Romila Thapar

The Hindu join hands with BBC: What’s your response?

(This is a reprint from NewsBred).

If you were a Rajdeep Sardesai or Shekhar Gupta or Barkha Dutt, you would wish for a return of pre-2014 days.  You could write or broadcast what you wanted, unchallenged, unquestioned; behemoth of India’s media, sought by global media outlets; prime ministers and presidents, kings and queens, knocking at your door for interviews; film stars lining up as if for auditions. You were firmly in your ivory tower, never seen in grocery shops or bookstores, metros or airports, malls or traffic stops.

Then winds changed. India’s right-wingers took hold in Centre. Websites, such as OpIndia and Swarajyamag among others, began nicking the bubble. The lies were exposed, bigotry was unmasked, anti-Hindu stance was bared in public. History began breaking free from the narrative of glorious Mughals, valiant Tipu Sultan, soothing Amir Khusru and pacifist Ashoka. One began viewing a Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Audrey Truschke, Sheldon Pollock in the light they deserved. Amartya Sen and Raghuram Rajan lost their halo. The benign mask of neutrality dropped like shame around our film stars and directors. Writers and academicians were revealed to be peddlers. Jurists and legal luminaries were found to be men of straw.

An avalanche was thus set in motion. The ecosystem began drowning in the outrage of the masses. Narendra Modi won over the poor; the intelligent found the counter-narrative on social media. Eco-system upped the game, terming every threat as trolls or bhakts. Internet warriors, on their part, found new converts. Eco-system termed the rivals as fake news peddlers. Lutyens Media began organizing debates and seminars to save their turf. Anyone or anything which didn’t agree with them was “fake news”.  The entire game was one of credibility – and they were losing it. The 2019 Elections confirmed their worst fears.

Now a new round of conflict has been set in motion. The eco-system has realized they have been outnumbered. Social Media platforms are rallying such mass to grow in size. The “fake news” narrative hasn’t helped. So they have now launched a new initiative. This initiative doesn’t just have newspapers and news agencies, it has also roped in biggies like the Google, Facebook and Twitter. “Fake News” has been given a new name of “misinformation.” What was seen as “local” divide in Indian context, now has acquired “global” dimension. We might just have stumbled upon the global network which feeds and breeds this “eco-system” to disrupt India.

The Hindu has a front-page anchor today where it has grandiosely announced that it is partnering BBC and other global media outlets to fight the “misinformation” in public domain. That it wants to protect its audience. That BBC set it in motion through a “Trusted News Summit” earlier this year. That those in it together include European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, Google, AFP, Microsoft, Reuters, Twitter, BBC and of course The Hindu. That,they would alert each other when a “misinformation” is to be fought.

It’s a new challenge to India’s internet warriors. So far, we knew the bias of, say Twitter, which suspended accounts (e.g of  True Indology, Sonam Mahajan etc) made twitterati remove tweets (Paresh Rawal) while those with similar offence (Shehla Rashid etc) kept flourishing. Netizens were able to dig up the dirt on Raheel Khursheed, CEO of Twitter (2014-2018), on his pro-Pakistan bias. Parliamentarians were outraged enough to summon twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. The clamour against Twitter’s alleged bias has only grown bigger in our times. Dorsey has admitted his staff could be overwhelmingly Left-leaning.

So how should internet warriors respond to this openly-aligned forces against them? First, it must leverage its numbers. Every sixth of twitter’s worldwide users is from India. Is has grown in leaps and bounds in last two years. This collective might must be leveraged by netizens, hopefully under the benevolent gaze of the government.

The time perhaps has also come for India to come up with their own micro-blogging platform such as one of Sina Weibo which China has. It’s a mix of Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. India could thus also protect its own data. The internet giants would have no option but to fall in line.

Importantly, The eco-system is getting ready to bite you—what’s your response?

 

 

Digvijay Singh is not the only “saffron terror” mongerer

It’s Digvijay Singh’s moment of truth on “saffron terror.” Sadhvi Pragya probably would make him pay for it in Bhopal. There are many though who wouldn’t be called to account. Let’s name them too and hold them up in public eye.

