|
Birds of a Feather Flock Together
by Anwar Shaikh
|
I have received from
India, a copy of the book: "The Rediscovery of India - A New
Subcontinent," which has been reviewed by various magazines.
The book is actually a single volume history of India,
yet it is different from other history-books, which aim at describing facts
through a neutral narrative. The volume under discussion, however, is a
historical review of India, which seeks to demonstrate how past events have
caused divisions among the natives, especially, the Hindus and Muslims, leading
to the partition of the land in 1947, and claims, had the British rulers
desired, this catastrophes could have been averted. To conclude, the author
suggests that the old parts of India, namely, Bharat, Pakistan and Bangladesh
can still be brought together through a confederation, which is bound to be
beneficent to all the participants.
The author, Ansar Hussain Khan was born in 1928 in
Calcutta but his family roots go back to Jhelum (now in Pakistan). Thus, in a
way, he is a neighbor of the reviewer, who was born in the same year, some
thirty miles away. However, the author's birthplace bestows a distinction upon
him.
By 1671 as the conversion mania of Aurangzeb, the
Mughal Emperor of India, reached its climax, he ordered Nawab Iftikhar Khan, the
Governor of Kashmir, to convert the Kashmiry Pundits, the acknowledged leaders
of Hinduism. The Pundits formed a fifteen-man deputation under the leadership of
Kirpa Ram Das for stating their case to the immortal Sikh Guru, Tegh Bahadur.
The two great pundits, namely, Sati Das and Dayal Das, who embraced martyrdom
heroically along with the Guru to save Dharma, came from Jhelum, the original
homeland of Mr. Ansar Hussain Khan, the author .
The pro-Hindu stance of the book seems to have some
instinctive virtue, directly related to the ancestral values of the author,
whose roots go back to the Janjua Raiputs. With this goes his genuineness of
expression and honesty of purpose, coupled with scholarship and immense hard
work which has gone into the preparation of this work. No doubt, the author's
views are above suspicion and admit no political skullduggery, yet they are
debatable, and one feels obliged to analyze them owing to their challenge,
boldness and the apparent desirability.
Before undertaking the deeper discussion, I must add
that Ansar's opinion of the British rule in India emanates from the prejudice,
which is usually held by the ruled against their rulers. If slaves knew the
dignity of liberty, they would not accept slavery at any cost. This lack of
appreciation leads to the inferiority complex, which the vassals use as a shield
to hide their shame and inadequacy. Thus, they blame their masters to look
innocent themselves.
Like Ansar, I hate tine political degradation that I
suffered during the British Raj. Yet I can honestly say that the British were
the best masters that India ever had; in fact, they were a blessing' disguised
as a blight. Hindustan, the land of the Hindus, was politically divided into
roughly two equal parts: the British India and the Princely India. The former
had colleges, universities, hospitals, nearly free press, well developed
Communications by way of rail, road and radio, and an irrigation system,
especially in the Punjab, which ranked as the envy of the world. All this was
crowned with political liberties, which culminated in parties like the Indian
Congress and Muslim League. These political parties were trained in the art of
politics by the British themselves. The truth is that the British ruled India by
consent. The Mutiny of 1857 had nothing to do with the British rule, which
started after this uprising against the East India Company, a commercial
concern. It shows the moral degradation of the Indians, who, despite their huge
numbers and immense material resources, could not check the onslaught of a tiny
business enterprise. When we look into this episode closely, it transpires that
the British handed the Indians their freedom on a silver platter because the
latter did not have to fight for it. Realizing the huge number of toadies in
India, it is difficult to imagine how Indians could have won their independence
through a war.
