recent history 1 - wordpress.com · 10.01.2015 · ‘the sealed nectar’. . . ... that, to pay...

1

Recent History_1 (1900-1947)

(Jan 18, 2015)

Dr. P. Subbanna Bhat

History: The true philosophy . . .

“Those who can not remember the past,

are condemned to repeat it”

----George Santayana, American Author

4

‘𝑆𝑎𝑟𝑣𝑎 𝑑ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑎 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑏ℎ𝑎 𝑣𝑎’. . .1

Mahatma Gandhi, used to sing in his prayer meetings :

रघुपति राघव राजाराम पतिि पावन सीिाराम I ईश्वर अल्ााः िेरे नाम सबको सन्मति दे भगवान II

Kalimah Shahadah (Word of Testimony):

“Ašhadu an lā ilāha illā-llāh waḥdahu lā šarīka lahu, wa ašhadu

anna muḥammadan ʿabduhu wa rasūluhu”

I bear witness that (there is) no god except Allah;

One is He, no partner hath He, and I bear witness

that Muhammad is His Servant and Messenger.

5

Semitic paradigm . . .

‘Allah, the One and Only’. . . 2

Principle of Tawhid (Uncompromising monotheism ) is at the

heart of the Islamic beliefs. It holds God (Allah) is one (wāḥid ) and

unique (aḥad ). To attribute divinity to a created entity is the only

unpardonable sin mentioned in the Qur'an. Associating others with God

is known as Shirk.

---- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawhid/ ]

Quran 4.48 : “Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with

Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up

partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed.”

----[http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/ ]

6

Gandhi’s admiration of

Mohammad . . .3

Mahatma Gandhi, wrote in “Young India”, 1924:

“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds

today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of

mankind… I became more than ever convinced that it was not

the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the

scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-

effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges,

his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity,

his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own

mission. These and not the sword carried everything before

them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the

second volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there

was not more for me to read of that great life.”

7

‘The sealed Nectar’. . .

Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar): Biography of the Prophet

(2002)

by Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri

Review : A complete authoritative book on the life of Prophet

Muhammad (S) by Sheikh Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarkpuri. It was honored

by the World Muslim League as first prize winner book. Whoever wants

to know the whole life style of the Prophet in detail must read this book.

Muhammad (S) is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are

with him, are severe against the disbelievers, and merciful among

themselves. You see them bowing and falling down prostrate (in prayer),

seeking bounty from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. . . . Allah has

promised those among them who believe and do righteous good deeds,

forgiveness and a mighty reward (Paradise). (Al-Fath: 29)

8

‘The sealed Nectar’. . .4

On Thursday, four days before the death of the Messenger of

Allâh (Peace be upon him), he said to people – though he was

suffering from a severe pain: “Come here. I will cause you to write

something so that you will never fall into error.”

THE DAY HE RECOMMENDED THREE THINGS:

1. Jews, Christians and polytheists should be expelled out of Arabia.

2. He recommended that delegations should be honoured and

entertained, in a way similar to the one he used to do.

3. As for the third – the narrator said that he had forgotten it. It could

have been adherence to the Holy Book and the Sunnah. It was likely

to be the accomplishment and the mobilization of Osamah’s army, or it

could have been performance of prayers and being attentive to slaves.

--- [Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, “Ar Raheeq Al Makhtum, (The Sealed

Nectar): Biography of the Prophet”, Chapter “The Journey to Allah the

sublime” (2002), pp. 241]

9

Voltaire on Mohammad . . .5

Voltaire (1694-1778 ) referring to Muhammad, in a letter to Frederick -II

of Prussia (December 1740):

“But that a camel-merchant should stir up insurrection in his

village; that in league with some miserable followers he persuades them

that he talks with the angel Gabriel; that he boasts of having been

carried to heaven, where he received in part this unintelligible book,

each page of which makes common sense shudder; that, to pay homage

to this book, he delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the

throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated

the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can

excuse, at least if he was not born a Turk, or if superstition has not

extinguished all natural light in him.”

--- [Published in Oeuvres complètes de Voltaire, Vol. 7 (1869), edited by

Georges Avenel, p. 105.]

---[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire] 10

Gandhi’s view of Islam . . .6

“Mahatma Gandhi was no specialist of Islamic

theology. He accepted the modem Muslim apologist’s

interpretation that Islam means peace. But he saw no sign of

Muslim adherence to this interpretation.

“ “Islam was born,” he observed, “in an environment where

the sword was and still remains the supreme law . . . The

sword is yet too much in evidence among Mussalmans. It

must be sheathed if Islam is to be what it means – peace.”.”

