Thursday, September 29, 2016

Anti-Hindu orientation of the Indian National Congress


The Congress failed the Hindus of the nation on four fronts:[1] It was solely responsible for vivisection of the Hindu bhumi in 1947; [2] Congress beginning with Gandhi refused to acknowledge the political objectives of Islam and Christianity and therefore resolutely refused to see that both Abrahamic cults and their adherents had only one political objective for their religion –to Islamise and Christianise the Hindu nation; [3] the Indian National Congress from after the death of Lokmanya Tilak refused to respect Hindu religious sensitivities - as demonstrated by Gandhi when Bengal’s Hindus were burning in jihadi fire, by Nehru who refused to ban cow slaughter by law and overre-building the Somnath temple; and by all successive Congress governments over Ramjanmabhumi and Ram Setu; Congress refuses even now to respect Hindu sensibilities about the cow and from 1947 has been obdurate in its refusal to make laws protecting the cow and banning cow and cattle slaughter; [4] Congress from the days of Gandhi has subverted the idiom of political discourse on nation and nationhood.

Hindu nationalists hold the Congress and its preeminent leaders during the freedom struggle guilty of inflicting lasting damage to the Hindu nation with their twisted sense of nation which instead of protecting the native Hindu populace, in fact turned against them.

The Congress party’s anti-Hindu ideology is rooted in Gandhi’s whims which were passed off as Congress Creed. Gandhi’s obdurate refusal to see the writing on the wall even after the Muslim League proclaimed that it would settle for nothing less than Pakistan, and the impotence of other leaders in the Congress to marginalise Gandhi in the 1930s decade, caused the vivisection of the Hindu bhumi.

In order that there may be no manner of doubt in any quarter, the Council of the All-India Muslim League reiterates that the attainment of the goal of a complete, sovereign Pakistan still remains the unalterable objective of the Muslims in India, for the achievement of which they will, if necessary, employ every means in their power and consider no sacrifice or suffering too great. (Resolution of Muslim League Council, June 6, 1946, the Transfer of Power, 1942-47, Vol. VII, pp 836-8,CWMG, Vol. 91, Appendix V, page 439)

The Muslim League left no one in doubt about the end objective of the so-called freedom struggle. This was June 1946. “Complete,sovereign Pakistan” could come about only by tearing apart the land of the Hindus. And yet, instead of equipping the Hindus to protect their nation from the imminent threat of vivisection, Gandhi, in December 1946 speaks the language of what will soon evolve into virulent anti-Hindu Nehruvian secularism.

There were some who described the Congress as a Hindu organization. They only betrayed their ignorance of the political history of India. At one time the Hindu Mahasabha was in the hands of the Congress and so was the Muslim League and others. Congress was not a Hindu organization. It did not serve Hindu interests to the exclusion of the other communities. It was hinted that the Congress leaders had come to consult him with regard to the interests of Hindus. Had they done so they would have lowered the stature of the Indian National Congress in the eyes of the world. They had come to consult him as an expert on the Hindu-Muslim question, as to how best to serve the national cause in the present crisis. (Speech at a Prayer Meeting, Srirampur, December 28, 1946. CWMG, Vol. 93, page 207)

Hindu nationalists cannot be faulted for concluding thatrather than “lowering the stature of the Congress in the eyes of the world”, Gandhi,and by default other Congress leaders, chose to partition the Hindu bhumi.

What we had to do was to prevent the Congress from turning into a Hindu communal organization. Anyone who had made India his home should be protected by the Congress. Hindus should never think that Hindustan belonged exclusively to them. (Interview to Deobhankar, My Days with Gandhi, pp 102-4, CWMG Vol. 93, page 124)

And in April 1947, when vivisection of the Hindu bhumibecame a certainty, Gandhi, the self-proclaimed “expert on the Hindu-Muslimquestion” had more pious platitudes for Hindus:

Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we should be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives.None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being.Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India. (Prayer meeting, April 6, 1947, New Delhi, CWMG Vol. 94,page 249)

Because picking up arms to protect the Hindu nation against the explicit threat to create Pakistan in the name of Islam constituted a “ Hindu communal” response, which went against Gandhi’s Handbook for Hindu Ahimsa also known as Congress Creed, Gandhi had remedy for jihad too – Hindus must allow themselves to be killed to the last man, woman and child so that “we die with a smile” to usher a new Islamised India; or Hindus must commit suicide. Die with a smile or be killed said Gandhi, but do not pick up arms to defend yourself,your women or your nation.

Gandhiji advised the women in East Bengal to commit suicide by poison or some other means to avoid dishonour. Yesterday he told the women to suffocate themselves or to bite their tongues to end their lives. But two doctors, BC Roy of Calcutta and Sushila Nayyar had informed him that such means of suicide were impossible. The only way known to medicine for instant self-immolation was a strong dose of poison. If this was so, he, the speaker,would advise everyone running the risk of dishonour to take poison before submission to dishonour. He had, however, heard from those given to yogic practices that it was possible by some yogic practice to end life. He would try and inquire. His was not an idle idea. He meant all he said. (Speech at a Prayer Meeting, New Delhi, October 18, 1946,CWMG Vol. 92, page 355)

Sardar Patel had no use for Gandhi’s prescription to Hindus against jihad in Bengal; and Gandhi was swift to react by shooting off a missive to Sardar Patel. Gandhi used insulting language with deliberate intent to demean and diminish Patel’s tall stature and as signal to the British government and to ordinary Hindus that he remote-controlled the Interim Government. Sonia Gandhi is playing a similar role today in the UPA.