“Modern India” by Bipan Chandra was once the history textbook for Class XII, published by NCERT (1996). The book’s editorial board included S. Gopal, S. Nurul Hasan, Satish Chandra and Romila Thapar.  It has a passage on Muslim League in these words:

“The Muslim League propaganda gained by the existence of such communal bodies among the Hindus as the Hindu Mahasabha. The Hindu communalists echoed the Muslim communalists by declaring that the Hindus were a distinct nation and that India was the land of the Hindus. Thus they (Muslim League) too accepted the two-nation theory.” (Page 223)

The passage continues:

“In one respect, Hindu communalism had even less justification…The Hindu communal view of history also relied on the myth that Indian society and culture had reached great, ideal heights in the ancient period from which they fell into permanent and continuous decay during the medieval period because of “Muslim” rule and domination. (Page 223)

“They identified Indian culture and the Indian nation with the Hindu religion and Hindus…For example, Tilak’s propagation of the Shivaji and Ganapati festivals, Aurobindo Ghose’s semi-mystical concept of India as mother and nationalism as religion, the terrorists’ oath before goddess Kali, and the initiation of the anti-Partition agitation which dips in the Ganga could hardly appeal to the Muslims…Nor could Muslims be expected to respond with full enthusiasm when they saw Shivaji or Pratap being hailed… (Page 231)

“The Hiindu tinge also create ideological openings for Hindu communalism and made it difficult for the nationalist movement to eliminate the Hindu communal, political and ideological elements within its own ranks. It also helped the spread of a Muslim tinge among Muslim nationalists. (Page 232)

“Many in the Muslim middle class went to the extent of turning to the history of West Asia for their traditions and moments of pride.” (Page 232)

Got it? The implication is that Muslim League was communal because Hindu communalists kind of forced their hands! Muslim League which toed the British line and used religion to tear up the nation, did all that because Hindu communalists forced their hands. Bravo.

So Indian Muslims turned towards the history of West Asia because Hindu communalists left them with no option. That the tradition demands they turn towards Kaaba for prayers five times a day, treat Mecca and Madina as holy places.  But somehow, in case of Indian Muslims, they all did so because Hindu communalists left them with no option but to turn to their West Asia traditions.  . It doesn’t matter that hadiths after hadiths, fatwas after fatwas direct believers to subjugate and suppress non-believers. Why bring to attention the uncomfortable fact that the Prophet asks the believers to “love the Arabs for three reasons: because I am an Arab, the Quran is Arabic and the inhabitants of Paradise will speak Arabic.” (Eminent Historians: Arun Shourie, Page 122)

The truth is Islam asks its adherents to be truthful to its West Asia tradition of Arabs and Arabic language alone. Hindu communalists have nothing to do with it. VS Naipaul gives a poignant account of it in his book “Beyond Belief.”

“Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert’s world view alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. The convert has to turn away from everything that is his…”

From its very advent in India, Islam looked for converts and domination of its religion. The conversion ceremony was a violent rupture for a convert from his Hindu past. That’s why a convert had to eat beef openly in public view, a violent rupture from his Hindu belief that cow is sacred. (Eminent Historians: Arun Shourie, Page 123)

Muslims didn’t distance themselves from the nationalist narrative because of Hindu communalists. Quran terms idolaters as the “worst of creatures” and “that they shall be in hellfire to dwell forever therein.” That the idolaters block the believers’ path to Allah. (Eminent Historians: Arun Shourie, Page 129)

So Muslim League didn’t need a Tilak and his propagation of Ganapati Mahotsava to stay away from the nationalist movement. It wasn’t Aurobindo or Gandhi which made it shrink from the nationalist cause. Dayanand or Aurobindo didn’t push Muslims into believing that idolaters were conspiring against them.

The chicanery of Bipan Chandra doesn’t stop here. He says: “Communalism has been rightly described as political trade in religion. Religion was used, after 1937, as a mobilizing factor by the communalists.” (Modern India, Page 232-33)

It was Jinnah and Muslim League which used religion after 1937 as a mobilizing force. But Bipan Chandra makes a generic and not specific mention, implying that both Hindus and Muslims used religion to mobilize people after 1937.

So parents you  are urged to look at the history books of your kids. Point out such passages which are a distortion of Hindu identity, religion and politics. You are mistaken if you believe it has all begun with Digvijay Singh.

A HISTORY OF INDIA AS IT HAPPENED: Not as it has been written

Most now know that the Indian history we read is fabricated. It’s been a handiwork of Nehruvian academicians and Marxist scholars who fear the revival of Hinduism in a largely Hindu country. A nation without identity is easier to manipulate and confuse than the one conscious of its identity. Hinduism is older to Islam and Christianity by thousands of years but it’s in the interest of both monotheist religions to obliterate the only Pagan religion still going strong. Thus money pours in from foreign shores in the form of NGOs and aids to Masjids. Within India, not as much judiciary as media, do the damage. The goal is to keep India apart from its soul.

