Monday, January 30, 2017

Padmavati: Growing Intolerance towards Hindus in Bollywood

Padmavati: Growing Intolerance towards Hindus in Bollywood

The appeasement of Muslims and growing intolerance towards Hindus in Bollywood is well known to many. From Taimur to Bajirao and Raees to Padmavati, the Bollywood community tries to justify all the attacks of Jihadists on Hindus. On the other hand it also doesn’t hesitate in ridiculing the Hindu community and its practices with films like PK and plays the victim card by raising its concern over growing intolerance in the country whenever someone speaks against these activities.
So recently, when Sanjay Leela Bhansali, who is one of the well-known directors of Bollywood, was attacked for allegedly distorting the history of Islamic attacks on Hindus in Bharat one more time, the Bollywood community came out pledging their full support to him along with the liberal Hindus and jihadists. So what really is the story of Padmavati? Why was Sanjay Leela Bhansali attacked unlike the previous films where he distorted history using the characters of Bajirao and Mastani? Let us have a detailed analysis over this issue.
Maharani Padmavati or Padmini, was the consort of Rawal Ratan Singh who was the 42nd ruler of Mewar. The praise of Padmini’s beauty spread across the nation during that time and hence it reached the ears of the Sultan Alauddin Khilji who is regarded as a sex maniac for his lust for both men and women.
One of the best examples of Khilji’s lust is his sexual relationship with his General Malik Kafur. Kafur was originally a Hindu warrior who was arrested by Khilji’s army when they conquered the city of Khambat. When the arrested Kafur was taken to Khilji’s darbar at Delhi, he was struck so much by the effeminate beauty of Kafur that he castrated him, converted him to Islam and kept him as his sex slave by offering him the post of General in his army.
Khilji on hearing about Padmini’s beauty embarked on a trip to Mewar in order to have a glimpse of her. Padmini, knowing about the nature of the Sultan, at first refused to come in front of the Sultan but on the advice of her husband, Ratan Singh, she agreed to allow Khilji to have a glimpse of her through a mirror. Khilji after seeing her was struck by her beauty and waged a war on Mewar to make Padmini his own. The Rajputs of Mewar fought valiantly against Khilji’s army but were defeated as they were heavily outnumbered. Padmini, refusing to become a sex slave of Khilji, like many other women in his harem, jumped into the pyre and committed Jauhar in order to save her honour from Khilji’s lust.
Recently, Sanjay Leela Bhansali announced that he was going to make a film on Padmavati, where Deepika Padukone playing the role of Padmavati will be shown along with Ranveer Singh playing the role of Alauddin Khilji. This created huge outrage among the people of Rajasthan, who still celebrate Padmini’s brave act of committing Jauhar in order to save her honour, as they felt showing Rani Sa romancing Khilji in any way will be an act of maligning her honour. Despite such concerns, Bhansali went to Rajasthan and commenced the shooting of this film at Rajasthan. This created further outrage among the Rajputs who went to the shooting spot and slapped Bhansali for trying to malign a woman’s image by allegedly distorting history.
After this incident, the whole Bollywood industry started playing the victim card, claiming this incident as the rise of Hindu terrorism, a narrative that quickly garnered support from the communists and other anti-Hindu sections of the population. Some started claiming that films must be independent from such pressure, for it is a field of art which can be used to portray problems currently existing in the society, and distorting history in the films is not a big deal for it’s ‘only a film’.
The one question from Hindus like me to these people is, why were they silent over the ban on the release of  “Sambhaji 1689” which shows the torture experienced by the son of Chhatrapati Shivaji Mahraj, Sambhaji Raje on his imprisonment by Aurangzeb. That film unlike Padmavati presents accurate historical facts where it shows the pressure applied by Aurangzeb on Sambhaji and his companion Kavi Kalash, who was also captured, to convert to Islam.

On their refusal, Aurangzeb ordered for their execution by torture. This included plucking their tongues and eyes, peeling their flesh etc. Finally, the brave ambassadors of Dharma were killed by the tearing of their body using Wagh Nakh (tiger’s claw). Certain accounts also state that their remains were fed to dogs while others say that their bodies were cut into many small pieces and thrown into a river.
If the Bollywood gang didn’t protest the ban on this movie as their muslim friends say it is a distortion of their version of history (Mughal records don’t speak about the torture which Sambhaji had to go through, but they simply say he was beheaded for not accepting the supremacy of Mughals), then why are they exhibiting double standards in supporting Bhansali’s version of Padmavati? Are they trying to indirectly state that secularism for them means denying those rights to Hindus which are granted to others?
Hindus, unlike monotheists, are peaceful and tolerant towards others despite suffering from gory persecution at the hands of monotheists in the past. Considering the exodus and riots which Hindus have suffered from, making them migrate from their homelands, why doesn’t Bollywood portray the plight of Hindus in Muslim-majority areas like Kashmir, Kairana, Dhulagarh, Malda etc.?
There was also a section of people which claimed that Jauhar must not be celebrated for it was the pressure of a patriarchal society which made those women jump into fire, instead of living out their life. So do these people mean to say that repeated rape of a woman is a simple act which can be easily endured, and committing suicide instead of facing such a living hell is an act of patriarchy? Was this the thought which was instrumental in the juvenile accused of the Nirbhaya case being granted a sewing machine as well as some thousands of rupees, for him to rebuild his life? If yes, they why do these liberals make such a huge outcry and state that women are not safe in Bharat? If no, then what makes them say such contradicting statements? Is it their blind hate for Hindus and their traditions, for Hindus are the last of the surviving pagans who resist the beliefs of monotheists?
It is high time that Hindus start identifying such backstabbers in their society and boycott such films which not only mock Hindu traditions, but also dishonour a woman’s memory by humanizing the barbarian who was responsible for her act of Jauhar.
Disclaimer: This article represents the opinions of the Author, and the Author is responsible for ensuring the factual veracity of the content. HinduPost will not be responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information, contained herein.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Demographic coup of Islam: Agony of Hindu Civilisation

R K Ohri

India faces a major demographic upheaval. The sharply rising Muslim numbers, both in absolute and percentage terms, and a corresponding decline in the population of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists has the potential to escalate fault-line conflicts and create a Lebanon-like situation. Data from the last six censuses held since 1951 suggests that in percentage terms there has been a relentless increase in the population of only one community, the Muslims; all other communities are in a declining mode. Since 1981, Muslim population growth has been in a fast forward mode, growing at almost 45% higher rate than Hindus and Christians. In terms of percentage, Sikh population has recorded the steepest decline since independence.

