, ‘Two Nations: Basis of Pakistan’, begins with Mohammed Ali Jinnah. The origins of Muslim separatism and the core of the two-nation theory, however, lie in the ancient Islamic doctrines of momin, kafir, Dar-ul-harb, Dar-ul-Islam and jihad. Jinnah was merely pursuing that tradition. He succeeded, being a better negotiator than our leaders, and deftly cashed in on the reservoir of hatred against the polytheists. The British helped the Muslim separatists in every possible way by empowering them, and widening the chasm, but did not create the original split as our sarkari historians want us to believe.



The alleged transformation of a ‘nationalist’ Sir Syed Ahmed Khan into a communalist by Theodore Beck, as Prasad suggests, is unconvincing. Long before Sir Syed came under the influence of the English principal of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, which would later evolve into the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), he used to regard Patna as “Azimabad”. Syed vehemently denied that the 1857 uprising was a jihad against Christians, even while saying that “jihad was undoubtedly an “article of faith with Muslims”. Against whom, one could ask? Obviously, against the native infidels! The imputation of a double dose of “original sin” to Beck in the post-1947 historiography is mischievous.



Prasad understands the dynamics of Partition. “The Muslim public law recognises a distinction between Muslims and Zimmis (dhimmis),” he says, citing AMU’s AS Tritton, who rightly shows that dhimmis face humiliation, blatant discrimination, denial and destruction. Ironically, most of our politicians and intelligentsia, many of them refugees, are still ignorant of such basics!



Prasad repeatedly cites Muslim protagonists, saying there cannot be a nation sans religion. Conscious of the civilisational issues involved, Prasad avoids Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s statements opposing Partition. Was it because this “nationalist” Muslim was more in the Deobandi mould, who did not care about the disaster awaiting Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc, in the “Holy land”? Prasad errs in saying that Azad’s writings in Al-Hilal propagated the ideals of nationalism.



While Nehru was a consistent negationist, Prasad’s candour comes out occasionally. He, however, withholds the details of the pogrom and the forced conversion of Hindus by the Moplahs during Mahatma Gandhi’s first mass movement — the Khilafat-Non-Cooperation — and the gory details of the Great Calcutta Killing (August 16, 1946), methodically engineered by Jinnah and his company. He also refrains from saying that the policy of Muslim appeasement pursued by the Congress emboldened the Muslim League in its campaign. Prasad, after all, was a Congressman.



Yet, Prasad warns of the fatwa-wielding mentality so common among the jihadis. “We should give up issuing ultimatums, we should cease laying down conditions precedent to any discussion — that is the only civilised mode,” he writes. How uncannily similar to the “stone-throwing mobs” in the Valley, or the ultimatum communicated after every act of jihadi terror!



Prasad uses data, maps and charts to reject the idea of Partition, but says it was inevitable. He concludes, “Any scheme of Partition, however, must fulfill two fundamental conditions. It must be fair and just to all communities.” Hence, he made a demand that Punjab and Bengal should be divided. Today, both Pakistan (with two per cent Hindu/ Sikh population, which came down from 23 per cent in 1947) and Bangladesh (with 10 per cent Hindus/ Buddhists from 30 per cent in 1947), are consolidated Muslim states, with the kafirs heading towards extinction. So, when we look at the fate of minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Congress has clearly betrayed them in their battle for survival.



Worse, Hindus have been thrown out of Kashmir Valley on the same principle that they have no right to life and honour in a Muslim-dominated State. Perhaps a similar fate awaits Hindus in Assam, West Bengal, Kerala and elsewhere.



Prasad foresees that Partition “is a solution of despair”, but it won’t solve the problem. “We should be prepared for the aftermath and not hug the delusion that thereafter all will be plain sailing,” he says. He, however, could do nothing to save Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists from the unmitigated disaster. All he did was to suggest that the problem could be sorted out by “truth as our light” and “non-violence as our support”. How simple and absurd!

-- The reviewer is professor of history, University of Delhi