I have heard many complaints against you. If there is any exaggeration in ‘many’, it is unintended. Your speeches tend to be inflammatory and play to the gallery. You have lost sight of all distinction between violence and non-violence. You are teaching the people to meet violence with violence.You miss no opportunity to insult the Muslim League in season and out of season. If all this is true, it is very harmful. They say you talk about holding on to office. That also is disturbing, if true. (Letter to Vallabhbhai Patel, Srirampur, December 30, 1946, CWMG, Vol. 93, pp 211-12)

Sardar Patel, as Gandhi’s letter to him reveals, had exhorted Hindus to fight back and defend themselves and this displeased Gandhi.It is also obvious that such was the general helplessness of the other leaders in the Congress vis-à-vis Gandhi that Sardar Patel instead of standing up to Gandhi and standing by his words, felt compelled to offer a weak defence.

The complaints are false of course and some of them do not make sense. The charge that I want to stick to office is a pure concoction. I was opposed to Jawaharlal’s hurling idle threats of resigning from the Interim Government. They damage the prestige of the Congress and have a demoralising effect on the Services... It is my habit to tell people the bitterest truths...The remark about meeting the sword by the sword has been torn out of a long passage and presented out of context.(Foot-note to Gandhi’s Letter to Vallabhbhai Patel from Srirampur, CWMG Vol.93, page 211)

If Gandhi did not allow Hindus to pick up arms against jihad in 1946, the nation’s perverted political discourse did not grant Hindus of Gujarat the right to pick up arms against jihad in 2002. There have been innumerable Hindu-Muslim riots in post-independence India under several Congress governments but Narendra Modi alone is reviled because he ruled Gujarat at the time when Hindu reaction to jihad unbound itself from the shackles of Gandhi-Nehru imposed impotence.

The Congress did not protect Hindus and the Hindu nation in 1946-47; Nehruvian secularism has failed to protect Hindus and the Hindu nation from jihad in J&K, in Kerala, in West Bengal, in Gujarat, from Pakistan,from the Generic Church and its geopolitics, and from the unfettered right given to the Church for religious conversion.

If Gandhi’s notion, that Hindu women when facing jihad,should bite their tongue to kill themselves was startling, just as startling were Gandhi’s views on Go samrakshana.

The cow was once a sacred religious symbol for Hindus; and that is why cow protection movements during Muslim rule and later colonial rule, were led by Hindu sadhus and sanyasis and powered by Hindus with dharmic sense of responsibility to protect her. The cow is upalakshana or generic for all animals. Go samrakshana is therefore an abiding consciousness of this dharma because the cow’s sacredness protects all animals from abuse.

Protecting the cow was ahimsa in practice if ahimsa is described as voluntary and conscious choice by Hindus not to inflict injury on any voiceless and defenceless being. This ahimsa, as distinct from Gandhian ahimsa was the immeasurably noble concept born and nurtured in Hindu bhumi.

If the cow is stripped of her sacredness, as the Congress has done with each passing year after August 1947, and is seen as nothing more than an animal with great utility in an agricultural country, then people lose all sense of sacredness and eventually nothing is sacred anymore in Hindu bhumi.

This was how Dr. Dharampal described the cow protection movement in the nineteenth century:
Numerous massive protests against this cow-killing have no doubt taken place since 1850, especially the one starting around 1870 by the Namdhari Sikhs (popularly known as the Kukas). A few years later Swami Dayananda Saraswati gave the call for the stoppage of cow-slaughter by the British, and suggested the formation of Go-samvardhani Sabhas. These culminated in becoming a massive India-wide protest from 1880 onwards till 1893.Practically, everybody, in Northern and Central India was a part of this movement and crores of people, including large number of Muslims, participated in it in all possible ways. Many of the Sanyasis from South India spread it allover the country. (Towards banning of cow slaughter in India, unpublished paper by Dr. Dharampal, December 2001-January 2002)

And this is how Gandhi responded in Hind Swaraj to cow slaughter.

Reader: Now I would like to know your views about cow protection.

Gandhi: I myself respect the cow, that is, I look upon her with affectionate reverence. The cow is the protector of India, because it,being an agricultural country, is dependent on the cow’s progeny. She is a most useful animal in hundreds of ways. Our Mahomedan brethren will admit this.

When men become obstinate, it is a difficult thing. If I pull one way, my Moslem brother will pull another... When the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cows increased. In my opinion, cow protection societies may be considered cow-killing societies. (Hind Swaraj, Chapter X, Condition of India:Hindus and Mahomedans)

Gandhi’s views on the Go samvardini societies which sprang up everywhere in the country because of the massive anti-cow killing movement is in sharp contrast to how Dr. Dharampal described them. There is a Gandhi quote for all occasions and there are a few on what Gandhi said about cow protection, like those on what Gandhi said about religious conversion. What matters is what Gandhi actually did for cow protection and in this connection it is pertinent to re-visit Gandhi’s tour across the country to sell Khilafat to Hindus.

Gandhi, who was an active member of the Khilafat Committee,toured the country in the company of the Ali brothers for one month between 1st August and 1st September 1920.

As the ‘Modern Review’ pointed out, “Reading between the lines of their speeches, it is not difficult to see that with one of them the sad plight of the Khilafat in distant Turkey is the central fact; while with the other, attainment of Swaraj here in India is the object in view”.... Dealing with the criticism of the Modern Review in his article in ‘Young India’ for 20th October 1921, Mr. Gandhi said, “I claim that with us both, the Khilafat is the central fact; with Maulana Mahomed Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure safety of the cow,that is my religion, from the Musalman knife.(Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writings and Speeches, Vol. 8, Reprint of Pakistan or The Partition of India, page 151)

The hypocrisy of it! Gandhi persuaded ordinary Hindus(always accompanied by the veiled threat of sacrificing his life) to believe that they must support his call to launch non-cooperation movement for Khilafat in Turkey to protect the cow from the “Musalman knife”. Gandhi’s persuasive argument that he was launching the Khilafat movement as a reciprocal gesture for cow protection should actually mean that Gandhi had some kind of agreement with the Muslim League whereby the Congress would support the Muslims in their campaign to restore the Turkish caliphate and in return the Muslim League would exhort Muslims to give up cow slaughter. Not so; and people who want to pick out quotations from Gandhi for All Seasons must verify if Gandhi backed his words with action.