Census 2001 put the decadal growth rate of Muslims at around 36%, while Hindu growth rate declined from 23% to 20%. On the eve of the Maharashtra Assembly elections, an unseemly political controversy was manufactured by the government on the ground that since no census had taken place in J&K in 1991, the conclusions drawn in terms of Census 2001 data were faulty. This led to a very clumsy fudging of Census 2001, by omitting from the census 3.67 crore people living in Jammu & Kashmir and Assam, States having high Muslim population.

In 1981, no census could be held in Assam due to disturbed conditions, but that did not result in any political ruckus, nor was fudging of census data done at that time because no elections were due then. The most extraordinary aspect of this fudging of the population profile was the deletion with retrospective effect of population data of these two sensitive states from every Census held since 1961 – something never done before in any democratic country.

In a lucid article, professional demographers, late P.N. Mari Bhat and A.J. Francis Zavier, wrote that “the fertility of Muslims, which was about 10 per cent higher than that of Hindus before independence, is now 25 to 30 per cent higher than the Hindu rate”. This means the Muslim population is now growing at a rate nearly 45% higher than that of Hindus.

The authors added that the assertion in a section of English media that Census 2001 had revealed a higher reduction in the growth rate of Muslims than Hindus was incorrect. The decline in Hindu growth rate was higher at 12.2% as against 10.3% decline in Muslim growth. Fast growth of Muslim population, especially in non-Muslim countries, is a global phenomenon, they averred.

There is no truth in the assertion that higher Muslim fertility was due to poverty or illiteracy. Since 36% Muslims live in urban areas, as against only 26% Hindus, and as Muslims have a higher life expectancy at birth than Hindus, logically their fertility should have been lower than Hindus. But Muslim fertility continues to be higher despite their greater urbanization and lower incidence of infant and child mortality. Within 7-8 years, the gap between the longevity of Hindus and Muslims has widened to 3 years, i.e., 68 years for Muslims as against only 65 years for Hindus [National Family Health Survey of 2005-2006].

Acceptance of family planning by Muslims is lower at least by 25 percent than Hindus and other Indic communities. Late Mari Bhat and Francis Zavier highlighted the fact that in non-Muslim countries there is a general trend towards higher growth rate of Muslim populations.

According to the National Family Health Survey-2 of 1998-99, in Kerala where the literacy level of the two communities was almost equal (and due to large remittances from Gulf countries Muslims are economically better off than Hindus), the growth rate of Muslims remained much higher than Hindus by almost 45 percent. Analysis of Census 2001shows that on an average every Muslim woman is giving birth to at least one more child than her Hindu counterpart.

Indians must understand the mindboggling import of Statement 7 of Census 2001 Religion Data Report (page xlii) which gives the religion-wise breakup of children in the 0-6 year age group. It shows that the percentage of 0-6 year old Muslim cohorts (a term commonly used in demographic parlance) is 21% higher than Hindu cohorts. This gives Muslims an advantage of 7.6% over Hindus as and when these cohorts enter reproductive age, say roughly between 2012 and 2016.

This gives a vital clue to the demographic crisis likely to engulf India anytime after 2011 or latest by 2021. These 0-6 yrs old cohorts (enumerated in 2001) will become reproductively active between 2012 and 2016 and continue to reproduce for the next 30-40 years. With a 21% higher cohort population and at least 25 percent less acceptance of family planning, the growth in Muslim population during the next few decades is likely to become even more fast-paced.

The Census 2001 Religion Data Report further reveals that among all religious groups, the Muslim population of 0-6 year cohorts was highest at 18.7%. The lowest percentage was seen among Jains (10.6%) and Sikhs (12.8%). In coming years, the percentage increase in the population of these two religious groups, important components of Indic civilization, will be slower than the growth recorded in Census 2001, and their share in the population will decline further, possibly at a faster pace.

In terms of percentage increase, the biggest quantum jump in Muslim population in coming decades will occur in Haryana where the ratio of Muslim cohorts is almost 60% higher than Hindu cohorts! Next in descending order registering fast Muslim growth will be Assam, West Bengal, Uttaranchal, Delhi, Nagaland and Bihar.

A further analysis of 0-6 year cohorts’ data reveals that out of 35 States and Union Territories listed in Statement 7, the percentage of Muslim cohorts was higher than Hindu cohorts in as many as 31 States and UTs. The percentage of 0-6 year Hindu cohorts was marginally higher than Muslims only in Sikkim and Madhya Pradesh and the UTs of Daman & Diu and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. In coming decades, Muslim population will grow at a higher rate than that of Hindus in 31 States and Union Territories.

Statement 7 of Census 2001 Religion Data Report is self explanatory and vividly depicts the looming shadow of future demographic changes across India.

Trapped in a suicidal cult of political correctness, most Indian intellectuals refuse to understand the reasons which prompted former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to advise all British couples to opt for the 5 children norm. Incidentally, his wife Cherry Blair gave birth to their fourth child while her husband was Prime Minister. Indeed, in recent years many European countries have announced liberal cash bonuses to couples who opt for more children. Peter Costello, Australia’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, urged every couple to have at least 3 children, preferably more – “one child for father, one for the mother and one for the country”.Apprehensive of population growth in Indonesia, Peter Costello announced an incentive of 2000 Australian dollars for every child born after June 2004. Many keen observers of global population trends like Niall Ferguson, Bernard Lewis, Robert Costello, Bruce Bawer and Mark Steyn are alerting their countrymen to the threat posed by demographic changes to their civilisational values.
India has many bleeding heart liberals who will ask why this global panic? The answer is that in 1900, Muslims constituted only 12% of the world population; they grew to 18% in 1992-93 (when Huntington published his first thesis on clash of civilizations). Today Muslims constitute 24% of global population. Samuel Huntington pointed out that by 2025, they will constitute 30% of world population. [Source: Spangler, The Decline of the West].

According to some demographic estimates, Muslims might constitute 37% to 40% of world population by 2100 AD. In recent years the number of jihads worldwide has also multiplied; Thailand is the latest entrant to the growing list of jihadi conflict zones.