The revisionism of India’s history books has gained ground in recent decades. Among many such soldiers of truth is Francois Gautier, a foreign French journalist who loved India so much that he stayed put in this country since 1971.  Among his many books is “A History Of India As It Happened: Not as it has been written” which is in circulation for a few years now but is worth every second of yours.

The compass of the book is huge even though in terms of pages it doesn’t count more than 236 pages. It picks up threads from the very beginning to right up to the Narendra Modi era which suggests a rather fleeting, and not reflective, approach by the author though perfectly justified if the attempt is aimed at initiating the innocents to truth, and not lose them by a dense exposition.

Though the insight into our times is no less interesting—for instance Mother Teresa’s mission was to convert India to Christianity (Did she ever say a good thing about Hinduism?) – this review would restrict itself to four epochs of India’s history which has been mutilated by Nehruvian-Marxist forces.

INDIA IN PRE-ISLAMIC ERA

Surely this was the most glorious spell of India’s history much of which has been distorted, buried or mocked at as unscientific—we all are witness to the derision our newspapers reserve for Science Congress where our glorious past is elucidated. So let’s dive straightaway into it.

American mathematician A. Seindenberg has conclusively shown that the ancient Vedic mathematics, Sulbasturas, have inspired all the mathematic sciences of the antique world—from Babylonia to Egypt to Greece. Western world traces all its culture, heritage, philosophy etc to Greek world whose religion was definitely pagan and deeply inspired by Hindu practices.

Interestingly, till the 19th century, Europe acknowledged the supremacy of Hinduism as the fountain of all wisdom which shaped humanity. But once colonization gained roots and Christian missionaries spread far and wide, they couldn’t have accepted India as the land of eternal wisdom for their propagated mission was to civilize the barbarians. How could they admit that their very culture was derived from these savages? How could missionaries accept that their own religion was influenced by these very heathens?

The author presents various evidences that the study of India’s culture, history and philosophy was the flavour of Europe’s schools and universities till the 19th century.

Anquetil-Duperron had translated the Upanishads in 1801; Eugene Burnouf published in 1844 an “introduction to Indian Buddhism”; in Paris was created the first chair of Sanskrit. Famous writers and philosophers such as Edgar Quinet, Ernest Renan, Hippolyte Taine or Charles Renouvier were teaching Indian philosophy in academic institutions. The remarkable historian Michelet wrote: “From India comes a torrent of light, a river of Right and Reason.”

Famous Indianist Jean Herbert reminds us that “many centuries before us, India had devised most of the philosophical systems which Europe experienced with later…Egypt and Greece owe India their wisdom.”

German philosopher Frederich Shlegel said that “ India is not only at the origin of everything, she is superior in everything, intellectually, religiously or politically—and even the Greek heritage seems to pale in comparison.”

Friedrich Nietzsche said: “Budhism and Brahminism are a hundred times deeper and more objective than Christianity.”

But late in the 19thth century, Europe became “Helleno-Centric” (Greece-centred). As per French philosopher and journalist Roger-Pol Droit, it was philosopher Friedrich Hegel who sowed its seeds: “Hegel didn’t discover the Greeks; he created them and made up for them a destiny and thoughts which they didn’t always have.”

India suffered greatly at the resultant manipulation of history. Aryan Invasion Theory was one such fall-out. It was depicted that migrants/invaders from Central Asia pushed the local populace of north-west India to south and gave India its’ language and culture, including Vedas. That they moved in around 1500 BC which is a blatant lie: If Vedas were as recent then how come Saraswati river, which disappeared in 2200 BC, is mentioned 50 times in Rig Veda?

Since Harappan Civilization is said to be flourishing in 3100-1900 BC, Rig Veda must be in existence by 4000 BC. The author doesn’t hold himself back: “Aryan Invasion Theory was imposed upon the subcontinent by its colonizers and is today kept alive by Nehruvian historians.”

For example in the “Dictionary of Philosophers” there is no mention of Buddhist philosopher Asanga whose work is as important as those of Aristotle. None of Asanga’s books are in Europe’s libraries even as Nietzsche’s letters to his mother when he was only six are treated as intellectual marvels!

A few historical facts which we are not told are worth mentioning. For instance, Chandragupta, who founded the Maurya dynasty came from a low caste (so much for India’s “reprehensible” caste system). His administrative set-up was so efficient that it was later retained by Muslims and even English. In true Indian traditions, Chandragupta renounced the world during his last years and lived as an anchorite at the feet of the Jain saint Bhadrabhau in Shravanabelagola, near Mysore.

