|
Anwar Shaikh reviews P. N.
Oak's book:
Islamic Havoc in India |
This book, containing 387 pages deals with the
atrocities of the Muslim rule in India, right from the first invaders to the
last perpetrators, who could have qualified as Indians had they shown an iota of
respect to the land where they were born, grew up and died. They inflicted
disgrace, death and devastation on India in return for the glory, grandeur and
greatness that she had bestowed upon them. This ingratitude of the Muslim rulers
has ruffled Purushottam Nagesh Oak, the author, whose patriotic instincts have
responded to the foreign tyranny without any regard to the repercussions that
the bold narrative of this book may have upon him.
P.N. Oak was born on March 2, 1917,. He is a scion of
the Maharashtrian Brahmin family. Not only a scholar in the Brahmanical
tradition, but he is also endowed with the Kshatriya spirit for having played an
active role in the Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army). so keen is his passion
for history that he has set up the Institution For Re-Writing World History. He
is its Founder-President. Mr. Oak is known for his plain speaking, which earned
him wrath of the authorities. He was tried on the charge of using
"harsh" language when he called the Muslim raiders as the "Muslim
Monsters" but was honorably acquitted.
Having dealt with the Muslim atrocities, Mr. Oak in the
Post Script, has asked the fellow-patriots to expose the tyrannical conduct of
the Muslim rulers.
While I am not averse to this suggestion, I think that
such an exposure will be more fruitful if its scope is extended. Therefore, I
may divide the discussion into three headings:
1. Why did the Muslim suzerains make plunder and rape
the guiding principle of their rule?
2. Why did the Muslim rulers succeed in displaying
their atrocious conduct with such a baffling impunity?
3. What is the legacy of the Muslim rule to the Indian
subcontinent i.e. Bharat, Pakistan and Bangladesh?
1. Islam, in fact, is an expression of Muhammadanism, which
a. seeks to glorify the person of Mohammed, whose
stature towers over God (Allah) Himself, and
b. which represents the Prophet's patriotism as the
Arab National Movement.
In several articles, I have explained the fact:
"a" by quoting chapter and verse from the Koran as well as the
relevant hadiths. Is it not strange that in every religion, it is man, who
supplicates God but in Islam, it is Allah and His angels, who pray salutations
to Mohammed? Is it not baffling to note that on the Day of Judgment, Mohammed
will occupy the right hand side of the Throne of Justice with Allah, and it is
his word which will decide whether a person will go to heaven or hell? Again, is
it not stunning that a person cannot become a Muslim just by having faith in
Allah, but remains a Kafir (infidel) until he also confesses to believe in
Mohammed. Obviously, Islam has less to do with Allah, and more with Mohammed.
This is what makes Islam Muhammadanism, removing its religious veneer.
Having written a book: Islam,
The Arab National Movement to illustrate the "b," I hardly need go
into details here but may add briefly that the Prophet Mohammed adopted Moses as
the Model, and raised Arabia over the rest of the world in Divine esteem and
honor. He realized that only a strong Arab nation could fight for his name and
enforce his holiness in the globe. This is why he founded the Arab Empire.
The Spiritual yoke of Muhammadanism needed the strength
of a secular Empire, which required a highly efficient fighting force, but
people do not kill their fellow-men without a compelling inducement, especially
when they have done them no wrong. For this purpose, the Prophet Mohammed coined
the concept of Jihad which states that "Allah has bought the lives of
Muslims in return for the reward of paradise, because "they kill and get
killed for Him." Just look at the inducement: if a Muslim is killed while
fighting for Allah (Jihad), he goes to paradise, the highest place for sexual
merriment and economic affluence. If he survives, he becomes entitled to
plunder, which includes, not only the wealth and property of the vanquished, but
also their women, and he can legitimately seduce them at will. As this is an
unusual statement, I may provide some quotations from the Koran to satisfy the
skeptics:
"Eat of what you have taken as booty; this is
lawful and good " (The Spoils VIII: 70)
One must realize that Islam is the only religion, which
holds that murdering innocent people, plundering their property, enslaving their
children and seducing their women is legitimate and good. This gives evil the
status of good, and the lure of such a philosophy provides a tremendous
incitement especially when the fighter fares better if he gets killed because
doors of paradise are opened for him eagerly
For hoisting Muhammadanism over the head of humanity,
the lure, lust and lactation of Jihad (fighting for Allah), has been made
endless:
"Fight such people as practice not the religion of
truth until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled."
(Repentance: IX: 25)
Here, Islam has been portrayed as "the religion of
truth," thus declaring all other faiths, false, fallacious and facinorous;
their followers have been subjected to a perpetual Shad seeking their
subjugation and payment of tribute as a symbol of inferiority unless they accept
Islam to adore Mohammed like Allah and His angels.