In India, the Hindu birth rate is fast approaching the European average. According to Census 2001, the decadal Total Fertility Rate of Hindus of Kolkata district (West Bengal) was barely 1.0%, much lower than the birth rates of Germany, Italy and Spain. In Kerala too the Hindu TFR at 1.64 is below the replacement level of 2.1in 2001.

Kerala has witnessed a massive increase in Muslim population from approx. 23,75,000 in 1951 to 78,64,000 in 2001. During the same period the population of Hindus grew from 83,48,000 to 1,79,2000, while that of Christians increased from 28,26,000 to 60,57,000. During the last five decades the Hindu percentage in Kerala’s population declined from 61.61 to 56.28, while that of Muslims rose from 17.53 to 24.70 percent. The percentage share of Christians declined from 20.86 in 1951 to 19.02 in 2001.

The Indian middle class and opinion makers must grasp the long term consequences of the demographic crisis. In a different context, while analyzing socio-economic aspects of   Census 2001, demographer Ashish Bose estimated that in 49 districts Muslims already constitute more than 30% of the population. A back-of-the envelope calculation made in the light of Muslim growth rate in the last two decades shows that Muslims will attain majority status in all these 49 districts between 2091 and 2111, perhaps even earlier.
According to a study published by the Centre for Policy Studies, around 2061, the total Muslim population of the sub-continent (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, counted together) will exceed the total Hindu/ Sikh population. This could lead to a fierce struggle for supremacy in the sub-continent.
This is already visible in the chorus for more unmerited concessions for Muslims. The Sachar Committee admitted, perhaps unwittingly, that by 2101 Muslim population in India will be around 32 to 34 crores. It was 13.8 crores in 2001 and barely 3.77 crores in 1951.

In recent times, there have been strident demands by Muslim leaders for greater share in jobs and elected bodies. In 2006, Mohammad Azam Khan of the Samajwadi Party called for carving a Muslim Pradesh out of Western UP, instead of a Harit Pradesh advocated by the Rashtriya Lok Dal.

A similar demand to create four or five Muslim-dominated enclaves was voiced by Dr. Omar Khalidi in an interview published in The Times of India, New Delhi, June 2004. He later wrote in The Radiance, mouthpiece of Jamaat-e Islami. He was assiduously following the roadmap for another partition of India. Advocating the creation of Muslim-dominated enclaves in the Mewat region of Haryana, certain parts of UP, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, Dr. Khalidi demanded reservations for Muslims on the pattern of Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

The late Dr. Khalidi was in the forefront of the lobby seeking proportionate representation for Muslims in various services, especially in the defence services and para-military forces. He and G.M. Banatwala of the Muslim League are believed to have indirectly used the Sachar Committee as a medium to mount political pressure for seeking jobs for Muslims in proportion to their growing population in government departments, especially the defence and para-military forces, besides greater representation in Parliament and State legislatures.

Muslims are fully aware of their future empowerment through sharp growth in their numbers. Many have started pushing the claim to disproportionate political power in India. Sometime ago when Amethi MP Rahul Gandhi visited Aligarh Muslim University, a student asked him how soon he visualized a Muslim becoming Prime Minister of India. Obviously, the battle lines are being drawn for another politico-religious conflict in India.

In conclusion, it would be in order to recall late P.N. Mari Bhat and Francis Zavier’s analysis that the fertility of Muslims was about 10% higher than that of Hindus before independence and is now 25 to 30% higher than the Hindu rate. Hindus have lost considerable ground since 1947. Yet no Hindu political or spiritual leader has tried to rouse the millions of ill informed Hindus about the looming threat of demographic decimation of their ancient faith and civilisational values.

The writing on the wall is clear. The Christians of Europe and Hindus of India have pushed themselves to the edge of suicide by failure to understand the dynamics of demography in this age of adult suffrage. Russian demographers describe the rampant recourse to abortion by their countrymen in quest of the small family norm as ‘do it yourself genocide’.

The author is a retd. Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh
Courtesy: Vijayvaani.

Sunday, January 8, 2017

What is Hinduism – II

From this it is clear that what governs a revealed religion is not God but the founder who claims to be God’s intermediary. (The clergy acting in the founder’s name becomes the enforcing authority or the thought police.) A believer is one who accepts the intermediary as the savior. God is irrelevant. He is even dispensable but not the intermediary who is all-important.

Hinduism recognizes no intermediary as the exclusive messenger of God. In fact the Rigveda itself says: ‘ekam sat, vipra bahuda vadanti,’ meaning “cosmic truth is one, but the wise express it in many ways.” The contrast between exclusivism and pluralism becomes clear when we compare the following statements by Krishna and Jesus Christ.

Krishna of the Bhagavadgita says: “All creatures great and small— I am equal to all. I hate none nor have I any favorites… He that worships other gods with devotion worships me.” Jesus of the Bible says: “He that is not with me is against me.”

This means that Krishna has no favorites and accepts all forms of worship - even worship of other deities. But revealed religions like Christianity and Islam could not exist without favorites or intermediaries like the Prophet or the Son of God. The Bible says that God is jealous. Reflecting the ‘jealous God’ of the Bible, the chosen intermediary is also jealous.

This is reflected in both the Bible and the Koran. “He that is not with me is against me,” says Jesus of the Bible (Matthew 12.30). So a devotee cannot know God, but can only go through the intermediary who jealously guards his exclusive access to an equally jealous God.

Hinduism is the exact opposite of this. Anyone can know God and no jealous intermediary blocks his way. And the Hindu tradition has methods like yoga and meditation to facilitate one to know God. Further, this spiritual freedom extends even to atheism. One can be an agnostic or even an atheist and still claim to be a Hindu.

In addition, there is nothing to stop a Hindu from revering Jesus as the Son of God or Muhammad as a Prophet. In contrast, a Christian or a Muslim revering Rama or Krishna as an avatar would be rejected as a heretic. This is also what makes Christianity and Islam exclusive, and Hinduism pluralistic and inclusive.

From this it is also clear why revealed religions always claim to be monotheistic: One God allows only One Intermediary. So every monotheistic religion also tends to be monopolistic. It also requires a thought police to enforce this belief system, just as every earthly dictator does. So they invariably become theocratic political systems. In contrast, in Hinduism, God is internal to the seeker. As a result each seeker has his or his own version of God. Different traditions like Dvaita, Advaita and others represent different pathways. They exercise no authority and there is no clergy to enforce.