Most wouldn’t know that the Bhakti movement was developed in South India during the Pallavas; India’s influence extended to Mecca where Shiva’s black lingam was worshipped by the Arabians.

A few things Hindu critics need to bear in mind: Brahmins may have been the biggest in the caste system but they were poor and didn’t seize political power; “democracy” was long in vogue –even the great Ashoka was defeated in his power tussle with his Council and had to practically abdicate; Indian sculpture was unique for its complete sense of ego-very few of India’s sculptural masterpieces are signed for instance; Hindus always worshipped at non-Hindu places, such as Melngani, the Christian place of pilgrimage of South India; or some Sufi shrine in Kashmir or Rajasthan.

ISLAM AND THE MUSLIM INVASION

The massacres of local populace by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust.

Babur killed hundreds of thousands of Hindus and razed thousands of temples. His ultimate goal was the destruction and the enslaving of the  Hindus; Aurangzeb had the “satnamis of Alwar” massacred to the last one, leaving one entire region empty of human beings: Conquest of Afghanistan in 1000AD was followed by the wiping out of the entire Hindu population—or Hindu Kush (Slaughter of Hindus); Bahmani sultans in Central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 Hindus a year; In 1399, Teimur killed 100,000 Hindus in a single day (and an Indian Bollywood star still considers the name worthy of bestowing it on his son); the last Jihad against the Hindus was waged by the much glorified Tipu Sultan at the end of the 18th century.

As per renowned professor K.S. Lal, Hindu population declined by 80 million between 1000-1525AD.

And how Nehruvian and Marxists adherents view this barbarity?

This is Pt Jawaharlal Nehru: “Mahmud of Ghazni was in the first place a soldier and a brilliant soldier”. Amazing on a man who was proud of desecrating hundreds of temples and made it a duty to terrorize and humiliate pagans.

Historians Romila Thapar, Harbhans Mukhia and Bipin Chandra, once professors at the JNU, are also cited. Sample this from Thapar: “Aurganzeb’s supposed intolerance is little more than a hostile legend based on isolated acts…” Come on Thapar- How can one be so dishonest or so blind?

The author views the flight of Hindus from Kashmir; or of 26/11 in Mumbai as a reminder that the Mughal cry for the House of Islam in India is not over yet.

BRITISH COLONIZATION

Along with misinformation—for example, that India had a wretched education system when in Madras alone there were 125,000 medical institutes before the Whites came—England’s colonization inflicted a terrible toll on lives, industry and culture in India.

Industrially, the British strangled the local industries. They finished products, such as textiles, which had made India famous and a power in the world. Instead, they turned them towards jute, cotton, tea, oil seeds, which Britain needed as raw materials for their home industries.

Britain employed cheap labour for their enterprises and didn’t care for the perishing traditional artisans. And let’s also not forget how English exported Indian labour all over the world in their colonies—whether to Sri Lanka, Fiji, South Africa or to the West Indies.

The author also points out the conversion aims of Christian missionaries. For example, International School of Kodaikanal, under the guise of religious studies, still tries to convert its students, most of whom are Indians.

Accordig to British records one million Indians died of famine between 1800-25; 4 million between 1825-50: 5 million in 1850-1875; and 15 million by 1875-1900.

PRE-INDEPENDENCE ERA

The book hurtles along swiftly on the pre-independence era and make you chuckle under the breath. Till the 19th century, the Congress regarded British rule in India as “divine dispensation”; Quit India was not for India’s independence but because Gandhi refused to cooperate in the Second World War; For all his fight in South Africa, Gandhi achieved “second class citizenship” for the Indians; Islam’s political institutions were semi-barbaric; Sufism is a lift of Gnostics who lived in Persia and influenced by Vedanta; Nehru went for socialism when there was no class conflict in India.

The books asks some serious questions on Kashmir, and on a bigger scale on Islam.

Kashmir once was entirely made up of Hindus and Buddhists before they were converted by the invading Muslims six centuries ago. Even as recently as the advent of the 20th century, there were 25 per cent Hindus in the Kashmir valley. Today the last 350,000 Kashmiri Pandits are refugees in their own land. Author views it as a “much bigger ethnic cleansing than the one of Bosnian Muslims or the Albanians in Yugoslavia.”