--- [Sitaram Goel, “Calcutta Quran Petition”, Chapter 8, pp. 133-4]

11

Muslims and Hindus . . .7

Mahatma Gandhi wrote:

“But my own experience. . . confirm the opinion that the

Mussalman as a rule is a bully and the Hindu as a rule is a

coward…”

----[Gandhi, in Young India, 5 June,1924]

“The thirteen hundred years of imperialistic expansion, has

made the Mussalmans fighters as a class. They are, therefore,

aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of an aggressive

spirit. The Hindu has an age-old civilization. He is essentially

nonviolent… Predominance of the non-violent spirit has restricted

the use of arms to a small minority; not knowing their use (of arms)

nor having an aptitude for them, they (Hindus) have become docile

to the point of timidity or cowardice.”

----[Gandhi, in Young India, 30 December 1927]

12

Allama Iqbal . . .8

Allama Iqbal, was a great Urdu poet, who wrote his “Tarana-e-Hindi”

(“Sare Jahan Se Accha Hindustan Hamara”) in 1904

In 1905, when Iqbal was a lecturer at the Government College,

Lahore he was invited by his student Lala Hardayal to preside over a

function. Instead of making a speech, Iqbal sang Sare Jahan Se

Accha Hindustan Hamara in his style.

13

Allama the patriot . . .9 Allama Iqbal, “Tarana-e-Hindi” (1904)

sāre jahāñ se acchā hindostāñ hamārā

ham bulbuleñ haiñ us kī vuh gulsitāñ hamārā . . . (1)

mażhab nahīñ sikhātā āpas meñ bair rakhnā

hindī haiñ ham, vat̤an hai hindostāñ hamārā . . .(6)

unan -o-mishr-o-roma sab mit gaye jahan se

ab tak magar hai baqi nam-o-nishan hamara . . .(7)

kuch b𝑎 t hai k hasti mitati nahin hamari

sadyon raha hai dushman daur-e-zaman hamara . . . (8)

'Iqbal' koi mahram apna nahin jahan mein

malum kya kisi ko dard-e-nihan hamara . . . (10)

“Better than the entire world, is our Hindustan

We are its nightingales, and it (is) our garden abode.” 14

Allama returns to ‘Millat’ . .10

In “Tarana-e-Milli” (1910) , Allama had returned to his ‘Millat’:

“𝑐ℎ𝑖 𝑛 − 𝑜 − 𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑏 ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑎 𝑟𝑎 , ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎 𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑎 𝑟𝑎 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑚 ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑚, 𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑠𝑎 𝑟𝑎 𝑗𝑎ℎ𝑎 𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑎 𝑟𝑎 ”

“China (Central Asia) and Arabia are ours, Hindustan is ours.

We are Muslims, the whole world is ours !”

𝑠𝑎 𝑙𝑎 𝑟 − 𝑒 − 𝑘𝑎 𝑟𝑤𝑎 𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑀𝑖𝑟 − 𝑒 − 𝐻𝑖𝑗𝑎𝑧 𝑎𝑝𝑛𝑎

𝐼𝑠 𝑛𝑎 𝑚 𝑠𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑏𝑎 𝑞𝑖 𝑎 𝑟𝑎 𝑚 𝑒 𝑗𝑎 𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑎 𝑟𝑎

𝐼𝑞𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑎 𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑎 𝑛𝑎 𝑏𝑎 𝑛𝑔 𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑎 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑔𝑜𝑦𝑎

ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑎 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑗𝑎 𝑑𝑎ℎ 𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑎 𝑝ℎ𝑖𝑟 𝑘𝑎 𝑟𝑤𝑎 𝑁 ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑎 𝑟𝑎

“The leader of our caravan, is the Prince of Hijaz (Muhammad).

It is his name that keeps our heart in comfort and peace.”

“Iqbal's song is a clarion call – for the caravan to rise and continue the

journey once more.” 15

‘Shikwa’: Allama’s complaint

to God . . .11

Allama wrote “Shikwa” (Complaint to God ) in 1910 in which

Allama complains, about the plight of Muslims vis-a-vis kafirs:

𝐵𝑢𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑚 𝑘ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑘𝑎ℎ𝑡𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑛 𝑔𝑎𝑖 𝐻𝑎𝑖 𝑘ℎ𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑖 𝑢𝑛𝑘𝑜 𝑘𝑒 𝐾𝑎𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑦 𝑘𝑒𝑦 𝑛𝑖𝑔𝑒ℎ𝑏𝑎𝑎𝑛 𝑔𝑎𝑖 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑧𝑖𝑙 − 𝑖 𝑑ℎ𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝑘𝑒 ℎ𝑢𝑑𝑖 𝑘ℎ𝑢𝑤𝑎𝑛 𝑔𝑎𝑖 𝐴𝑝𝑛𝑖 𝑏𝑎𝑔ℎ𝑙𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑑𝑎𝑏𝑏𝑎 − 𝑒 ℎ𝑢𝑒𝑦 𝑄𝑢𝑟 − 𝑎𝑛 𝑔ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝐾ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎 𝑧𝑎𝑛 𝑘𝑢𝑓𝑟 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑒ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑢𝑗ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑘𝑒 𝑛𝑎ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝐴𝑝𝑛𝑖 𝑇𝑎𝑢ℎ𝑖𝑑 𝑘𝑎 𝑘𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑝𝑎𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑢𝑗ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑘𝑒 𝑛𝑎ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑛

The idols in temples say ‘The Muslims are gone’ They are glad that the Ka’bah’s sentinels are gone From the world’s stage the hudi singers are gone They, with the Qur’an in their arm pits, are gone. Infidelity is mocking , hast Thou some feeling or not? Dost Thou have any regard for Thy own Tawhid or not?