Hinduism and spiritual freedom

So the single most important theme of Hinduism is the freedom of the spirit. Just as science insists on freedom in exploring the physical world, Sanatana Dharma embodies freedom in the exploration of the spiritual realm. There are no dogmas or prophets - or their agents - to block the way. This allows Hinduism, like science, to grow and evolve with time. Dogmatic religions on the other hand are frozen in time. (In fact, a good deal of the effort by the priesthood in Islam and Christianity is to ensure that the original teachings do not become corrupted due to change.)

This freedom of spirit is most concisely expressed in the famous Gayatri Mantra, which prays: dhiyo yo nah pracodayat - which means, “Inspire our intellect.” So the greatest prayer in Hinduism is for clarity of thinking. It does not ask anyone to accept anything on blind faith in a prophet or any other agent of God. Teachers in Hinduism are only guides who suggest pathways. They have no authority. The seeker has to find his or her own way, with the help of guides if needed.

In the light of this, ‘conversion’ to Hinduism entails accepting a way of looking at the world and not simply changing faith and adopting a new mode of worship. Above all it means acknowledging spiritual freedom and rejecting exclusivism. It is like accepting the scientific method, which also is a way of looking at the world. It cannot be done by force or with promises of profit.

As a result, it is a very great error to say that all religions say the same thing. They emphatically do not. When Krishna says, “Those who worship other gods with devotion worship me,” and Jesus says, “He that is not with me is against me,” they are not saying the same thing.

A Hindu is one who recognizes this difference - and the code founded on the principle of everyone’s right to spiritual freedom, while Christianity and Islam reject and even punish this freedom. The method of worship and the deity or deities one may choose to worship are secondary as long one acknowledges everyone’s right to this freedom and is prepared to defend it. So the only enemies of Sanatana Dharma are those that oppose spiritual freedom.

Swami Vivekananda on a-paurusheya: “Our philosophy does not depend upon any personality for its truth. Thus Krishna did not teach anything new or original to the world, nor does Ramayana profess anything which is not contained in the Scriptures. It is to be noted that Christianity cannot stand without Christ, Mohammedanism without Mohammed, and Buddhism without Buddha but Hinduism stands independent of any man, and for the purpose of estimating the philosophical truth contained in any Purana, we need not consider the question whether the personages treated of therein were really material men or were fictitious characters. The object of the Puranas was the education of mankind, and the sages who constructed them contrived to find some historical personages and to superimpose upon them all the best or worst qualities just as they wanted to, and laid down the rules of morals for the conduct of mankind. ”


Sabhar from Vijaya vani and the writer Mr NS rajaram

What is Hinduism – I

Many Hindus, including some who see themselves as leaders and thinkers are stumped when asked to describe what they see as the essential features of Hinduism. This being the case, it is not surprising that young people should be confused— mistaking ritual and traditional practices for the essence. What is given here is a rational description that does not rest on the beliefs and practices of any sect.

The first thing to note is Hinduism cannot be viewed as religion deriving its authority from a book or the teachings of a founder: these are just sects. The appropriate term for what we now call Hinduism is ‘Sanatana Dharma’. It is not a creed like Christianity or Islam, but a philosophic system that has spiritual freedom as its core. Any path that accepts the spiritual freedom of everyone may be considered part of Sanatana Dharma. It has no national or geographical boundaries. Unlike Mecca for Islam and Jerusalem for Christianity, any land in any country can be the Holy Land for Hindus.

Hinduism is anadi (beginning-less), apaurusheya (without human founder)

The basis of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma is the quest for cosmic truth, just as the quest for physical truth is the domain of science. The earliest record of this quest is the Rigveda. Its scripture is the record of ancient sages who by whatever means tried to learn the truth about the universe, in relation to Man’s place in the cosmos. They saw nature — including all living and non-living things — as part of the same cosmic equation.

This search has no historical beginning. This is not to say that the Rigveda always existed as a literary work. It means that we cannot point to a particular time or person in history and say: “Before this man spoke, the Rigveda did not exist.” On the other hand, we can say this about Christianity and Islam, because they are historical religions.

This brings up another important facet of Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism: it is a-paurusheya, which means it is not originate in any man (purusha). That is to say it has no historical founder like Christianity has Jesus Christ and Islam has Prophet Muhammad. We can say that Jesus is the purusha of Christianity while Muhammad is the purusha of Islam. These religions cannot exist without their founders. Christianity and Islam are therefore paurusheya. Hinduism has no such purusha on whose authority it exists.

Hinduism is a-paurusheya in a deeper sense also, which brings it close to science, and brings its spiritual quest close to the scientific method. In paurusheya religions, the word of the purusha (founder) - be it Jesus or Muhammad - must be accepted without question. This gives rise to an enforcing authority known as the clergy to ensure that no one deviates from the ‘true path’ as shown by the founder, but in reality as dictated by the human representative who claims to be the true spokesman of the purusha. He is the enforcing authority of the true faith.

This naturally leads to men exercising political power in the name of God. This is what we call theocracy. The authority is the scripture, which is said to represent the word of God as conveyed through his medium (the Purusha). In this scheme, the medium invariably becomes more important than God. For example, it is Jesus not his God that defines Christianity. Also, the sacred book becomes also the law book in the hands of its enforcers.

Hinduism on the other hand leaves the individual free from any religious authority. If any work is considered great, it is because of its merit and not because of the authority of the author. Similarly, a teacher is considered great because of the greatness of the teaching. For example, Vishwamitra is considered a great sage because of the greatness of the Gayatri Mantra, which he enunciated. If someone else than Vishwamitra had given us the Gayatri Mantra, it would still be considered great because of its message. It is the same with Krishna and the Gita. It is the message of the Gita that has led to people revering Krishna as a great teacher. Also, a Hindu is free to question or reject any part or all of a religious work.

It is different with revealed religions like Christianity and Islam: Jesus and Muhammad are invoked as authority to justify teachings that sometimes cannot be justified on their own merit. No such authority exists in Hinduism: the teaching must stand or fall on its own merit. This is what makes it a-paurusheya. Cosmic truths existed before the arrival of Vishwamitra and Krishna. These sages, who first expressed them, were historical persons but the truth of their message is eternal and always existed.

This feature— of focusing on the message and its truth rather than the authority of the source brings Sanatana Dharma close to science and the scientific method. In science also, a principle or a theory must stand or fall on its own merit and not on the authority of anyone. If Newton and Einstein are considered great scientists, it is because of the validity of their scientific theories.