Among prominent collaborators were the hundreds of
princely states, governed by the local rulers, who could hold their dignity
during the British pleasure only. These local despots were every bit as bad in
oppression, injustice and plundering to their subjects as were the Turkish and
Mughal rulers of India, who did not build a single university or hospital during
their long period of iniquity,
Compared to the British India, the Princely India, was
a cradle of suppression, depression and oppression. If it were not for the
indirect British influence in these states, their rulers would have turned their
men into monkeys. The fact that the Indians did not have to fight the British
for freedom, absolves them of the usually leveled charge of divide and rule. The
British ruled several communities and they were politically and morally obliged
to give a fair healing to all of them. It was the attitudes of mutual hatred,
which contributed to the communal divisions, but came to be ascribed to the
British. This is the truth that Gandhi described when he said: " ....but if
both of us - Hindus and Muslims - cannot agree on anything else the Viceroy is
left with no choice . "
It was not the British, who divided India: it is the
Congress and the League that had agreed to partition as the solution and "Mountbatten
was not to blame," Gandhi assured .
Then what were the causes of the partition? Broadly
speaking, I believe that the following were the factors, which brought about the
Indian calamity:
1. External, and
2. Internal.
1. External cause is mainly Islam. Why? Because Islam is
not a religion but a political Arab doctrine, dressed up as a Divine Faith,
which seeks to secure Arab cultural domination over the non-Arab Muslims through
a complex mask of principles and practices - all aiming to serve the purpose of
Mohammed. Here the author seems to have made a serious mistake: he depicts Islam
as a tolerant and practical religion, and puts the entire blame on its
practitioners. To understand the nature of Islam, one must ask: What was the
purpose of Mohammed ?
Answer to this question Cannot be understood properly
without a reference to human psychology: no social Organization can be created
and maintained without power. As we can see, the structure of power is
hierarchical i.e. it is broad at the base like a pyramid but tapers off as it
rises higher. This is the reason that, as a general rule, one person sits right
on the top and the rest follow his command. In any hierarchy, the participants
are engaged in a struggle for power, which emanates from the human urge of
dominance. An example of this truth is to be found in the pecking order of
birds: the stronger bird pecks the weaker bird to exert its dominance. The same
urge (drive) is at work when a kangaroo fights other kangaroos to demonstrate
his superiority over the rest for proving his priority to food and water.
Dominance is established, not just by force of arm; it
also requires intellectual manipulation - a stratagem. This is well proven by
the conduct of the conquerors, who would first indulge in Carnage and plunder to
establish their supremacy over the vanquished, and then prolong their grip
through a peaceful political system, operated by their collaborators. However,
the dominance-urge of conquerors, rulers and administrators becomes extinct when
they die, but the dominance-urge of the prophets does not perish with them. In
fact, it becomes stronger as time marches on, because they are able to command
people from beyond the grave.
Prophethood is based on the Middle Eastern doctrine of
revelation. It means that God appoints a man as his sole Medium or Messenger and
tells people through him what to do or not to do. As nobody can see or converse
with God, but His Prophet can be contacted, he (the Prophet) serves as the
Symbol of God exactly the same way as a statue of Krishna is treated as his
Symbol. The only difference is that the former is abstract but the latter is
concrete. In practice, they both are equally idolized and promote the cause of
idolatry. Prophethood is a subtle ruse of a man, who eagerly wants to establish
himself as God indirectly. He does so because he knows that by becoming the
Divine Idol, he dominates heart, and minds of the people, who actually worship
him through their prayers. It is well known that jealousy among the dominants i5
the worst. For example, Tamurlain, the conqueror, held as there is one God, this
earth can support one ruler only. To prove it, he eternally waged campaigns of
terror to destroy, devastate and disgrace his rivals. This is the reason that a
Prophet, who wants to be treated as the Divine Idol, cannot tolerate other idols
and wants to uproot them. Herein lies the cause of destruction of the Hindu
temples and their statues. This is the reason that the Muslims built mosques in
Benares and Mathura to cry out the name of Mohammed from the highest possible
towers, not once, but five times a day. If this is not idolatry, then What is
it? How can Muslims of India disassociate themselves from the most Sacrilegious
acts of Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb? By doing so, they deny respect to Mohammed the
Divine Idol .