There is reflection on so-called human rights violations in the Valley. “If India decides to keep Kashmir, it has to do so according to the rules set by the militants: violence, death and treachery are the order of the day. As for the possibility of referendum, the author foresees a situation where the likes of Farooq Abdullah and Ghulam Nabi Azad could come to power and then be “eliminated” by Jihads who would then hand over Kashmir to Pakistan. Not just Kashmir, but Punjab, Assam, Gorkhaland, Jharkhand and Tamil land all could go in the name of democracy and human rights.

As for Islam, why it’s mentioned as a Muslim-Hindu question when it’s plainly a Muslim obsession, their hatred of the Hindu pagans? The RSS and VHP have never killed anybody, never massacred anybody in the name of their God. It’s an irony that those Hindus whose ancestors were raped, slaved and killed are giving a cry on Islam’s behalf today after being converted to the religion. (Jinnah himself was a descendent of a Hindu, named Jinnahbhai).

There are some related questions too. Did Amnesty International, which question Indian state’s role in Kashmir, bother at all about the support given by the CIA to mujahiddins in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Do Pakistani or Bangladeshi bombers in Hyderabad or Mumbai could function with the help of India’s muslims?

Media is heavily censored. Hindus are killed in pogroms in Pakistan and Bangladesh (read Taslima Nasreen’s Lajja) but their deaths is not worth a tear; while Hindus are colonized, converted and killed, it’s they who are blamed and not those who did the heinous acts.

The final word must go Sri Aurobindo on Islam: “The Islamic culture hardly gave anything to the world which may be said to fundamental importance and typically its own Islamic culture was mainly borrowed from the others.”

Yogendra Yadav hits a new low with his lies

Yogendra Yadav has the cultivated voice of an actor who is dressed up in a kurta-pyjama, made distinctive by his non-use of politicians’ whites. He was part of the troika with Prashant Bhushan and Arvind Kejriwal before the once-mufflerman got rid of them. He has since formed Swaraj India, so anonymous it could challenge an IAS-aspirant in its quiz test.  News networks such as NDTV and India Today are the ones who keep him going. But for some elections, somewhere in India, at any time of the year, Yadav would go unnoticed on a busy street.

I do find him sometimes on The Wire and the Firstpost, slightly amused when he sings paeans in praise of Jignesh Mewani; and definitely irked when he distorts history to run down Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as he did in his edit-piece in the Hindu on Wednesday.

Yadav must be reading from the dubious books of Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib to suggest that since its inception in 1925, RSS has never been part of a national movement. Which national movement sir, the one where we didn’t seek complete independence from British but only sought dominion status? (truth to tell, India was still a dominion to British empire on August 15, 1947).

If Yadav remembers the year of RSS formation, he also ought to have told his readers that it came in the backdrop of Khilafat movement (1921-24) where Muslim leadership was appeased to the extent that Moplah rebellion occurred which butchered thousands of Hindus.

The slaughters were so macabre that this is what Madras High Court noted after the event: “…(these) murderous attack indicate something more than mere fanaticism…the only survivors were those who either got away or were left as dead.”

Yadav then does the cheap act of lampooning Veer Savarkar for seeking mercy from the British in the Cellular Jail of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and thereafter meekly follow the conditions imposed on him. Doesn’t Yadav know that only the most dangerous prisoners were kept in that “kaala paani” jail? That Savarkar, unlike Nehru who was given a bungalow with his choicest curtains and a garden in his jail-term, was a prisoner marked D (dangerous) and went through most unspeakable cruelties: flogged, manacled, made to eat gruel which was riddled with worms?

As for his mercy petitions, it is known to everyone but the fake history peddlers that Savarkar’s clemency pleas were a tactical ploy like Shivaji’s letter to Aurangzeb during his arrest in Agra as he didn’t want his life’s mission to end behind bars.

Yadav would like us to believe that Savarkar went quiet and obeyed British after he was released. In fact Savarkar spent 27 years in jail and under prison-restricts terms between 1910-1937. He helped found the Ratnagiri Hindu Sabha and worked ceaselessly against caste discrimination and untouchability in the years which Yadav terms as “quiet.”

Yadav has a problem with Savarkar and his Hidutva philosophy but wouldn’t tell readers that one of India’s tallest freedom fighter was a self-avowed atheist! He would not mention how Savarkar was wrongly implicated in Mahatma Gandhi’s murder.