I submit that the Hindus may not open the Goraksha (cow protection) question here. The test of friendship is assistance in adversary and that too, unconditional assistance. Co-operation that needs consideration is a commercial contract and not friendship... It is the duty of the Hindus, if they see justice of the Mahomedan cause to render co-operation... I do not want to make the stopping of cow killing a condition precedent to co-operation. (Young India, 10th December 1919, as quoted by Dr. Ambedkar Vol. 8, page 153)

Sadly, Gandhi’s hypocrisy on cow protection and his utilitarian theory on cow and its progeny would decide the fate of cow slaughter in the Constituent Assembly and would also strip the cow of all sacredness in the Indian Constitution and subsequently in post-independence national ethos.

The Constituent Assembly which was packed with Congress representatives who were handpicked for the job by Gandhi and Nehru, met under the cloud of jihadi violence across the country following the call for Direct Action. Both Gandhi and Nehru were agreed that the antidote to jihad was to de-Hinduise the nation. Not surprisingly, the Constituent Assembly refused to accord any sanctity to the cow and rejected the suggestion of some members to place cow protection under Fundamental Rights.

The Indian Constitution is a faithful reflection of what Gandhi and Nehru wanted and what they did not want for the country after independence. This ancient civilization which emerged from the evil of alien rule in August 1947 after being torn apart in three pieces was enslaved again by the anti-Hindu polity that replaced British rule.

There is no mention in the Indian Constitution that the cow is a sacred animal for Hindus for whom cow protection is a dharmic responsibility. Instead Gandhi’s utilitarian view of the cow and Nehru’s penchant to clothe everything in “scientific temper” packaged the cow in agriculture and animal husbandry and placed its well being under Directive Principles.

The Constitution did two things – it placed cow protection even in its minimalist form under Directive Principles, so that failure to implement it is not justiciable in any court and then made agriculture and animal husbandry State Subject in the Constitution so that the Indian Parliament can never make any law in this regard without a constitutional amendment which would make cow protection a stand-alone subject on the concurrent list. This is how the Gandhi-Nehru driven Constitution dealt with cow protection -

Article 48, Part IV, Directive Principles of State Policy:Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry
The state shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

The efficacy of packaging the de-sanctified cow in agriculture and animal husbandry is there for all of us to see. Beginning with the Sardar Datar Singh Expert Committee set up by Nehru as an eye-wash in November 1947 to examine the issue of banning cow slaughter after doing nothing to protect it effectively in the Indian Constitution which was even then in the process of being drafted, up until 2012, the country has seen several such expert committees under several Congress governments.

The recommendations of all these expert committees is briefly –
1. Cows and all cattle should be categorised as useful,useless, productive and non-productive
2. Useful animals, milch and draught should not be slaughtered; meaning, if they are old and no longer yield milk and can no longer be employed in the fields or for transport, then slaughter them
3. The country has fodder to feed only 40% of all cow and cattle population; remaining 60% should therefore be slaughtered
4. The hide of slaughtered cows and cattle is better inquality and fetches better price in the export market than hides from animals which die a natural death

But notwithstanding all Nehruvian Congress machinations, the Lok Sabha did debate for two years, in response to a Private Member Bill, the issue of complete ban on cow slaughter. In 1954, when the debate was drawing to a close and the Lok Sabha was on the verge of passing the Bill, Nehru threatened to resign as Prime Minister. Nehru had perfected his politics of blackmail since the days when he had threatened to resign as Prime Minister of the Interim Government in 1946.

Parliament did not stand up to Nehru, and the Indian National Congress let down the Hindus and the Hindu nation yet again. The Bill was withdrawn and slaughtering cows and buffaloes, male and female for the meat and leather industry became entrenched national policy.

A mammoth protest demanding total ban on cow slaughter saw hundreds of thousands of sadhus, sanyasis and dharmic Hindus marching to Delhi on November 7, 1966, demanding total ban on cow slaughter. Indira Gandhi, like Mulayam Singh Yadav later in 1990, and P Chidambaram in June 2011, ordered the then Home Minister to open fire on the protesting sadhus and ordinary Hindu bhaktas. Even this did not deter the Congress then or thereafter from its determination to transform this Hindu civilization which did agriculture as dharma into a beef and meat producing country.

Facts about Congress policy on beef, buffalo meat and other meat production
1.   India continues to slaughter cows, male, female, adult and calves for beef
2.    This country not only continues to consume beef domestically,but was officially exporting beef until 1996. However, we do not know about how much beef, if any at all, is passed off as buffalo meat for export
3.    Beef eating, from being a socially unacceptable and unconscionable bad habit has been elevated to the stature of ‘culture’
4.    In Kerala alone, nearly 4.83 lakh ‘white cattle’, excluding buffaloes, are slaughtered ‘legally’ every year producing 24, 278 tonnes of beef
5.    Three times this figure are actually slaughtered in illegal slaughter houses taking the total production of beef to 72, 834 tonnes
6.    National Commission on Cattle constituted by the NDA government reports that beef production increased from 70,000 tonnes in 1976 to a horrendous 12,16,000 tonnes in 1992 and to 13,78,000 tonnes in 1997
7.     In 2002, when the NCC headed by Dr. Dharampal submitted its report, total meat production in the country was 243,560 metric tonnes of which30% was beef and 30% was buffalo
8.    Of all meat exported from India, 98% is buffalo meat and only 2% is poultry, goats and sheep

The dairy industry driven by the buffalo, because buffalo milk is thicker than cow’s milk, in turn drives the meat industry. Female buffaloes are directed towards dairy while male buffaloes are directed towards meat. And in the end, all buffaloes, male, female and calves and all cows, male and female power the meat and hide industry.