In that sense, science is also a-paurusheya. Gravitation and Relativity are eternal laws of nature that existed long before Newton and Einstein. These are cosmic laws that happened to be discovered by scientific sages Newton and Einstein. But no one invokes Newton or Einstein as authority figures to ‘prove’ the truth of laws of nature. They stand on their own merit. The same is true of the Gita and the Gayatri Mantra.

Hinduism recognizes the freedom of the individual. It recognizes no prophet’s claim as the possessor of the ‘only’ truth or the ‘only’ way.

This is probably the greatest difference between Sanatana Dharma and revealed religions like Christianity and Islam. One can see this in a recent proclamation by the Vatican. In a document titled “Declaration of Lord Jesus” the Vatican proclaims non-Christians to be in a “gravely deficient situation” and that even non-Catholic churches have “defects” because they do not acknowledge the primacy of the Pope.

This of course means that the Vatican refuses to acknowledge the spiritual right of others (including Hindus) to their beliefs and practices. It consigns non-Christians to hell; the only way they can save themselves is by becoming Catholics and submit to the Pope. It also makes the Pope more important than both God and Jesus.

It is worth noting that this statement has nothing to do with God, or noble conduct. A non-Christian who lives a life of virtue is still consigned to hell because he refuses to acknowledge Jesus as the only savior and the Pope as his representative on earth. The same is true of Islam: one must submit to Prophet Muhammad as the last, in effect the only prophet, to be saved. Belief in God means nothing without belief in Christ as the savior or Muhammad as the Last Prophet.

One who believes in God but does not accept Jesus or Muhammad as intermediary is still considered a non-believer and therefore a sinner. They simply do not tolerate pluralism. This is what makes both Christianity and Islam exclusive. The rejection of this formulation is also what makes Hinduism pluralistic and tolerant.

(To be concluded…)

Sabhar from and author

Marathas & Bundelkhand- I: Chhatrapati Shivaji and the Rise of Chhatrasal Bundela

Why do the Bundelas till date hold Chhatrapati Shivaji in high regard? The answer can in the 1660s, when Chhatrasal Bundela met Chhatrapati Shivaji.

चमक उठी सन सत्तावन में, वह तलवार पुरानी थी,
बुंदेले हरबोलों के मुँह हमने सुनी कहानी थी,
खूब लड़ी मर्दानी वह तो झाँसी वाली रानी थी।।

These words by Subhadra Kumari Chauhan have immortalised the tale of Rani Laxmibai. But the Rani of Jhansi was named Manikarnika Tambe prior to her marriage to Raghunath Hari Newalkar, the ruler of Jhansi. But how did Marathi surnames like Tambe and Newalkar end up being so important in faraway Bundelkhand? Why do the Bundelas till date hold Chhatrapati Shivaji, Bajirao and of course Rani Laxmibai in high regard?

The answer to this is to be found in a nearly two hundred year long history, beginning in the 1660s, when Chhatrasal Bundela met Chhatrapati Shivaji.

Chhatrasal Bundela, the son of Champat Rai, a Bundela chief, was born in 1649 AD. Champat Rai had already risen against the Mughal Empire in the 1640s and had fought a long war spanning over fifteen years. His son Chhatrasal was only twelve years old, when Aurangzeb attacked Champat Rai and the latter was killed in one of the ensuing battles at Sahre in Malwa. The incident left an indelible mark on Chhatrasal Bundela.

A few years later, in 1665, Chhatrasal Bundela and his brother Angad joined the armies of Mirza Raje Jai Singh and Diler Khan, who had been sent by Aurangzeb to attack Shivaji. The young Chhatrasal Bundela saw this as an opportunity to earn a name for himself and provide for himself.
He was present in the famous siege of Purandar, (May 1665) fighting among the troops of Mirza Raje Jai Singh. It was around this time that he began to realise that his support of Aurangzeb was morally incorrect, and that Chhatrapati Shivaji’s stance was the correct one. Whether he met Shivaji during this siege is not certain. Nevertheless, Mirza Raje Jai Singh praised his bravery and recommended his name to Aurangzeb, who happily granted Chhatrasal, a mansab of 250. Chhatrasal Bundela was then sent with Diler Khan to attack Deogarh. The young Bundela, his conscience pricking him to take up the sword against the Mughals rather than for them, escaped from the camp and made his way to the Deccan, where he met Shivaji.

The meeting is a monumental event in India’s history. It laid the foundations of Hindu rule in Bundelkhand – a pivotal and strategically very important province.

The content of what Maharaja Chhatrasal said to Shivaji is brought out beautifully by Lal Kavi (actual name Gorelal Purohit) in Chhatraprakash.
Chhatrasal Bundela said

पिता हमारे सुबा दोडे I तुर्कन पर अजमेय खांडे
तिन चम्पती के नंद हम, ससि नववाई काहि
हम भूले सियो वृथा, हितु जानी कै वाहि
एड एक शिवराज निबाही I करे अपने चित कि चाही
आठ पातशाही झुक झोरे, सुबनी बांधी डआंड ले छओरे I
ऐसे गुण सिवराज के I बसे चित में आई
मिलिवोई मन में धन्यो I मनसी मत जो बनाई I

Loosely translated it means: “My father (Champat Rai) ravaged the province and rose against the Turks (Mughals). But his three sons have not been able to live up to his ideals. Only Shivaji has been able to follow what is correct and do what his heart says. Eight rulers have been defeated by him. 

“I am much inspired by these deeds of Shivaji. Hence I want to meet Shivaji and obey whatever is asked of him.”

Chhatrasal Bundela intended to join the growing armies of Chhatrapati Shivaji, but Shivaji gave a beautiful reply, in which he tried to stir Chhatrasal’s patriotic feelings for the liberation of his own Bundelkhand from tyrannical Mughal rule. He wanted Chhatrasal Bundela to free and work for the prosperity of his rayat in Bundelkhand, rather than just be a sardar in the Maratha army in the Deccan.