The truth is that Mohammed possessed the most
extraordinary urge of dominance. First, he incorporated his own name in Kalma (Shahada)
along with Allah to be his equal, and then he projected himself much higher than
Allah, who along with His angels prays peace i.e., worships him (Mohammed ):
" God and His angels pray peace to the Prophet (
Mohammed ) Oh believers you must also pray peace to the Prophet." (XXXIII
- The Clans: 56)
One should remember that Salaat, the main form or Muslim
worship is a fundamental ritual of Islam. "Yasallun" has exactly the
same root as Salaat, which is the method to worship Allah. It is incredible that
in every religion, it is man who worships God, but in Islam, it is Allah, who
worships Mohammed.
A hadith says: "None of you will have faith till
you love me (Mohammed) more than your father, your children, and all
mankind." (Bokh, Vol. one, Hadith no. 14)
Another hadith says that Allah and His angels bless (Darood)
ten times the person, who sends Darood to the Prophet once. Obviously, this is
all that Allah and his angels exist for. yet the Muslims claim that Islam
represents monotheism!
To gain Divinity, the Prophet devised a plan of Arab
Imperialism, not known to history; nor was it exposed by anyone until
"Islam, The Arab National Movement" was published recently. Having
dealt with the issue in the said book, I shall refer to it here briefly.
However, I may quote a hadith from Tirmzi, volume two, page no. 722, which
clearly shows what Mohammed thought of himself and his people i.e. the
fellow-Arabs:
God created mankind. Then he chose two groups -the
descendants of Isaac ( the Jews ) and the descendants of Ishmael, the Quresh
(the people of Mohammed). Then He (God) chose the tribe and family, and created
me in the best tribe and family. Therefore, I am the best of all mankind.
This is the reason, the Muslims believe that Mohammed
was Khair- Ul-Bashar, the best of the mankind, but he himself thought of his
people as the best of all nations. However, some scholars, especially the
Hindus, refuse to believe that Mohammed was essentially a national leader
because "he molested the Arabs themselves." This is a very shallow
argument, indeed. Mohammed found his people divided into warring tribes, and
realized that this mutual division and hatred was the main cause of their
disrepute, downfall and degradation. Therefore, through a process of carrot and
stick, he welded them into a great nation. His example, knowingly or unknowingly
was boldly followed by the great Mongolian leader, Genghis Khan, and the
immortal Abraham Lincoln of the United Sates. Just because their actions caused
bloodshed, they cannot be held as nation-bashers. On the contrary, they were
national heroes of a high stature. Their deeds are like the surgical operation,
which is undertaken to cure the patient. One should also remember that the
Prophet expelled all Jews from Arabia to create a pure Arab nation but he did
not banish The Quresh who had caused him much greater Persecution because they
were Arabs and Constituted his own tribe.
In this regard, the Prophet copied the Mosaic model,
which demonstrates that a national leader is likely to fall into oblivion unless
he has a united nation behind him, ready to do his bidding. Having created a
sense of national unity among the Arabs, the second step was to make them
believe that their land and institutions were the best in the world for being of
Divine origin. The national tendencies of the Prophet are well displayed by his
famous hadith:
"Love of one's motherland is an integral part of
faith" but the Muslim zealots of non-Arab extraction/ especially, Bharti,
Pakistani, Bangladeshi, who have lost their ability to love their country,
believe that this is an apocryphal saying of the Prophet. To encounter it, they
claim that the Prophet during his last Hajj, had stated,
A. No Arab has any preference over non-Arab, nor the
red has any priority over the black, and vice versa.
B. All Muslims are brothers among themselves.
In fact, this statement ascribed to the Prophet is a
clever forgery of the Arab rulers, who exploited the non-Arab Muslims in the
guise of Muslim brotherhood. Of course, there are hadiths which state that
Muslim are brothers, but they mean Arab Muslims because non-Arab Muslims hardly
existed at that time. The purpose of these hadiths was to unite the mutually
warring Arab tribes into one nation under the flag of Islam. One must remember,
the Welfare State that Umar, the second Caliph, established in Arabia, was for
the sole benefit of the Arabs, who despoiled the Egyptians and Iranians to
provide care for their own people with the looted wealth of these subjugated
people. Among these plundered, persecuted and paralyzed folks were also the
Muslim converts, whose lands had been seized by these Arab brethren.