Today India, whose meat export stands at 1.5 million tonnes and is on the threshold of touching 3.5 million tonnes very soon, is already the world’s third largest meat producing country; a fact that should shame us all.Gandhi and Nehru and the Indian National Congress have effectively de-Hinduised this ancient civilization which was not about meat production and meat industry.

The cow has many uses just as the temple and our parents have many uses. But if temples are not sacred and cows and our parents are not sacred in themselves, and if they deserve to be protected only because they have some utility, then the soul of the Hindu nation is already dead. Thanks to the Congress and its regional allies like the DMK, Lalu Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav, the Congress Creed spells not eclipse but the death of the Hindu nation.

Newsroom discussionsover the passing away of Balasaheb Thackeray of revered memory all had onecommon theme - that Balasaheb's most striking characteristic was his bluntspeech which was always politically incorrect. The RSS and BJP which claim aHindu constituency (unless the RSS and the BJP, like Gandhi, disclaim beingHindu in character) should pay close attention to the sea of humanity whichthronged the streets of Mumbai walking with Balasaheb in his last journey.Newsroom pandits could not bring themselves to speak bluntly or put theirfinger unerringly on the spot; the spot being that the sea of humanity walkedwith Balasaheb to the cremation ground because he touched the criticallywounded collective Hindu heart. Balasaheb Thackeray's every word, every actionwas about Hindus, about the Hindu nation. Two million people walking insomeone's last journey is not about Marathi pride alone; this is Marathi prideand Hindu pride. The RSS must not only pay close attention to what ordinaryHindus made of Thackeray, but must ask themselves if they have the same couragethat Thackeray had to be unapologetically Hindu in thought, word and action.Let them begin with deconstructing Gandhi. To the best of my knowledge,Thackeray did not genuflect to Gandhi or Gandhi's memory to legitimisehimself in politics and public life. There is a lesson here for the RSS andNarendra Modi.

The author is Editor, 

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Islamization of Bharat By the Sufis

(This is a reproduction of the booklet “Islamization of India by the Sufis” – by Shri Purushottam. This is the 2nd part of a 3 part series. You can read the 1st part here.)

Shahid Salar Masud Ghazi : The Sword or Quran

Amongst the Sufi saints who wielded the sword, perhaps the name of Shahid Salar Masud Ghazi stands on the top. He was Mahmud Ghaznavi’s sister’s son and had persuaded him to destroy the Somnath temple.
He entered Bharat from the North West with his father and a few thousand cavalry. From the first day, he offered to Hindus-‘Sword or Quran’. His forces swelled as local recruits joined him; and he marched as far as Bahraich (U.P.). The route that he took is littered with tombs and graves of his soldiers and officers who were slain fighting the Hindu forces. These can be recognized by the word Shaheed (martyr) or Ghazi (a slayer of Kaffirs) attached with their names.
Two such graves in Lucknow have recently (post partition) become famous and now attract thousands of Hindu devotees who have contributed most of the money for their expansion and decoration.

Khamman Pir Baba of Lucknow

One of these is known as the Mazar of Khamman Pir Baba at the Charbagh Railway Station, Lucknow. It is awkwardly situated between the Railway lines. One day every week, the normal work of the Railways is entirely dislocated. Thousands of people keep crossing the lines to reach it. This man was a companion of Salar Masud and was killed by Hindus in the battle and buried where he lies today.