From these introductory explanations, one can see why
the foreign predators played havoc with the Indian society. It is simply an
article of faith for a Muslim to molest the non-Muslim. However, this
conviction, as the wheel of time rolled on, lost its luster and was imbued with
the gloss, glow and glitter of manipulation, alien to the purpose of Islam, and
became representative of personal ambitions. The reason for this attitude is
also astonishing.
Shedding blood of a Muslim by a fellow Muslim is a
heinous crime in Islam. After passage of several centuries, many of the wealthy
countries had come to be ruled by the Muslim princes, and therefore, the more
ambitious Muslim rulers could not multiply their wealth and prestige without
invading the fellow-Muslims. Therefore, they concocted excuses to treat their
intended victims as Kafirs i.e. non-Muslims, so that they could march against
them as the Holy Crusaders. Take for example, Amir Timur, considered as the
saintly ruler of Islam by the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. He started
raiding the Muslim rulers on the pretext that they were quasi-Muslims for
lacking the true Koranic spirit. At sixty-two, he invaded India in 1398. This
Barlas Turk was a sincere Muslim, and the lust of booty, which has been the
major cause of motivation to the followers of Islam right from its early days,
had the same effect on him what steam has on a locomotive engine. He had set up
a Booty Department at Samarqand, his capital, which he strived to keep full by
plundering the rulers of his time. who was who did not worry him, nor was he
bothered by the consequences of his actions on history as long as his raids
secured him sufficient booty.
At that time, India was governed by the Tughluq
dynasty, which was in disarray owing to the succession-dispute. Both the Muslims
and the Hindus (Rajputs) united to fight this formidable conqueror of history
but were deciminated by him at Bhatnagar. He reached Delhi in mid-December; he
defeated the army of Sultan Mahmud and sacked the city with professional
thoroughness. Before the battle began, he slaughtered the 100,000 prisoners,
both Hindu and Muslim that he had captured before reaching the city. On his
return, he took with him thousands of horses laden with the Indian gold,
diamonds, rubies and precious merchandise. Among these carriers of plunder were
eight hundred elephants, which carried green marble to build Jamia Masjid at
Samarqand. One wonders what kind of God approves of His worship-house built with
stolen goods! Among the plunder were several thousand screaming Indian virgins,
physicians and artists of various kinds.
Timur dealt a severe blow to the Muslim ruling dynasty
of India but there were no Hindus to make the most of this opportunity to
reinstate their lost glory. On the contrary, when he defeated the Ottoman sultan
Bayezid at Angora in 1402, the Ottoman Turks rose from their ashes like a
phoenix and rebuilt their empire in the Eastern Europe.
Why is it that the Hindus failed to retrieve their
honorable past but the Turks rose again to build a stupendous future for
themselves? The straight answer lies in their respective beliefs. The Turks
believed in Jihad, the will to fight, but the Hindus believed in Ahimsa, the
will to flight. The truth is that survival depends upon both fight and flight.
The animal that seeks flight as the only way of staying alive becomes what a
sheep is to a wolf or a sparrow is to a hawk. This world is full of wolves and
hawks and they seem to have the divine license to molest, mortify and mutilate
the sheep and sparrows. This is what brings us to discuss the second point of
this review i.e. why did the Muslim rulers succeed in displaying their atrocious
conduct with such a baffling impunity?
2. Hawk is the Vedic bird, which must have formed part
of the national Indian flag in the ancient Vedic times. The people, who label
themselves as Hindus, have relinquished their hawkish way of life as dictated by
the Vedas and have adopted the demeanor of a sparrow. This being the truth, they
do not deserve the social majesty that is the prerogative of a hawk, due to his
heroic manners.
Instead of acknowledging the truth that they have
flouted the Vedic doctrine of heroic life, which expects of its devotees to
resist torture, torment and tyranny to uphold the cause of joy, justice and
joviality, they blame Buddhism for preaching the doctrine of Ahimsa. Quite
openly, the Indian history declares that Hinduism drove Buddhism out of India.
With it, should have gone out Ahimsa i.e. non violence, but it did not. The
truth is that the Emperor Asoka held the largest empire of the day; it extended
over Afghanistan and almost entire India. His rule was dignified and
philanthropic. Since nobody ever dared attack his dominions, and he died as a
highly successful ruler, he certainly did not believe in the type of Ahimsa as
the Hindus do. His principle of Ahimsa meant non-aggression against peaceful
neighboring countries and an honorable individual conduct free from the
pollution of pusillanimity, culminating in Dharma, which meant a practical life
of piety, purity and probity. Asoka's Ahimsa represented non- aggression and not
cowardice, which has become the Hindu way of life. This is what this great
Indian Emperor called Dharma - piety in personal life, justice in public life
and fairness in secular affairs. Frankly speaking, I ought to add that the
modern Hindus use the word: Dharma to fool fellow-Hindus for personal gains
through a conduct of cowardice and hypocrisy peculiar to themselves.