Yadav then tars Shyama Prasad Mookerjee for “collaborating” with Britsh during 1942 Quit India stir which he terms as the “biggest anti-colonial uprising.” A view has lately gained ground that “Quit India” was as phoney as “non-cooperation” and “civil disobedience” movement, meant only to vent out the frustration of Indians. Quit India stir was a desperate attempt of Congress which had committed the grave error of resigning from its’ provincial governments in 1939.  Without a say in national politics, and with Muhammad Ali Jinnah and British in alliance, Congress whipped up Quit India just to stay relevant. As soon as it was launched, all of its leaders were put behind bars. Jinnah got a free field to pursue—and finally accomplish—his dream of a Pakistan.

As for RSS playing no role in 1942 Quit India movement, let Aruna Asaf Ali’s words debunk Yadav’s claim. Aruna Asaf Ali had revealed that RSS Delhi sangachalak Lala Hansraj Gupta had given her shelter in his own house during the 1942 Quit India. Prominent Congressmen like Achutrao Patwardhan, despite being a strong critic of RSS, and others were kept safe in swayamsewaks’ homes.  Be it food, safety or in illness, RSS stood like a wall in safeguarding Congress leaders.

Yadav has no qualms in besmirching the reputation of Mookerjee who saved Hindus by championing the cause of Bengal partition after the Muslim League government of Bengal butchered and raped thousands of Hindus in the Great Calcutta Killings of 1946. Mookerjee was the man who set up 5000 relief kitchens during the 1943 Great Bengal Famine of 1943.

Yadav then trains his guns on Nathuram Godse-RSS connection. He would never tell the readers that Godse left RSS because it considered the latter to be a “coward.” As per the Justice Jeevanlal Kapur-headed 1969 Government-appointed Commission report, not only RSS was not involved in Gandhi’s murder but “in Delhi also there is no evidence that RSS as such was indulging in violent activities as against Mahatma Gandhi or top Congress leaders.”

And this man has the gall to call RSS an anti-national. What do you think we should call you Mr Yadav?

Why Muslims owe a lot to Sardar Patel

This is the centenary of the year when Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel first met Mahatma Gandhi and India got its unifier as we know the nation today. His birth anniversary, which falls this week, was all but erased from public memory under the Congress continuance and the media/academia which controlled the public narrative. It’s only now that the man is being pulled out of history’s dusty racks.

History bears testimony how the birth centenary of Sardar Patel on October 31, 1975 was blocked from public consciousness by the dispensation of Indira Gandhi and the media/academia cabal. Contrast this with Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru’s who was festooned all over India in 1989 during his birth centenary.

You have Marxist historian Romila Thapar pointing out Sardar Patel’s role in reconstruction of legendary Somnath Temple after Independence, an act of communal and not secular ideals of India by inference, though how Nehru pushed the passage of the Haj Committee Act in 1959 is better not questioned.

Congress loses no time in terming Sardar Patel as its own, and couldn’t care less about your protest that the “Iron Man” got Bharat Ratna only 44 years after India’s independence. Try telling them that no less than three Nehru-Gandhi icons were decorated with India’s highest civilian award in between (two of them, Nehru and Indira, while they were still alive). A few awardees in between, while Patel was kept in the storeroom, could be suitably embarrassed.

All this while Patel’s has been nuanced into an anti-Muslim persona. Be it agenda-driven websites which have mushroomed lately; the known Left’s stable such as The Hindu/Frontline or NDTV, and mainstream media, Patel’s legacy has suffered in their hands. The man deserves truth even if respect eludes him from the indifferent amongst us. Sardar was no less than Bismarck—but India hasn’t been a match to Germany in gratitude.

The anti-Muslim narrative must seize our immediate attention. BJP has been tireless in pointing out Sardar’s role in India’s unification. It’s been easy for the Indian ecosystem to club the two and project it against Muslims of the country. One, it establishes their “secular” credentials and two, it kind of helps in explaining their willful neglect of the towering Sardar.

Was Patel Anti-Muslim?

The one unethical method the intelligentsia adopts is to take a quote out of its context and use it to buttress its agenda. We have Rajmohan Gandhi writing in “Patel A Life” (P. 426) that “He (Patel) was unquestionably roused more by a report of 50 Hindu or Sikh deaths than by another 50 Muslim deaths.”

Another by Rajmohan Gandhi: “…Patel could not get over his anger against Muslims whom he held responsible for the Partition; they had brought this tragedy not only upon themselves but also on others.”