There is a Koranic test to settle this point: when an
issue is not quite clear, the truth or falsehood may be decided with reference
to Sunnah, i.e. Mohammed's authentic words and deeds, which are treated as the
Behavioral Model of the Prophet, and being the practical annotation of the
Koran, are considered binding on every Muslim The hadith no. 137 of Mishkat,
volume one, p 51, lays down that he who defies the Sunnah, does not belong to
Mohammed i.e. he is not a Muslim.
Having dealt with this issue in "Islam, The Arab
National Movement, " I may quote from the Sunnah summarily. One can clearly
see from the following that Mohammed's entire thinking and actions were
dedicated to Arab nationalism, which is fully represented by his already cited
hadith: "Love of one's motherland is the integral part of faith". Draw
your own conclusions from the following:
1. When Allah expelled Adam from the Garden of Eden, He
ordered him (Adam) to go to Mecca and build there the House of God, called,
Kaaba .
(Obviously, there was no such thing as Mecca or Arabia
at that time because Adam was the first man on earth, and he had not been there
before). Mecca being the place where God lives, has got to be the best spot of
the entire universe!
2. This house of Allah known as Kaaba, also happens to
be the Kibla i.e., direction of worship. To cover up this distinction, the Koran
does say that the East and West belong to Allah and there is no special virtue
in any direction. This statement is just an eye-wash because it is obligatory to
face Mecca, the birth place of Mohammed, for Offering prayers to Allah where His
house is .
3. A Muslim's grave must be dug in a way that his body
when buried, faces Mecca.
4. So sacred is Mecca that nobody must defecate himself
facing Mecca. He who does so is a Kafir.
5. Every Muslim, no matter Where he lives, must come to
Mecca for a pilgrimage, provided he has the financial means to do so.
This is a pre-Islamic custom which the Prophet retained
because of its very high economic Significance to his Country.
6. Allah speaks Arabic, and the Koran is also in
Arabic, which is a very difficult language to learn. All Muslims must learn it
to be blessed. Fancy how biased Allah is in favor of Arabia.
7. Kaaba was made to look more Sacred to the Jews than
Jerusalem because it was claimed by Mohammed to have been rebuilt by Abraham,
the ancestor of the Jews.
8. Kaaba is the center of God's blessings because it is
here that 120 Divine Benedictions descend every day, and are then distributed to
the rest of the world .
9. Even the Arabian graveyards known as "Jannat-ul-Mualla"
and "Jannat-ul-Baqee" are the most sacred. According to a hadith, they
look shining to the dwellers of the skies the same way as sun and moon appear to
the people of the earth. Those who are buried there, shall enter paradise
without any accountability, and each of them shall be privileged to intercede
for seventy thousand people!
10. Ibne Majah reports in hadith no. 1463, page 404,
that a Namaaz i.e. prayer in the Mosque in Madina brings 100 times more
blessings than a similar prayer in other mosques; and a prayer in the Kaaba
invokes 100,000 benedictions compared to a similar worship in other mosques.
Having raised sky-high the sanctity of his national
institutions and cultural values, the Prophet declared that Allah has made him
the Model of Behavior for every Muslim. Therefore, they must think, act, eat,
drink, dress, sleep, walk and talk like him. In fact, the closer his imitation,
the greater the chances of a person to enter paradise.
Look at the following:
"You have had a good example in God's Messenger
for whosoever hopes for God and the Last Day " (XXXlll, The Confederates:
20)
In Bokhari, volume 9, hadiths nos. 381, 382 and 401,
emphasize this point, and the already quoted hadith from Mishkaat makes it clear
that those who do not follow Mohammed's traditions, that is Sunnah, are not
Muslims, (In(J therefore shall go to hell.
Since Mohammed loved and followed the Arab Cultural
traditions and institutions,, all Muslims must follow suit. This is the unique
national wisdom of Mohammed!
In this connection, one finds a stunning hadith in
Tirmzi, volume one, (page 733), which tells people of the Arina tribe to drink
milk and urine of enamels to quench their thirst. It is an attempt to make Camel
the national symbol, as the Turks had Wolf, band the Poles eagle as their
emblems .