Shivaji’s reply is also found in Lal Kavi’s Chhatraprakash –

सिवा किसा सुनि कैकही तुमि छत्री सिरताज
जीत अपनी भूम को, करो देश को राज
करो देश को राज छतोरे, हम तुमतै कबहुं नाही न्यारे
दैरी देस मुगलानको मारो, दबटी दिली के दल संहारौ I
तुरकन की परतीत मानो I तुम केहार तुरकन गज जानो
तुरकन में ना विवेक विलोक्यो I मिलन गये उन्हे तुम रोकयो I

Translation: Chhatrasal, you are like the crown jewel of kshatriyas. You should fight and win back your lands and rule over them. I am not different than you. Fight and defeat the Mughals. Make their armies run away. Do not trust the Turkis (Mughals). You are a lion, and the Turks are elephants. They are untrustworthy, you go to meet them, they will put hurdles in front. 

Thus, inspired by Chhatrapati Shivaji, Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela returned to his Bundelkhand. Then began the long struggle to liberate Bundelkhand from the despotic rule of the Mughals. It is said that Chhatrapati Shivaji also granted Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela, a sword.

Chhatrasal Bundela started by capturing a few weakly guarded Mughal outposts in eastern Bundelkhand, and as a result, his followers and soldiers grew in number. He then attacked the larger Mughal forts such as ones at Gwalior, Sironj, Chitrakut, Mahoba, Kalinjar, etc. Between the years 1668 and 1678, more than a dozen battles were fought by Chhatrasal Bundela against Mughal faujdars, such as Randaullah Khan, Hashim Khan, Fidai Khan, etc. Save one, he emerged victorious in each and every one of them.

A Mughal mansabdar named Jaswant Singh was then sent to subdue Chhatrasal Bundela, and he did succeed in defeating Bundela and make him submit to Aurangzeb’s suzerainty. But by 1686, Chhatrasal Bundela was once again attacking the Mughals in Bundelkhand.

By this time the Maratha – Mughal War was in full bloom, and the cream of the Mughal army, along with the emperor himself, was away in the Deccan. Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela made full use of this god given opportunity and ferociously attacked the Mughals.

Although in 1696, he once again accepted the superiority of Aurangzeb, a mere four years later he was once again on the battlefield – fighting against Mughal soldiers. The fort of Kalinjar was soon captured, as were large parts of Banda, Hamirpur, Jhansi, Jalaun, Kalpi etc. (1702, 1703). In fact at one point his influence stretched to the Narmada itself.

Nemaji Shinde, ancestor of the famous Shindes or Scindias of Gwalior, ravaged Mughal ruled Malwa with help from Chhatrasal Bundela! Thus, continuing the thread picked up forty years ago!
At the time of Aurangzeb’s death in 1707, Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela governed a huge tract of land in Bundelkhand, comprising of various forts such as Sagar, Kalpi, Jhansi, Orccha, Sironj, Chitrakut etc. He also held the huge diamond mines at Panna, which brought him great wealth.

The influence of Prannathji Maharaj:

Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela met his guru Prannathji at Mau near Panna in 1683. A parallel can be seen between this and Chhatrapati Shivaji meeting Samarth Ramdas. Meeting between Vidyanaranya Swami and Harihar I (founder of Vijayanagar Empire) is another similar example. Maharaja Chhatrasal belonged to the Pranami Sampraday as a result of the influence of Swami Prannathji and his worldview, as also his views regarding religion.

In 1707 Aurangzeb died, bringing to an end, the long war in the Deccan. The Mughal Empire collapsed, unable to hold itself together. And Maharaja Chhatrasal Bundela reigned over his kingdom, which he had so painstakingly gained from the Mughals.

It would be another twenty years before the Marathas found themselves once again in the thick of politics of Bundelkhand. And at the centre of the storm would be the Peshwa himself – Bajirao Ballal.

1. Shivaji – The Great Maratha by H. S Sardesai
2. Chhatraprakash by Lal Kavi (Gorelal Purohit)
3. Masir e Alamgiri
4. Life and Times of Chhatrasal Bundela by B.D Gupta
Disclaimer: The facts and opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. IndiaFacts does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article.
Aneesh Gokhale is the published author of two books. His second book “Brahmaputra” is about Lachit Barphukan , the Assamese contemporary of Chhatrapati Shivaji. His articles on Maratha and Assamese history have appeared in various online and print media. He has also given public talks on a dozen occassions.

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Indian National Congress – More Loyal Than The King!

Formation of Congress was a well thought of plan of the British invaders to make this class of Brown Sahibs propagate a favourable opinion of British rule and act as effective deterrents of unfavourable opinion or possible revolt.

Ask any Indian and he or she will most certainly confirm that the early history of the Indian National Congress is “The History of the Freedom Movement”. This belief is a result of the reinforced narrative that paints the Indian National Congress as the pivot of the Indian Independence struggle. The reality is different. Congress, from its founding, was interested in securing the permanence of British  rule  in  India.  For a few senior Congress leaders, Swaraj meant self-restraint while other  congress stalwarts believed that if  the British were to leave India, we would  call them back before  they reached  Aden?[1]. The post-independence myth-making around the Indian National Congress needs to be re-examined.

In 1835, Thomas Babington Macaulay talked about forming a class who would be interpreters between the British and the millions whom they governed ;a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.[2] The picture and the quote that has been doing the rounds on Social Media might not be correct in its entirety, but this statement which is from the recorded Minute on Indian Education (English Education Act, 1835) is for sure true!

Indian National Congress – Set-up by British Viceroy to Prevent Indian Revolt

The Idea of Congress was first propagated by Alan Octavian Hume as a social gathering of elite Indians exposed to the West on account of their English Education. In his speech on the origin and aims of the Congress, Hume clearly explained that

by getting hold of the great lower middle class before the development of the reckless demagogues to which the next quarter of the century must give birth and carefully inoculating them with a mild and harmless form of the political fever, we are adopting the only certain precautionary method against the otherwise inevitable ravages of a violent and epidemic burst of disorder… Congress was designed to limit and control the forces which Western education and ideas had let loose before they would burst into a revolution”[3]

Hume did not want equal rights for Indians and supported a resolution barring Indians from bearing arms and argued that his memory of the Mutiny would never allow him to support such a resolution. [4]

Commenting on the formation of the Congress in its 4th session 1888, WC Banerjee, the co-founder of Congress, revealed that it was founded by the British viceroy Lord Dufferin who had shared this idea with A .O. Hume. Lord Dufferin had made it a condition to Hume that his name behind the formation of Congress ought not to be revealed.