Patel has been blamed for introducing the Permit system which didn’t allow Muslims to claim their Indian citizenship even if they had gone to Pakistan for a visit after August 15, 1947. He is also burnt at stake for slapping the Evacuee Property Law which meant the absorption of movable and immovable assets of Muslims who chose to leave for Pakistan. In both the instances, it was in retaliation to similar moves made in West and East Pakistan but such logic is usually lost in wilderness.

Quite a few of Sardar’s utterances are cited to hold him guilty of anti-Muslim bias. There is this speech in Hyderabad, just two months before his passing away in 1950, where he said: “I naturally begin to doubt whether Muslims here feel that their future lies in India.” (That his next sentence condemned some Hindus for celebrating Gandhi’s assassination, is studiously avoided). (Chopra, P.N., The Sardar of India, p.150.)

There are these words of Sardar’s in Calcutta (now Kolkata) in January 1948:  “The Muslims who are still in India, many of them helped in the creation of Pakistan…They (now) say why their loyalty is being questioned.”

When Pakistan invaded Kashmir, the same month, he addressed Muslims in Lucknow, thus: “I want to tell you frankly that mere declaration of loyalty to the Indian Union will not help you in this critical juncture…those who want to go to Pakistan can go there and live in peace.”

Contrast these words with the actions Patel took vis-à-vis the minority communities. He was instrumental, as chairman of the committee on minorities and fundamental rights, in allowing Muslims and Christians the right to (a) propagate their religion (b) the right to preserve their language and culture; and (c) the right to run their own educational institutions.(1)

Men like K.M. Munshi and Purushottam Das Tandon, protested that even in the 1931 Karachi session of the Congress, only the “right to profess and practice one’s religion,” and not propagation, had been allowed. But Patel would have none of it. He went by the reasoning of Christian and Muslim members that propagation of faith was central to their tenets. That’s how you have the word “propagate” in Article 25 of the Constitution. (2)

It was also Patel who gifted Muslims and Christians, and other minorities, with Articles 29 and 30, that allowed them the right to pursue their language and culture as well as control their own educational institutions. These rights are enshrined in India’s Constitution. (3)

The first Chief Commissioner of Delhi that Patel appointed was Khurshid Alam Khan. The Inspector General of the Special Police Force was a Muslim and a close confidant of Sardar Patel. In September 1947, Patel had 10,000 or more Muslims shepherded to safety inside the Red Fort. During communal violence he had free kitchens opened for them.

Many senior civil servants and police officers have left a vivid account of Patel’s sense of justice. He once rushed out in person in the middle of a night to save the Dargah of Nizamuddin Auliya. Choudhary Khaliquzzaman writes in Pathway toPakistan (P 395-396) how Patel ordered Section 144 Cr.P.C to save besieged Muslim lives.

It was in the sacred Constituent Assembly, that Patel had thundered: “…a discontented minority is a burden and a danger and that we must not do anything to injure the feelings of any minority so long as it is not unreasonable.” On another occasions he addressed Hindus thus: “If you think that you can go on constantly troubling loyal Muslims because they happen to be Muslims, then our freedom is not worthwhile.”

In 1949, the idol of Ram was installed inside the non-functioning Babri Masjid. Patel lost no time in writing to UP Chief Minister Pt. Govind Ballabh Pant that the mob must not be allowed to take law into its own hands. That the law-breakers must be met with force.

Rajaji wrote thus in “Swarajya” in 1971: “A myth had grown about Patel that he would be harsh towards Muslims. This was a wrong notion but it was a prevailing prejudice.”

In January 1948, Gandhi wrote: “Many Muslim friends had complained to me of the Sardar’s so-called anti-Muslim attitude. I was able to assure the critics they were wrong…the Sardar had a bluntness of speech which sometimes unintentionally hurt, though his heart was expansive enough to accommodate all.”

Thus here we are looking at a man who is more secular than those who employ it as a tool to push their own despicable agenda. Why would you think a man of such generosity and big-heartedness didn’t get his due from the establishment? In one short word: Nehru, his successors and the ecosystem which they spawned in their wake.

No Gandhi but there could be many Godses

This is a reprint from NewsBred.

Nathuram Godse killed Mahatma Gandhi on 30th January 1948. We also know the provocation was Gandhi’s insistence to newly-formed Indian government that Pakistan be paid the obligated Rs.55 crores from the treasury.

Godse’s full statement in his trial was banned for 20 years till the Bombay High Court lifted it in 1968.  It bears a reminder now for both Hindus and Muslims lest a similar communal frenzy overtakes the nation in our lifetimes, abetted by forces who don’t have the interests of Muslims, certainly not of Hindus, and most definitely not of the nation we know as India.