Shaheed Quasim Baba of Lucknow

Another grave is that  of Shaheed Quasim Baba near Dilkusha, in Lucknow cantonment. He too was a companion of Salar Masud Ghazi and was killed at the place where his grave exists today. God knows how many Hindus he and his companion ‘saints’ killed for refusing to accept Islam? The news item in Dainik Jagaran, Lucknow dt. 25-07-94 shall therefore always stand a historical monument of Hindu ignorance or political opportunism along with the shrine of Salar Masud at Bahraich, Muinuddin Chisti at Ajmer, Nizamuddin at Delhi and thousands of others who contributed significantly to the Islamization of Bharat.
According to this report, Mr. Moti Lal Vora, then Governor of U.P., after offering the ceremonial chadar at the Mazar of the said Shaheed Quasim Baba told the people gathered there that “The noblest message for the benefit of humanity given by Rishis, Munis and Sufi saints is not confined to any country, religious group or community. Hazarat Shaheed Quasim Baba too, for the liberation of human society , went beyond the narrow boundaries of  religion, community, language and territory when he preached love, unity and humanism. His excellency expressed happiness that the U.P. Chief Minister, Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav had got a road constructed upto the Mazar and provided it with water and electricity supply.
Addressing the same gathering, Mr. Mulayam Singh said that “This 900 years old shrine is worshiped by people belonging to all religions and faiths. This is an excellent example of our Ganga Yamuna composite  culture. It is our determination to fulfil the edict of Shaheed Baba to achieve National integration, communal harmony, mutual love and brotherhood. The cantonment land near the shrine has been transferred to the shrine.
The photographs and news items regarding similar functions at the Mazar of Muinuddin Chisti at Ajmer, and Nizamuddin Aulia at Delhi where our Presidents, Vice-Presidents and Prime Ministers, in order to prove their secularism and great respect for the Islamic faith, flock to offer ceremonial Chadar and gifts, frequently appear in national news papers.
These cruel fanatics who offered only “death or Quran”  to innocent  teachers, peasants, women and children, are presented by Hindu dignitaries as  Rishis, Munis and Saints, excellent example of National Integration and Communal harmony who promoted Hindu-Muslim brotherhood.
How does one explain this phenomenal ignorance, political opportunism or chicanery?
Coming back to Salar Chazi, when he had entered Bharat, the Hindu rules had asked him what was the justification for invading a land without any provocation? Masud had replied in words which should remove any doubts regarding the purpose of such unprovoked invasions by Muslims from across the border. He said : “The land belongs to Allah. He gives it to any one of His slaves whom He wants to favour; my ancestors’ belief is this “ To convert Kaffirs to Islam is a duty. If they refuse, they should be killed.”11
When he reached Delhi fresh reinforcements from Ghazni helped him in defeating Mahipal, the then ruler. A large number of Hindus and Muslims were killed. Masud recruited 5000 to 6000 local mercenaries and crossed the Ganga near Kannauj whose Raja, a vassal of Mahmud Ghaznavi helped him. Masud, continuing his “Islam or death” March reached the holy tank at Satrik in Distt. Barabanki, U.P. where he made his head quarter. From Satrik he sent his commanders in all directions. While bidding them goodbye he said : “We commit you to the care of God. Wherever you go persuade Hindus to accept Islam. If they do, be kind and considerate to them otherwise slay them”.12 Thereafter, they embraced each other and departed on their mission.
The Muslim historian applauds : “What a scene? What a friendship? What a firmness of belief? For the propagation of the true faith of Islam without caring for their personal aggrandizement or safety, to jump into the sea of Kufr.”13
Salar Masud was killed in a battle by the Pasi Raja Suhel Dev, and buried in Distt. Baharaich, U.P. where he died. His body was later on dug up and buried perhaps by Muslim Sultan Mohd. Bin Tughlak in the famous sacred place of Hindu pilgrimage Suraj Kund. The prefix and suffix of Shaheed and Ghazi attached to his name tell  the tale of his life devoted to forcibly converting and killing thousands of Hindus, and ultimately getting  killed in this effort.
Saiyed Athar Abbas Rizvi in his monumental book ‘History of Sufism in India’ (2 Vol.) aptly comments: “To the Hindus who consider him a saint of miraculous powers, the number of their brethren he killed or Islamized was then, as it is now, meaningless.” They worship him! And those, who are unable to travel to the tomb at Bahraich, worship at one of the many symbolic graves scattered from Punjab to Eastern Bengal. These symbolic graves represent events of Salar Masud’s life, and are worshipped with fervor equivalent to that of the one at Bahraich.

Bale Miyan of Nauchandi, Meerut

Mention many be made here of one such important Mazar namely that of Bale Miyan near the famous Nauchandi temple at Meerut (U.P.) It appears that a fierce battle was fought here when the troops of Masud attacked the temple. The Hindus fought and killed the commander and many others. The main grave (perhaps of the commander) has been called the Mazar of Bale Miyan (i.e. Masud), whose real grave is in Bahraich. Small graves nearby appear to be of the Muslim soldiers.  Recently , the Muslim M.P. of the area has spent Rs. 4 Lakhs of secular public money out of  his discretionary grant for development works to construct a hall at the Mazar. The Hindu temple hardly 100 ft. away across the road stands neglected and forlorn because any attempt to add a hall to the Hindu temple will be against the secular character of the Government of Bharat.
Some Sufi orders devoted several years of their lives to the practice of Yoga and ascetic exercises in the wilderness so that the fame of their ability to perform miracles and supernatural feats helped them to convert their Hindu visitors. It is believed that impressed by these stories of actual performance of miracles (and supernatural powers), Hindus became their disciples and ultimately converted to Islam. Not only did they convert many animists, Buddhists and Hindus in Bharat but their activities extended from there to Sumatra and Jawa, converting their Hindu, Bouddh and tribal population to Islam.15
Suhrawardiya, Shaikh Jalalu’d-Din Tabrizi, Makhdum Jahaniyan and his brother, Raju Qattal were some of  the very active propagators of Islam. The sufis trained in the Khanaqah of Shaikh Alaud-Daula Simnani, Mir Sayyad Ali Hamadri and his son and successor, Mir Muhammad, considered the conversion of Hindus to Islam as one of their main objective.16 The extent of Islamization of Hindu Bharat by these Sufis is indeed astounding. In this brief essay, we shall mention only a few cases as  illustrations of their work.
Badauni claims that Shaikh Dawud of Chati converted fifty to a hundred Hindus each day in Punjab and Sindh. Despite Akbar’s prohibition against forced conversion, Shaikh Dawud’s successor, Shah Abul Maali and Sufis in other Qadriyya Khanqahs never hesitated in using force in their proselytizing mission. Even Mulla Shah converted a large number of Hindus to Islam.17
The Rashidiyya Khanqahas of the Qadiriyyas between Jaunpur and Bihar, in areas sparsely populated by Muslims, were more actively engaged in proselytization.
Diwan Abdur Rashid’s disciples and descendants also established Khanqahs through out Bengal. The support given to the Qadiriyya Khanqah of Shaikh Niamatullah Qadiri and his successors by prince Shah Shuja, and later by Aurangzeb, helped to invigorate their proselytizing activities resulting in that area becoming a Muslim majority area.
Shaikh Jalal of Sylhet and his Turistani disciples Khwajagan and the Naqshbandiyyas of Central Asia, some of whom would devote a few years of their lives fighting against kafirs before converting them to islam, were all embedded with missionary fervor. The Sufis of the Shattariyya, Qadiriyya and the Naqshbandiyya orders who began establishing their Khanqahs during the fifteenth century were deeply aware of the proselytizing traditions of their ancestors in Persia and Central Asia, and brought their knowledge to bear upon conditions in Bharat in order to gain converts.18

