The Congress failed the Hindus of the nation on four fronts: It was solely responsible for vivisection of the Hindu bhumi in 1947;  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;  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;  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, www.vigilonline.com