Since there is nothing worse than receiving a terrible
roasting in a burning hell, one's greatest object of life is to seek escape from
it. Luckily, the Prophet Mohammed has a sure solution for this most dreadful
problem; he has been given Intercessory powers by Allah, that is, whomever he
(Mohammed) recommends shall qualify for paradise even if he were a thief,
murderer, rapist and cheat. The only real condition for this most felicitous
favor is an unshakable faith in Mohammed and the keenness to imitate him in all
detail.
And what is paradise?
It is a limitless garden where there is no dole, death
or disease. This is the most beautiful Pane of luxury. Everything is available
by desire. People do not do anything there except love-making. For this purpose
every man shall be given seventy-two ever-young virgins of sparkling beauty and
manners. In addition, there will be pearl-like youths to enhance the pleasures
of the paradise- dwellers. To make sure that they can cope with the delightful
pressures of merriment, they will be made thirty years old when entering
paradise, and shall not age further. Above all, their virility shall be
increased hundred fold, and it will take eighty- four years to experience
orgasm.
Now one can see that the Prophet built the entire
Islamic faith about the greatness and sanctity of his own person. Not only is he
the best of mankind, but Allah and His angels worship him. Despite all this
self-eulogy, he knew that it requires the strength of a nation to keep a
person's name alive as a hero. To achieve this end, he made jihad i.e. war
against the non-Muslims a duty, just for not acknowledging Mohammed as the
Savior, and with a view to tempting his followers to become ever-ready warriors,
he declared that murder, plunder, and rape of the captured women was
"lawful and good." It is for self-glory that he wanted to create a
Superior Arab Race. This desire of the Prophet became true and lasted for
several centuries.
In Mishkat, volume 3 (p 213-153), there is a chapter
about Quresh, the tribe of the Prophet Mohammed, which lays down that the Quresh
are the best of all nations, and the only people entitled to govern the world of
Islam including all non-Muslim countries. If there were only two people alive,
it was the Quresh, who would be eligible to rule. The Prophet made Arabs
conscious of their national superiority: for example, when he saw one of his men
holding an Iranian bow, he said: "What is this ? Throw it away; this type
of things are not necessary for you." Showing him an Arabian bow, he
continued: "This, and things like this ( i.e. of an Arabian origin) are
necessary for you because Allah helps you in faith and cities with these."
( Mishkat volume two, chapter Jihad, Section 3). I hardly need add that the
Prophet made fencing, archery, javelin-throwing and horse-riding, parts of piety
and a guarantee of entering paradise!
Having raised an Arab army fired with the ideal of
national dominance, the Prophet expressed political sagacity,
Which only a man of his stature could muster. He
declared that Islam is the religion for all nations! This is a piece of high
wisdom. Why? Having, established the Arab institutions and cultural values as
divine by dint of the Islamic faith, and announcing imitation of the Prophetic
Model of Behavior, the proof of faith which guarantees paradise, he imposed on
non-Arab Muslim nations the Arabian superiority, which is not only religious but
also Cultural and political! This is the reason that the Arabs no longer need
the sword to keep non-Arab Muslims under subjugation: the opium of faith is
quite sufficient to secure this goal.
With this sophistication goes the master plan of the
Prophet which permanently divides human society into perpetually opposed groups
through a scheme of friction based on the dichotomy of Momin (Muslim) and Kafir
(non-Muslim), assuring victory to the former. This revolutionary interpretation
of history known as Dialectical Materialism is ascribed to Karl Marx, who
borrowed it from F.W. Hegel. It holds that there is a permanent friction between
opposing forces, thesis and antithesis, which is resolved by the emergence of a
new force synthesis.