Bengal to Malwa

They established their Khanqahs from Bengal to Malwa and later on their disciples established Khanqahs as far away as Gujarat.19
There is a similar story of another Sufi Shaikih Jalaulddin Tabrizi. He was living at Lakhnauti in Bengal. There he established a Khanqah and attached many lands and gardens to it. Then he shifted to Devtalla. There a Kafir Hindu or Boddh had erected a large temple and a well. The  Shaikh demolished the temple and constructed a Takiya (Khanqah) over it. He converted a large number of Kafirs (Hindus and Boddhs). However, the Shaikh’s memory is treasured by Hindus and Muslims alike. Dev Talla came to be known as Tabrizabad and attracts large number of pilgrims.
After consolidating the proselytizing work in Bengal Jalaluddin shifted to Badaun in U. P. There also he converted large number of Hindus to Islam.
The credit of Islamizing East Bengal which later opted for Pakistan goes to Sufi orders.
One Raja Ganesh occupied the throne of Bengal in 1409 CE. He sought to establish his authority by getting rid of prominent ulema and Sufis who were creating trouble in the Hindu State. Qutbul Alam Shaikh Nurul Huq wrote to Sultan Ibrahim Sharqi to come and save the Muslims of Bengal. Ibrahim Sharqi responded to the call, and Raja Ganesh finding himself too weak to face the challenge, appealed to Shaikh Nurul Huq, the very person whom he wanted to get rid of, for help. The latter promised to intercede on his behalf, if he became a Musalman.
The helpless Raja was willing but his wife refused to agree. Ultimately a compromise was made by the Raja offering to retire from the world and permitting his son, Jadu to be converted and ascend his throne. On Jadu being converted and enthroned as Jalaluddin Shah, Shaikh Nurul Huq  induced Sultan Ibrahim to withdraw his armies.20
The converted Raja Jadu, now Jalaluddin Muhammad forcibly converted hosts of Hindus to Islam during his reign of seventeen years (1414- 1431). Dr. Wise writes that : “The only condition he offered were : Koran or Death ….Many Hindus fled to Kamrup and the Jungles of Assam, but it is nevertheless probable that more Muhammadans were added to Islam during his reign of seventeen years (1414-31) than in the next three hundred years”. And Barbosa writes that: “It is obviously an advantage in the sixteenth century Bengal to be a Moor (Mussalman) in as much as the Hindus daily become Moors to gain the favour of their rulers.”21 If a Raja of the stature of Ganesh could not face up to the Ulema and the Sufis, smaller Rajas and Zamindars were still worse placed. Petty Rajas and Zamindars were converted to Islam with their wives and children, if they could not pay their revenue or tribute in time. Such practice appears to be common throughout the whole country as instances of it are found from Gujrat to Bengal.22
Contrary to general belief, in place of being kind to the Hindus as saints should be, the Sufis wished Hindus to be accorded a second class citizenship if they refused to be converted. Only one instance, that of Shaikh Abdul Quddus Gangohi (Saharanpur U. P.) need be cited because he belonged to the Chishita Silsila considered to be the most tolerant of all Sufi Groups. He wrote letters to Sultan Sikandar Lodi, Babur and Humayun to re-invigorate the Shariat and reduce the Hindus to payers of land tax and Jiziyah. To Babur he wrote. “ Extend utmost patronage and protection to Ulema and mystics (Sufis)…that they should be maintained and subsidized by the state. No non-­Muslim should be given any office…further more, in conformity with principles of the Shariat, they should be subjected to all types of indignities and humiliations.”23 The list of atrocities committed upon the Hindus for forcing them to convert to Islam, is endless.

(To be continued in the next part)


11. Elliot and Dowson : History of India by its own Historians Vol.II; p-534.
12. Ibid
13. Ibid
14. Athar Abbas Rizvi : A History of Sufism in India Vol. I, p-314
15. Ibid, p-427
16. Ibid, Vol.- II, p-426
17. Ibid, p-427
18. Ibid, p-426
19. Ibid
20. K.S. Lal : The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India, p-202
21. Ibid, p-234
22. Ibid, p-236
23. Ibid, p-237

भारत विखंडन – द्रविड़ और दलित मामलों में पश्चिम का हस्तक्षेप

भारत विखंडन – द्रविड़ और दलित मामलों में पश्चिम का हस्तक्षेप

यह किताब (भारत विखंडन/Breaking India) पिछले दशक के मेरे उन तमाम अनुभवों का नतीजा है जिन्होने मेरी शोध और बौद्धिकता को प्रभावित किया है। ९० के दशक  की बात है,  प्रिंसटन विश्वविद्यालय के एक अफ्रीकन-अमरीकन विद्वान ने बातों बातों में ज़िक्र किया कि वे भारत के दौरे से लौटे हैं जहाँ वे ‘एफ्रो-दलित’ प्रोजेक्ट पर काम करने गए थे।

तब मुझे मालूम चला कि यह अमरीका द्वारा संचालित तथा वित्तीय सहायता-प्रदान  प्रोजेक्ट भारत में अंतर्जातीय-वर्ण सम्बन्धों तथा दलित आंदोलन को अमरीकन नज़रिए से देखने का प्रकल्प है । एफ्रो-दलित पोजेक्ट दलितों को  ‘काला’ तथा ग़ैर -दलितों को ‘गोरा’ जताता है। 

अमरीका के जातिवाद, दासत्व परंपरा तथा काला-गोरा सम्बन्धों  के  इतिहास को यह प्रकल्प सीधे सीधे भारतीय समाज पर अक्स कर देने की योजना है । हालांकि भारत में नए जाति समीकरणों और उनके आपसी द्वन्दों ने मुद्दतों से दलितों के खिलाफ एक अलग मनोभाव पैदा कर दिया है लेकिन इसके बावज़ूद इसका अमरीका के ‘दासत्व-इतिहास’ के साथ दूर दूर तक मुक़ाबला नहीं किया जा सकता। अमरीकन इतिहास से प्रेरित इस एफ्रो-दलित प्रोजेक्ट की कोशिश दलितों को दूसरी जातियों द्वारा सताए गए- ऐसा जता कर उनको एक अलग पहचान और तथाकथित सक्षमता प्रदान करना है।