It will probably be news to many that the Indian National Congress, as it was originally started and as it has since been carried on, is in reality the work of the Marquis of Dufferin and Ava when that nobleman was the Governor-General of India.  Lord Dufferin had made it a condition with Mr. Hume that his name in connection with the scheme of the Congress should not be divulged so long as he remained in the country, and his condition was faithfully maintained and none but the men consulted by Mr. Hume knew anything about the matter..[5]
  • In 1880, Lord Baring, the Secretary to the Viceroy of British India, had stated,“We shall not subvert the British Empire by allowing the Bengali Baboo to discuss his own schools and drains. Rather shall we afford him a safety-valve if we can turn his attention to such innocuous subjects”[6]
  • In 1883, Viceroy Lord Ripon remarked that western educated Indians had to be shown a carrot and turned into collaborators by offering them outlets to satisfy their personal ambitions
“No longer was Indian educated class to be disregarded, dallied with, and depressed, because if they became convinced that such was the Government’s intention toward them and Parliament’s pledges, they would turn their faculties and talents against the Government and excite in the minds of the masses the same discontent which seethed in their own.” He thought that it was wiser to acknowledge the new class as a political reality in British-Indian society, to trust and encourage its leaders, and “by timely foresight, take steps to supply the legitimate outlets for those aspirations and to satisfy those ambitions consistent with the maintenance of British authority”[7]
  • In 1886, Sir Henry Harrison expressed a similar sentiment in the following words
Repress the educated natives, their ambitions and then aspirations and you tum them into a solid phalanx of opposition against the Government; gratify their ambitions, and you make them the allies of the Government.”[8]

‘Loyal to the Crown’ Indian National Congress Wanted Eternal British rule

In the first session of INC in 1885, in his presidential address,W. C. Bannerji described the Congress as the “National Assembly of India”, that would pro­mote Indian national unity by projecting common interests of Indians from a single platform. He argued that although the participants of the first Congress were not  elected in the same manner as the members of the House of Commons, they were nevertheless the selected representatives of the major provin­ces and towns of India, and could therefore claim to be the repre­sentatives of the people of India. He asserted that they were following a course which was modelled on the English constitution, which justified the representation of their views. He concluded by emphasising that Congressmen desired the permanence of British  rule in India, and that their ultimate aim was only to gain a share in the administration of its government.[9]

Congress Grateful to the Raj for Dispelling Darkness of Hindu Polity & Asiatic Despotism

In the second congress meeting in 1886, it credited the British with the formation of India. In his presidential address, Dadabhai Naoroji rhetorically asked if anyone could have imagined that a meeting of Indians from different parts of India could assemble to speak as one nation even in the most glorious days of Hindu rule. This, he went on to say, was possible under British rule and under British rule only. He attributed the very existence of the Congress to England’s providential
mission, declaring that “the people of England were sincere in the declara­tions that  India was  a sacred  charge  entrusted  to  their  care by Providence and that they were bound to administer it for the good of India, to the glory of their own name and the satisfaction of God.He stressed that Congressmen were “loyal to the backbone” to the British Government because they appreciated the benefits of English education which revealed to them that “kings are made for the people, not people for their kings”-a lesson which they have learnt “amidst the darkness of Asiatic despotism only by the light of English civilization.”[10]
The congress newspaper Bengalee declared in 1897-“United India is the soundest triumph of British rule, a crown of glory to the British Government.”[11]

Congress Propagated that the British rule Strengthened Prosperity

In 1887, a few Englishmen who were witness to the third session of Congress recorded that the  Congress pledge talked about served royalty to British rule until the sun, stars and moon exist. Remember Jab Tak Sooraj Chand Rahega! A cover letter to the report of the third Congress, dated May 1888 and signed by W. C. Bannerji, Dadabhai Naoroji and Badrudin Tyabji, as presidents of the three Congress sessions, explained that  the Indian people as a whole and their leaders in particular were loyally bound to the British Government and were convinced that the granting of their demands would increase the strength of the Government as it would add to the prosperity of the people. In the very same report, the Congress alluded to itself as “the soundest triumph of British administration and the crown of glory to the British nation.[12]”

In his presidential address to the fourth Session of Indian national congress in 1888, Surendra Nath Bannerji Prayed  “God grant that the future may deepen our loyalty, stimulate our patriotism and consolidate our imperial connection with England[13]”.

Speaking in Calcutta on 26 July 1888, he declared: “Deep and unswerving loyalty to the British Crown and constitutional agitation for our rights are the words which are graven on the heart of every Indian patriot[14].”

In England, he explained that by the “introduction of English education and Western principles of government, British rule had saved India from her traditional system of mis-government and from the religious domination of her priestly class[15]”

In his introduction to the fourth annual Report of the Congress, 1888 W.C. Bannerji wrote: the principle on which the Indian National Congress is based is that British Rule should be permanent and abiding in India.”

In 1908, when Viceroy Lord  Hardinge asked Congress president Gokhale “How would you like it, if I were to tell you that all the British officials and British troops were to leave India within a month?” Gokhale replied ,”Before you had all reached Aden, we would be telegraphing you to come back again.”(Hardinge lord, My indian years, london, 1948, P.116)

Congress for Rights of English Educated Indians;Not ‘Ignorant Peasants’

In its Report of the fourth l.N.C. Allahabad 1888, p. 29. Congress put forth a resolution emphasising that it sought “neither a parliamentary system, nor representative government, nor the application of democratic methods to Indian institutions.” Explaining the proposals of the Congress for the reform of the Legislative Councils at the twelfth annual meeting of the Indian Association in 1888, Bannerji asserted that the proposed Councillors could not be elected by “people unfit to exercise the franchise— the ignorant peasantry· of the country[16]”

Congress Called the Racist British as ‘Kshatriyas’