Similarly, Mohammed held that there is a permanent war
between Islam and non-belief-in-Mohammed (Kufr). The situation is rectified when
Islam., being the Din-E-Ghalib (the naturally dominant religion), shall triumph
through a never-ending process of Jihad (the holy war). See this truth for
yourself:
a. Those who oppose Islam are Satan's party, and shall
be losers; those who believe in Allah and Mohammed are God's party and they
are sure to be the Victors. (LVIII - The Disputer: 20)
b. The true religion with God is Islam. (The House of
Imran: 15 )
c. Allah has sent Mohammed to uplift Islam over all
other religions (XLVIII, Victory: 25)
d. Slaughter the idolaters wherever you find them
....but if they repent, and perform the prayer.... (IX - Repentance: 5 )
e. Fight those who do not believe in Allah and
Mohammed until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled. (IX -
Repentance: 25)
f. Prophet must struggle against the unbelievers and
hypocrites and must be harsh with them. (IX - Repentance: 70 )
Against the above, examine the following sample:
g. The believers indeed are brothers. ( Apartments:
10 )
h. Muslims are hard against the unbelievers, merciful
to one another. (XLVIII-Victory 25)
From the above one Can see easily that Islam is the faith
not only based on the principle of Muslim versus non-Muslim, but the followers
of this religion also have the divine duty to make Islam prevail over all other
religions and ideologies such as Marxism. This is the reason that wherever the
Muslims settle, the country becomes Dar-Ul-Harb, the land of war, and cannot
become Dar-Ul- lslam, the land of peace, until the Muslims gain political
dominance through arbitrary rule and forced conversions. This is the real
tragedy of India because this is what creates communal divisions giving rise to
two nation theory, and this is the reason that the Muslims of India do not
consider themselves as Indians. Instead, they are Muslims, deadly enemy of
idolators, the Hindus, and rejoice in associating themselves with Mohhammad Bin
Qasim and Mahmud Gaznavi.
After this discussion, I am in a position to make an
unusual judgment on the Muslims in India. I have shown already that the Prophet
Mohammed was driven by the love for his country and this is fully borne out by
the Sunnah, which is binding on those who claim to be Muslims. Thus a person is
not a Muslim, unless he loves his motherland. Since an Indian Muslim thinks of
Bharat as Dar-Ul-Harb, the land of war i.e., perceptual strife, he defies the
Sunnah and thus comes within the definitions of Kafir.
I am certainly not exaggerating it. The Muslims of
India refuse to accept a Uniform Civil Code, which is absolutely necessary to
turn all Indians into one nation. They even demand to abolish the economic
concept of interest because Islam does not permit it.
I hope that I have exposed Islam as it really is but
Mr. Ansar Hussain Khan has glossed it over by showing it tolerant and practical
religion. I his is the fundamental problem of India, and must be dealt with
seriously. Without this attitude, solution cannot be found. Instead, he blames
the practitioners of Islam for what has happened; this pussy-footing is likely
to exacerbate the situation.
Mr. Khan believes that Ijtihad i.e. innovative
interpretation of the Islamic commandments may provide the solution. Ijtihad has
a very limited role to play in Islam. To understand this issue, one must realize
that the Islamic Commandments are divided into two categories:
a. Muhkamaat, the fundamental rules of Islam, which
cannot be Changed or interpreted, and
b. Mutashabihaat, which can be changed.
The problem is that Islam is rooted in the former and
not the latter. It is a fundamental principle of Islam that a non-Muslim belongs
to the Devil's party and must be humiliated or eliminated. How does one change
this law to create harmony between the Muslims and non-Muslims? Look at the
world history: wherever Islam went, it uprooted all local traditions and imposed
the Arab culture on the indigenous populations. This fact is evident in all
countries such as Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, etc. Though India has suffered terribly, it has stood up to this
faith resolutely. It shows the Indian tenacity and spiritual magnificence which
herald a future of greatness, grandeur and glory.
The innovative approach is no more than wishful
thinking. Hadiths 132 and 135 (p. 49-50) of Mishkat, volume one, and Hadith no.
14 of Ibne Majah clearly hold such an innovator a renegade, whose punishment is
death.