The nations that have accepted Buddhism, are one of the
bravest today, to maintain their martial spirit, the Japanese developed
ju-jitsue, a system of bare-handed fighting and the Koreans developed high
karate kicks, whereas the Hindus invented feet- touching, and incorporated their
Vedic martial postures in dancing!
The truth is that it is the Hindus who first perfected
civilization and then spread it in the east and west. The ethos of their culture
was essentially martial Not only the Vedic gods and warriors but the Vedic
goddesses are also eager fighters. Even Agni, the Vedic priest, "the Son of
Strength, " is a keen combatant. The major feature of the Vedic deities is
that they themselves take part in the major battles and their devotees solicit
their help to fight their enemies. No matter, what the situation, whenever, the
forces of vice, virulence and viciousness threatened the good, great and godly,
out came the Vedic sword to crush and cremate the wrong doers. It is a law of
nature that what goes up, must come down. This is what has happened to the Hindu
nation. Affluence and ease mellowed their character; we see in the battle of
Kurukshetra that Lord Krishna, the God-incarnate, does not fight himself but
acts as a coachman and persuades someone else (Arjuna) to lead the fight.
Krishna performs here the priestly role of giving the sermon but does not take
part in the battle like the Vedic gods! It demonstrates a marked fall in the
Hindu military fervor. As the wheel of history rolls on into the 20th century,
there emerges another "god" known as Mahatma Gandhi, who exhibits the
total collapse of the Hindus, who refuse to fight even for the honor and
integrity of their Motherland and agree to the Partition!
It is this Ahimsa, the total addiction to cowardice
that the Hindus enjoy under the shameful cover of Dharma that enables the
foreign predators to display their atrocious conduct with complete impunity.
Should not the Hindus share a part of this disgrace? It is natural for the
robber to rob but the person who gives in without defending his possessions, in
fact, is guilty of aiding and abetting the robber.
3. Finally, we come to discuss the legacy of the Muslim
rule in India.
Frankly speaking, I ought to say that the legacy is the
complete realization of the Arabic national dream which seeks to impose the Arab
Cultural Imperialism on other nations through a subtle stratagem of divide and
rule in the guise of religion. By splitting humanity into Momins (the Muslims)
and Kafirs (the non- Muslims), Islam has set father against son and brother
against brother, so that they should forget the significance of blood ties,
human values and moral standards, and kill one another to enjoy the
hallucinations of paradise. This is not an emotional mumbo-jumbo. Look, how
Islam has created the most dreadful hatred among the Indian brethren who
zealously murdered one another in 1947 to partition their own Motherland for the
glory of the Arabian culture. Those who have embraced Islam, believe that the
fellow Indians are totally alien to them; India is not their Motherland but a
battlefield, which justifies mischief, malevolence and misbehavior. These people
are Indian through and through, and this fact is vouched for by their blood,
language, culture, land of birth, customs, traditions, color and even
temperament. Instead, they believe that they share nationality with the Arabs,
Egyptians, Iranians, and so on! This is certainly the height of brainwashing;
only the most seductive concept of Islam, which offers unlimited sexual
merriment in paradise, could perform this miracle.
The destructive influence of Islam has become the
social bane of Bharat, Pakistan and Bangladesh. In India, the Muslims are deadly
opposed to a unified Civil Code; in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Muslims demand
the introduction of the Islamic Law, which is totally impracticable in modern
age. The result is social unrest, slowly leading to anarchy.
The truth is that owing to their unsocial and divisive
tendencies, the Muslims all over the world, have lost the ability to live
peacefully, not only with the non-Muslims, but also among themselves as a result
of the sectarian hatred. The Sunni-Shia divide testifies to this fact.
India was once a peaceful, prosperous and powerful
country, but with the arrival of Islam it has been sinking lower and deeper
everyday. As things are, nationalism - a healthy nationalism as opposed to
racism, seems to be the only remedy which can save countries of the Indian
subcontinent by resuscitating the feeling of brotherhood. Another essential step
for the Hindus is to discard the most disgraceful garb of Ahimsa and return to
their ancestral military values as dictated by the Vedas.
Mr. Oak has rendered a considerable service by
reminding the country of the depression, degradation and destruction that she
has suffered at the hands of the Muslim rulers, who could have enjoyed a place
of honor in the Indian history by associating themselves with India, its culture
and traditions.
Islamic Havoc in India
by P. N. Oak is published by
A. Ghosh
Publisher,
5740 W. Little York,
Houston, Texas 77091
|
Previous
Review