Godse believed Muslims were appeased by Gandhi at the cost of Hindus. He cited several instances such as Khilafat Movement in the early 20s; the move to separate Sind from Bombay presidency in 1928; Mahatma’s “neither support nor opposition” to the Government of India Act of 1935 which allowed elections on communal lines and prepared the way for the horrific Partition; and the Great Calcutta Killingsand Noakhali Riots where lakhs of Hindu men and women paid with their lives and honour.

The Muslim League feared Hindu domination. Hinduphobia was built upon by Jinnah and other leaders of the Muslim League, abetted by British policy of “divide-and-rule.” Gandhi’s desire for a united front of Hindus and Muslims against British never materialized. His doctrine of Ahimsa didn’t work. It only caused rivers of blood to flow in front of his eyes. His turned out to be violent pacifism.

MODERN TIMES: Muslim viewpoint

Fast forward to modern times. Muslims perceive a hostile climate against their lives and food habits abetted by the central BJP government. They don’t stop to question:

(a)if BJP indeed is communal how come it doesn’t react to hundreds of Hindu killings in Kerala and Bengal? Why Advani’s Ayodhya’s rath-yatra was completely bloodless;

(b)How come its first act was to provide new subsidy to Islamic schools;

(c)If BJP indeed was fundmanetalist, how come the most strident Hindu voices such as Arun Shourie and Dr. Subramanium Swamy were never inducted in the Cabinet?

(d)Every time a stray voice, such as Sakshi Maharaj or Jyoti Niranjan go extreme, the government most vehemently come down on it;

HINDU VIEWPOINT

Hindus have their own grouse.

(a)Hindus pride in their religion is termed as “bigotry”;

(b)Hindus can’t come to terms with Ayodhya where Rajiv Gandhi himself had allowed Hindus to worship in 1986 and where all the eminent historians, such as Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib were shown to be manipulating history and archeology by the three-member jury;

(c)Hindus detest when their nose is rubbed on the ground on their cultural sensibility, such as “jallikattu”, “Durga Puja”, “Padmavati” among others;

(d)They feel helpless when the organized intelligentsia of this country (media, academia, Left-Liberals) deny them the platform to air their views. Their viewpoint is never represented;

Above all, Hindus feel that media/Left-Liberals/academics for too long have played the role of British “divide-and-rule” in this country. Fed by foreign money and preachers, missionaries of specific countries of monotheist religions such as Islam and Christianity, every effort is being made to make a pagan religion like Hinduism suffer, and if possible, to disappear.

Englightened Hindus feel aghast that their Muslim brethrens can’t look at the example of the Vajpayee government (1998-2004) and see through this game.

(a)These very same experts had predicted Hindu fascism and that “all Muslims into the Indian Ocean” under the Vajpayee regime;

(b)Despite the Kargil outrage in 1999, Vajpayee stopped the Army to strike across the border at invaders’ base;

(c)It was BJP which had thrown the Indian media market open to foreign media ownership despite the strident opposition by these very forces who today champion the idea of “freedom of speech.”

Hence, I propose a following manifesto for Hindus and Muslims for the safety of their future generations and unity of India (for god’s sake, how many divisions you want, you stupid):

(a)That we are different but we have lived in harmony in the past and we can live in harmony in present and future;

(b)That we would learn our historical lessons and wouldn’t allow India-breakers to play on our fault-lines;

(c)That we would see each other’s point of view on cow-slaughter, such as food habits and religious sensibility and accommodate each other strictly on the laws of the land;

(d)That Hindus would come forward on killings in the name of cow-vigilante and Muslims likewise would question the media’s narrative on Bengal and Kerala as well as constant attempt to denigrate our armed forces;

Above all, our religious moorings shouldn’t be allowed to override our concern for One India, One Unity. A Uniform Civil Code isn’t an attack on Shariat. And if it is, Muslims anyway submit to such rulings in France or Australia. The majority in this country has chosen BJP to lead India’s destiny till 2019 and we ought not to let our communal prejudice or bias interfere in its task.

And certainly not allow these India-breakers a field day. They are desperate and fast losing ground. Their propaganda has no effect on the electorates. India is a virtual heaven in modern comity of nations. Muslims are safer here than in any other non-Muslim country of the world. We shouldn’t become a pawn to a handful of India-breakers who are subsisted, funded and promoted by foreign forces.

Just remember: we can all wear our religious glasses but it must show the horrible future which our children would suffer in times to come.

Jai Hind.