With a view to Showing that Islam is a tolerant
religion, he has quoted the People of the Book. This is a misconception. Look at
the following:
"O believers do not make friends with the Jews and
the Christians whoso of you makes them his friend is one of them."(The
Table: 55)
It is a folly to think that Islam advocates friendly
relations with the Jews and Christians, the People of the Book. The latter had
to fight the Muslims for 400 years at a terrible cost to secure their future. I
have included a small article in this issue of liberty to explain this point
further owing to its importance, anti therefore, may not prolong this discussion
here.
Again, Ansar advocates mixing of religion with
politics. It is totally undesirable; this is the fundamental cause of troubles
in India. People are free to recite "Ram Ram" or "Allah
Allah" but it must be a strictly personal affair; the Europeans did not
make any material or moral progress until they were able to divorce religion
from politics. However, there is one very important proviso, that is, whatever
is left of India must be governed by the Indian values. This is especially so
because the Muslims have had a large chunk of land called Pakistan for
practicing Arab Civilization. The minorities are entitled to their human rights
but within the bounds of a unified civil code.
However, I applaud Ansar Hussain Khan's motive of
writing this book, that is, the Muslims of India should disassociate themselves
from the profane acts of their foreign co-religionists; and Bharat, Pakistan and
Bangladesh ought to link themselves into a Confederation.
Of course, it is a noble thought but any hurried action
will destroy Bharat. It is because only birds of a feather flock together:
wolves and sheep do not live together nor do cobras and mongooses. Such a union
will reunite the Muslims, who will become a majority in the subcontinent within
a few decades owing to their demographic activities. I may state what was
reported about the Moroccan Emperor Maula Ismail in the British press during
December, 1994; it said that the Emperor had 1042 children from 500 women. Of
course, he could have only four wives at a time. I his fantastic yield came from
his concubines that embellished his seraglio. It is quite possible that the rich
Muslim states will be happy to subsidize a polygamous drive in India for turning
the Land of the Kafirs into Dar-Ul-lslam.
2. In the beginning, I stated two causes of the Indian
partition, namely, External and Internal. Having dealt with the External cause,
which is Islam, a foreign ideology, in direct clash with the Indian values, now
I may say a few words - just a few words about the Internal Cause: the brevity
is desirable to stem the wave of further disunity.
The Hindus are no lesser sinners than the Muslims in
partitioning their Motherland because they failed to match the Muslim hatred
with their love of Bharat Mata. If they were the least patriotic, they would
have resisted this most diabolical act with the force of arms. History
demonstrates clearly that motherland is the goddess that always demands a
sincere offering of sweat and blood from her proud devotees, but the Hindus
failed miserably on this count. They did not fire one shot to save the integrity
of Bharat Mata. Gandhi bragged that India would he partitioned over his dead
body, but when the time for sacrifice came, he showed a dishonorable conduct.
Instead of dissuading his colleagues as he had pledged to Abul Kalam Azad, he
withdrew his opposition to partition before the Congress Working Committee. Far
more shabby was the role of Nehru, who was intoxicated with the dream of
personal power, though at a devilishly high cost to the Mother India. Gandhi
gained his "National Sainthood" and Nehru achieved his ambition of
Prime Ministership.
The fact that the Hindus have been reluctant to fight
for the honor of Bharat Mata for the last one thousand years, clearly
demonstrates that lack of national patriotism is the real Hindu malaise. Unless
they renounce the anti-vedic principles such as Ahimsa and caste system, they
will never make a bold and united nation fit to serve the cause of Bharat Mata,
which is the only way ahead.
However, I do not preach narrow nationalism, which in
its extreme form, can rank as a subhuman cult. The Indian Muslims may class
themselves as the children of foreign invaders to nurse their inferiority
complex but the truth is that 95% of them have the same Indian blood in their
veins as all other Indians such as Hindus, Sikhs or Christians. The remaining 5%
have certainly become Indians by the long domicile in this country. Have they
got anywhere else to go? Never mind other Islamic countries, even Pakistan,
which was created for all Muslims of the subcontinent, shall not take them in.
It is high time that they sober up to the reality, and being Indians, start
living as Indians; their participation in signing the Vande Matatram, shah be a
step in the right direction.
|
Index
