11-25-2006, 03:06 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->M.N. ROY The Pro-Muslim Communist
Sep 2006Â
M.N. Roy was a dedicated communist until he broke with the Communist International. He was an elected member of the Presidium and the Secretariat of the International between 1919 and 1928. He had the courage to disagree with Lenin even at the height of his power.
After 1928 however, Roy became known as a radical humanist as distinct from a committed communist. Nevertheless, he remained parted from nationalism, according to his biographer Sibnarayan Ray.
In India, a nationalist was, more often than not, presumed to be a Hindu. The reason was that a devout Muslim was a supranationalist as repeatedly claimed by the renowned Khilafat leader, Maulana Muhammad Ali. He therefore did not recognise the validity of national boundaries. The communist was an internationalist.
Roy stank of prejudice when he wrote about patriotism (quoted from Volume II, selected Works of M.N. Roy, Oxford University Press, New Delhi 2002):
It is indeed very encouraging to hear that even a partial knowledge of the work begun by us, that is the Communist Party, has made you think that perhaps after all, it is not necessary for every honest revolutionary to put an end to his life I prefer the word 'revolutionary' to that of 'patriot'.
Roy hated Hinduism, a religion into which he was born. His original name was Nabendra Nath Bhattacharya, with a typically Bengali Brahmin surname. Read from volume IV of his Selected Works edited by Sibnarayan Ray and published by Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000.
Hindu superciliousness towards the religion and culture of the Muslims is absurd. It insults history and injures the political future of our country. Learning from the Muslims, Europe became the leader of modern civilization. Even today, her best sons are not ashamed of the past indebtedness. Unfortunately, India could not fully benefit by the heritage of Islamic culture because she did not deserve the distinction.
It was understandable that an atheist, which is what a communist usually is, would have contempt for religion. Unfortunately, Roy was not evenhanded in his contempt. He had a soft corner for Islam and respected the religion and its culture. In 1930, he had named himself Mahamood as stated by Sibnarayan Ray.
Roy also wrote the following in the same volume:
The Mohammedan power was consolidated in India not so much by the valour of the invaders' arms as owing to the propagation of the Islamic faith and the progressive significance of Islamic laws.
If Islamic laws were so progressive, one wonders why the Muslims of India have willingly allowed the sharia to be replaced by the laws introduced by the British e.g. the Indian Penal Code, Law of Contract etc. Only laws of succession and marriage have been preserved as a separate code applicable to the Muslim community.
http://www.janasangh.com/jsart.aspx?stid=148<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shows the dhimmi mindset of Indian commies.
Sep 2006Â
M.N. Roy was a dedicated communist until he broke with the Communist International. He was an elected member of the Presidium and the Secretariat of the International between 1919 and 1928. He had the courage to disagree with Lenin even at the height of his power.
After 1928 however, Roy became known as a radical humanist as distinct from a committed communist. Nevertheless, he remained parted from nationalism, according to his biographer Sibnarayan Ray.
In India, a nationalist was, more often than not, presumed to be a Hindu. The reason was that a devout Muslim was a supranationalist as repeatedly claimed by the renowned Khilafat leader, Maulana Muhammad Ali. He therefore did not recognise the validity of national boundaries. The communist was an internationalist.
Roy stank of prejudice when he wrote about patriotism (quoted from Volume II, selected Works of M.N. Roy, Oxford University Press, New Delhi 2002):
It is indeed very encouraging to hear that even a partial knowledge of the work begun by us, that is the Communist Party, has made you think that perhaps after all, it is not necessary for every honest revolutionary to put an end to his life I prefer the word 'revolutionary' to that of 'patriot'.
Roy hated Hinduism, a religion into which he was born. His original name was Nabendra Nath Bhattacharya, with a typically Bengali Brahmin surname. Read from volume IV of his Selected Works edited by Sibnarayan Ray and published by Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000.
Hindu superciliousness towards the religion and culture of the Muslims is absurd. It insults history and injures the political future of our country. Learning from the Muslims, Europe became the leader of modern civilization. Even today, her best sons are not ashamed of the past indebtedness. Unfortunately, India could not fully benefit by the heritage of Islamic culture because she did not deserve the distinction.
It was understandable that an atheist, which is what a communist usually is, would have contempt for religion. Unfortunately, Roy was not evenhanded in his contempt. He had a soft corner for Islam and respected the religion and its culture. In 1930, he had named himself Mahamood as stated by Sibnarayan Ray.
Roy also wrote the following in the same volume:
The Mohammedan power was consolidated in India not so much by the valour of the invaders' arms as owing to the propagation of the Islamic faith and the progressive significance of Islamic laws.
If Islamic laws were so progressive, one wonders why the Muslims of India have willingly allowed the sharia to be replaced by the laws introduced by the British e.g. the Indian Penal Code, Law of Contract etc. Only laws of succession and marriage have been preserved as a separate code applicable to the Muslim community.
http://www.janasangh.com/jsart.aspx?stid=148<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shows the dhimmi mindset of Indian commies.