In 1888, senior Congress leader Surendra Nath Bannerji, in his capacity as president of Congress delegation to London, stated, “To England we may appeal with confidence. When Italy was struggling for liberty, England stretched the right hand of sympathy. When Greece was endeavouring to assert her right place among the nations, England was there, the foster mother of freedom responsive to the call. We are not Italians or Greeks. We are something better. We are British subjects[17].”
INC session convener Ananda Charlu, in 1891, told Congressmen they should arouse the national consciousness of the masses by imparting the conviction that they should cease to regard British rule as foreign, and “ask them to look upon our British rulers as taking the place once held by the Kshatrias and as being therefore part and parcel of the traditional administration” of India [18].
While addressing few English people on the programme of the Congress, S N Bannerji frankly explained that Congressmen could only be loyal because “We have everything to lose, ·nothing to gain by the severance of our connection with England. We owe whatever position or prestige we have acquired to our English education and culture. If you were to leave the country our English education and culture would be at a discount. We are not particularly anxious to ·commit political suicide.
In an interview, Bannerji explained the character and goal of the Congress while emphasising that the Congress sought only a partial share in the administration of the government and said: ” The National Congress as a crude non-official Parliament would keep alive the feeling of loyalty. We want to be associated with our rulers not to supersede them . . . we want you English here, we cannot do without you; We have a great reverence for our own traditions leavened by English feelings. We want to combine our ancient good with your good. All we ask: for is sympathy, sympathy, sympathy.[19]”

Indian National Congress indulged in Minority Appeasement to Stay Relevant

History seems to indicate that appeasement of minority to further its own agenda is not alien to Congress. When Syed Sayyed Ahmed Khan asserted that the Congress aimed to advance the exclusive interests of the Hindus, promoting civil war and advised Muslims to hold themselves aloof from “this political uproar”-i.e. the Congress, it elected Badrudin Tyabji to the presidency of the third Congress in December 1887 at Madras. This was designed to demonstrate that the Congress was also representative of the Muslims. Tyabji stressed this point in his presidential address and declared that he was moved to preside over the session in order to encourage Muslims to co-operate with Hindus for their common benefit. In 1887, the INC also paid the fares of Muslim delegates  to attend its session and offered them other facilities. The much done to death Ganga Jamuni tehzeeb seems to be a legacy of the INC as well, for, Surendra Nath Bannerji, INC President from 1886 to 1900, would claim that throughout the period of Muslim rule in India, Hindus and Muslims had lived as brothers who worked jointly for the advancement of the interests of their common country.

Indian National Congress –  A One Man Dictatorship!

The following rules governed the proceedings of the Congress:
  1. On any point of order the decision of the President was final and thereupon no further discussions were allowed.
  2. None but the delegates could address the Congress or vote in any manner.
  3. Every delegate had to address the assembly from the speakers’ platform and his address could be cut short by the President.
  4. The Subjects Committee formulated all the resolutions and selected the proposers, seconders, and supporters of each resolution.[20]
In 1902, Kayastha Samachar wrote of congress autocracy -“It ill becomes those who protest so loudly against the despotism of the Indian Government, to set up over their followers a despotism no less unbearable and to resort to unconstitutional methods.” In November 1902, Senior Congress leader Pherozeshah Mehta overturned the nomination of democratically elected member Kalicharan Bannerji to nominate Surendranath Bannerji to the presidency of the Congress. Reacting to it, Lal Mohan Ghosh declared in his presidential address to the INC session 1903  that since the  whole aim of the Congress was to liberalize the autocratic Government of India, it was essential for the leaders of the Congress to themselves refrain from autocratic rule of the Congress.
Another nationalist freedom fighter, Lala Lajpat Rai ridiculed the Congress as an annual festival of English-educated Indians who assembled in order to amuse themselves and to increase their fame by “uttering plausibly worded platitudes in the shape of speeches.” He mocked the dress of the well-to-do delegates and condemned the lavish decorations and furnishings of the Congress pavilions as an unjustified extravagance. He argued that this gave cause to Englishmen in India and in England to point to the prosperity of Indians under British rule and to negate the deliberations of the Congress on the poverty of India.

Congress’ Contempt for Freedom Fighters

In the INC session of 1898 , chairman Subbarao Pantulu observed : “Today the elite of India’s leaders, prosperous in their profession, respected by their fellow-countrymen, meet year after year to strengthen the foundation of the same rule which in 1857 ignorant and misguided people tried to overthrow.. so long as the Congress would last, the events of 1857 would not occur again[23]”. In 1897, the Congress newspaper Bengalee referred to the editor of the Marathi paper Pratoda , who had advocated for Indian home rule, as a “lunatic[24]”. Senior Congress leader, Sir Surendra Nath Bannerji, in his autobiography  alluded to Queen Victoria, the “Empress of India“ in terms of “Our Sovereign“ and “Our Mother”[25]. Furthermore, he referred to British invasion and conquest of India as “dispensation of divine providence”[26]
Formation of Congress was a well thought of plan of the British invaders to make this class of Brown Sahibs propagate a favourable opinion of British rule and act as effective deterrents of unfavourable opinion or possible revolt. While paying lip service to their Indian heritage, the Indian National Congress remained avowed admirers of Western hegemony and English culture. It’s aim was not India’s swarajya but continued subjugation..
1) Hardinge lord, My Indian years, London, 1948, P.116
2)McLeod, John. Post Colonialism P.101
3)A O Hume, Document 15 pp.141-43
4)The Indian National Congress, p. 169 and Bipin Chandra Pal, Swadeshi and ‘Swaraj, Calcutta, 1956.
5)B.N Pandey, The Nationalist Movement, 1885-1947 pp.1
6) Baring to Mallet, 25 September 1882, enclosed in Baring to Ripon, 25 September 1882, RP
7)Briton Martin Jr., Lord Dufferin and Indian  National Congress p.71. Cambridge university Press 1967
8)Quarterly Review, 1886, pp. 112-113.
9)Report of the first I.N.C. Bombay 1885, pp. 7·8.
10)Report of the second I.N.C. Calcutta 1886, p. 53
11)Bengalee, 30 October 1897.
12)Report of the third I.N.C. Madras 1887, p. 86
13)Report of the fourth l.N.C. Allahabad 1888, p. 82.
14)Speeches, Vol. ID, p. 65, July 1888.
15)Speeches, Vol. III, p. 124, April 1890.
16)Speeches, Vol. Ill, p. 62, “The Present Political Situation”, 26 July 1888.
17)Report of the third I.N.C. Madras 1887, p. 86.
18)Report of the seventh l.N.C. Nagpur 1891
19)Bengalee, 3 November 1894.
20)Report of the tenth l.N.C. Madras 1894.
21)B.N Pandey, The Nationalist Movement, 1885-1947 pp.23
22)Ibid PP.24
23)Report of the fourteenth l.N.C. Madras 1898, p. 11
24)Bengalee, 4 September 1897
25)SB Chapter I, p. 21.
26)John. P.Jones. India’s Problem PP. 51

The article is adapted from author’s blog and republished with permission.