अपनी तौर पर मैं ‘आर्य’ लोगों के बारे में भी अध्ययन कर रहा था- ये जानने के लिए कि वे कौन थे और क्या संस्कृत भाषा और वेद को कोई बाहरी आक्रान्ता ले कर आए थे या ये सब हमारी ही ईजाद और धरोहर हैं ,इत्यादि। इस सन्दर्भ में मैंने कई पुरातात्विक ,भाषाई तथा इतिहास प्रेरित सम्मेलन और पुस्तक प्रोजेक्ट्स भी आयोजित किये ताकि इस मामले की पड़ताल में गहराई से जाया जा सके। इसके चलते मैं ने अंग्रेज़ों की उस ‘खोज’ की ओर  भी ध्यान दिया जिसके हिसाब से उन्होंने  द्रविड़-पहचान को ईजाद किया था- जो असल में १९ वीं शताब्दी के पहले कभी थी ही नहीं और केवल  ‘आर्यन थ्योरी’ को मज़बूत जताने के लिए किसी तरह रच दी गयी थी । इस ‘द्रविड़-पहचान’ के सिद्धांत को प्रासंगिक रहने के लिए “विदेशी आर्य” के सिद्धांत का होना और उन विदेशियों के कुकृत्यों को सही मानना आवश्यक था।

उस दौरान मेरी नज़र बराबर भारत को  दी जा रही चर्च की वित्तीय सहायता पर भी थी। ‘बेचारे’ बच्चों को खाना-कपडा दे कर, पढाई के अवसर दे कर “बचाइए” (‘सेव’) जैसे विज्ञापन-अभियान काफी जोर- शोर से प्रचारित किये जा रहे थे और  ये वित्तीय सहयता भी उसी दिशा में मांगी/दी जा रही थी । सच पूछिए तो मैं भी जब बीस-पच्चीस का था और अमरीका में रह रहा था तब मैं ने भी दक्षिण भारत में इन अभियानों से प्रेरित हो कर एक बच्चे को प्रायोजित किया था। लेकिन अपनी भारत यात्राओं  के दौरान मुझे अक्सर ऐसा लगा कि जो धन इकठ्ठा किया जा रहा है, वह जो मुद्दा बताया जा रहा है उसमें कम और लोगों के धर्मानतरण और उनका मन बदलने में ज़्यादा इस्तेमाल किया जा रहा है ।

इसके अलावा मैंने अमरीका के प्रबुद्ध मंडलों, स्वतंत्र विद्वानों,मानवाधिकार संगठनों तथा बुद्धिजीवियों  के साथ भी उनके हिसाब से भारत के ‘अभिषप्त’ होने और इसे उनके ‘सभ्य’ (civilized) करने के ‘प्रयासों’ के मुद्दे पर भी तमाम बहसों मैं हिस्सा लिया। “कास्ट (जाति) काउ (गौ) और करी (शोरबे दार व्यंजन)” मेरा ही गढ़ा हुआ मुहावरा है जिसका उद्देश्य था कि उन लोगों की कोशिशों को उजागर किया जाये जो भारत की सामाजिक और आर्थिक समस्याओं का विचित्र और सनसनीखेज चित्रण करते हैं और इन समस्याओं को “मानवाधिकार” के मुद्दे के तौर पर उठाते हैं ।

मैंने तय किया कि इस तरह के तमाम सिद्धांतों के रचने और प्रचारित करने वाले प्रमुख संगठनों पर नज़र रखी जाये और उन संगठनों की भी ट्रैकिंग की जाये जो मानवाधिकार-उल्लंघनों के नाम पर राजनीतिक दबाव बना रहे हैं और अन्ततोगत्वा भारत को  दोषी क़रार देने का कार्य कर रहे हैं ।

मैंने इस प्रकार की वित्तीय सहायता और इसकी पूरी ‘चेन'(कड़ी) की पड़ताल की। उनके तमाम संस्थानों को बांटी गयी विज्ञापन सामग्रियों का अध्ययन किया, इनके  तमाम सम्मेलनों को, कार्यशालाओं को और प्रचार प्रकाशनों को भी देखा-समझा । मैंने इस सब के पीछे जो लोग हैं उनके बारे में और उनके सम्बन्ध कैसे और किन संस्थानों से हैं,  इसकी भी पड़ताल की । जो मुझे पता चला वह हर उस भारतीय को-जो भी देश की अखंडता के लिए समर्पित है- चौंका देने वाला था ।

मुझे पता चला कि एक बड़े वर्ग के लिए भारतवर्ष एक मुख्य लक्ष्य है । यह एक ऐसा  नेटवर्क (जाल) है जिसमे संस्थानों, व्यक्तियों और चर्चों का समावेश है और जिसका उद्देश्य भारत के कमज़ोर तबके पर अलहदा पहचान, अलहदा-इतिहास’ और एक ‘अलहदा-धर्म’ थोपना है।

इस प्रकार की संस्थाओं के गठजोड़ में केवल चर्च समूह ही नहीं, सरकारी संस्थाएं तथा संबंधित संगठन, व्यक्तिगत प्रबुद्ध मंडल और बुद्धिजीवी तक शामिल हैं । सतही तौर पर वे सब एक दूसरे से अलग और स्वतंत्र दिखते हैं लेकिन मैंने पाया है कि असल में उनका तालमेल आपस में बहुत गहरा है और उनकी गतिविधियाँ अमरीका तथा यूरोप से नियंत्रित की जाती हैं और वहीँ से उनको काफी वित्तीय सहायता भी प्राप्त होती है । इनके इस गहरे गठजोड़ और ताल-मेल ने मुझे काफी हद तक प्रभावित भी किया । उनके सिद्धांत, दस्तावेज़, संकल्प और रणनीतियां बहुत सुलझी हुयी हैं और दलितों/पिछड़ों की मदद करने की आड़ में इनका उद्देश्य भारत की एकता और अखंडता को तोड़ना है

इन पश्चिमी संस्थानों में कुछ बड़े ओहदों पर इन दलित/पिछड़ी जाति (जिन्हें तथाकथित रूप से एमपावर (empower) किया जा रहा है) के कुछ भारतीयों  को स्थान दिया गया है – मगर इसका पूरा ताना बाना पश्चिमी लोगों द्वारा ही सोचा समझा व नियोजित और फण्ड किया गया था । हालांकि अब और बहुत से भारतीय लोग और NGOs इन ताक़तों के सहभागी बनाए गए हैं और इन लोगों को पश्चिम से वित्तीय सहायता और निर्देश मिलते रहते हैं  ।

अमरीका तथा यूरोपीय विश्वविद्यालयों में दक्षिण एशियाई अध्ययन में इस तरह के  कार्यकर्ताओं (ऐक्टिविस्ट्स, activists) को नियमित तौर पर आमंत्रित किया जाता है और उन्हें वहां प्रमुखता दी जाती है । ये वे ही संस्थान हैं जो खालिस्तानियों, कश्मीरी उग्रवादियों, माओवादियों तथा इस प्रकार के विध्वंसक तत्वों को आमंत्रित  कर वैचारिक मदद तथा प्रोत्साहन देते रहे हैं ।

इसके चलते मुझे यह संदेह हुआ कि ये भारत के  दलितों/द्रविड़ों तथा अल्पसंख्यकों की सहायता वाली बात कहीं कुछ पश्चिमी देशों की विदेश नीति का हिस्सा तो नहीं है – प्रत्यक्ष रूप से न सही पर परोक्ष रूप में सही  ! मुझे भारत के अलावा एक भी ऐसे देश की जानकारी नहीं है जहाँ (भारत की तरह) स्थानीय नियंत्रण/जांच के बिना इतने बड़े स्तर पर गतिविधियाँ बाहर से संचालित की जा रही हों।

तब मेरी समझ में आया कि भारत में अलगाववादी तकतों के  निर्माण में इतना कुछ खर्च सिर्फ इसलिए किया जा रहा है ताकि यह अलगाववादी विचार अंततोगत्वा एक बेरोकटोक आतंकवाद में बदल जाए जिससे भारत का राजनीतिक विघटन संभव हो सके !

शैक्षणिक -जोड़ तोड़ और उससे सम्बंधित/जनित आतंकवाद श्रीलंका में साफ़ तौर पर  सबने देखी ही है – जहाँ कि कृत्रिम गई अलगाववादिता ने कितने भयावह गृह युद्ध की शक्ल ले ली  । ऐसा ही अफ्रीका में भी हुआ जहाँ विदेशी-नियोजित पहचान संघर्ष (identity crisis आइडेंटिटी क्राइसिस) ने कितना खतरनाक जातीय/धार्मिक नरसंहार का रूप ले लिया ।

तीन साल पहले ही इस लगातार मेहनत के फलस्वरूप मेरी शोध सामग्री अच्छी खासी बन चुकी थी ।  अधिकतर भारतीयों को यह पता ही नहीं है कि विनाशकारी ताक़तें देश तोड़ने में लगी हैं, और मुझे लगा कि इस शोध सामग्री को सुव्यवस्थित करना चाहिए और विस्तृत रूप से लोगों को समझाना चाहिए और इस पर वाद-विवाद के अवसर होने चाहिए। मैंने तमिलनाडु स्थित अरविंदन नीलकंठन के साथ मिल कर काम करना शुरू किया- जिसमें मेरे विदेशी शोध-आंकड़े तथा भारत में हो रही सही गतिविधियों के  ताल -मेल से काम किया जा सके।

यह किताब (भारत विखंडन/Breaking India) द्रविड़- आंदोलन तथा दलित पहचान की  ऐतिहासिकता पर नज़र डालती है और साथ ही साथ उन ताक़तों को भी संज्ञान में लेती है जो देश में इन अलगाववादी पहचानों को बढ़ावा देने में कार्यरत हैं। इस किताब में ऐसे लोगों, संस्थाओं और उनके इस दिशा में कार्यरत होने के  कारणों, क्रियाकलापों और उनके मूल ध्येय का भी समावेश है। ऐसी शक्तियां ज़्यादातर  अमरीका और यूरोपीय  देशों में हैं लेकिन इनकी संख्या भारत में भी बढ़ने लगी है – भारत में इनके संस्थान इन विदेशी शक्तियों के स्थानीय कार्यालय की तरह काम करते हैं।

इस किताब का उद्देश्य सनसनी फैलाना या किसी प्रकार की भविष्यवाणी करना नहीं है । इस किताब का उद्देश्य भारत और उसके भविष्य के  बारे में सार्थक बहस की शुरुआत करना है । भारत के आर्थिक रूप से सक्षम होने और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय तौर पर उसके रुतबे के बारे में तो बहुत कुछ लिखा जा चुका है लेकिन उन अंदेशों के  बारे में -जो कि इस सफर के दौरान हो सकते हैं -बहुत कम लिखा गया है, ख़ास तौर पर जब भारत विखंडन की कई योजनायें (जिनका पर्दाफाश इस पुस्तक में किया गया है) तेजी से आगे बढ़ाई जा रही हैं । मेरी उम्मीद है कि इस अंतर को यह किताब कुछ हद तक कम करेगी।


राजीव मल्होत्रा एक शोधकर्ता, लेखक और वक्ता हैं । उनसे संपर्क करने के लिए-:
फ़ेसबुक: RajivMalhotra.Official
ट्विटर: @RajivMessage