16

‘Shikwa’: Complaint to God . . .12

Allama wrote “Shikwa” (Complaint to God ) in 1910 in which

Allama complains, about the plight of Muslims vis-a-vis kafirs:

"𝑌𝑒 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑘𝑎𝑦𝑎𝑡 𝑛𝑎ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑘𝑒 𝑘ℎ𝑎𝑧𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑁𝑎ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑚𝑎ℎ𝑓𝑖𝑙 𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑗𝑖𝑛ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑎𝑎𝑡 𝑏ℎ𝑖 𝑘𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑒 𝑘𝑎 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑜𝑜𝑟

𝑄𝑎ℎ𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑦𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑘𝑒 𝑘𝑎𝑓𝑖𝑟 𝑘𝑜 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑛 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑟 − 𝑜 𝑞𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑜𝑟

𝐴𝑢𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑘𝑜 𝑓𝑎𝑞𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑖𝑑𝑎 − 𝑖 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑟

𝐴𝑏 𝑤𝑜 𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑓 𝑛𝑎ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑛 ℎ𝑎𝑚 𝑝𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑎𝑦𝑎𝑎𝑡 𝑛𝑎ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑛

𝐵𝑎𝑎𝑡 𝑦𝑒 𝑘𝑖𝑦𝑎 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑘𝑒 𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑖 𝑠𝑖 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑡 𝑛𝑎ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑛"

We do not complain that their (infidels’) treasures are full

Who are not in possession of even basic social graces

Outrageous that infidel are rewarded with Houries and palaces

And the poor Muslims are placated with only promise of Houries

We have been deprived of the former graces and favours

What is the matter, we are deprived of the former honours? 17

Allah’s response to Allama . . .13

In the ”𝑆ℎ𝑖𝑘𝑤ã ” , (1910) Allama assures God of his Loyalty:

“𝑛𝑎𝑔ℎ𝑚ã ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑑î ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑡𝑎𝑢 𝑘𝑦ä, 𝑙𝑎𝑖 𝑡𝑎𝑢 𝐻𝑖𝑗𝑎𝑧𝑖 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑚𝑖𝑟î”,

“Eventhough my idiom is Indian, my rhythm is of Hijaz”.

(‘Hijaz’ is the region of Mecca and Medina.)

In the ”𝐽𝑎𝑤ã𝑏 − 𝑖 − 𝑆ℎ𝑖𝑘𝑤𝑎ℎ” (1913), Allah replies to Allãmã, with His

supreme message for mankind:

“𝑇𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑛 ℎ𝑜 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑑𝑖𝑟 ℎ𝑎𝑖 𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑏𝑖𝑟 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖

𝐾𝑖 𝑤𝑎𝑓𝑎 𝑡𝑢𝑛𝑒 𝑀𝑢ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑑 𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑢 ℎ𝑎𝑚 𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑛" “If you are loyal to Muhammad, then I belong to you.”

18

Iqbal moots ‘Pakistan’ . . .14

He thus became the first politician to articulate what would

become known as the Two-Nation Theory – that Muslims are a distinct

nation. . . . .was elected president of the Muslim League in 1930 . . . In

his presidential address on 29 December 1930, Iqbal outlined a vision

of an independent state for Muslim-majority provinces in northwestern

India:

"I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province,

Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-

government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the

formation of a consolidated Northwest Indian Muslim state appears to

me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of Northwest India.”

---[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Iqbal]

19

Allama: Father of Pakistan . . .15

Building a strong, personal correspondence with Jinnah,

Iqbal was an influential force in convincing Jinnah to end his self-

imposed exile in London, return to India and take charge of the

League. Iqbal firmly believed that Jinnah was the only leader

capable of drawing Indian Muslims to the League and maintaining

party unity before the British and the Congress:

“I know you are a busy man but I do hope you won't mind

my writing to you often, as you are the only Muslim in India today

to whom the community has right to look up for safe guidance

through the storm which is coming to North-West India and,

perhaps, to the whole of India.”

----[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Iqbal ] 20

Allama convinces Jinnah. . .16

Iqbal elucidated to Jinnah his vision of a separate Muslim state in a

letter sent on 21 June 1937:

“A separate federation of Muslim Provinces, reformed on the

lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can

secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of Non-

Muslims. Why should not the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal

be considered as nations entitled to self-determination just as other

nations in India and outside India are.”

----[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Iqbal ]

21

Gandhi on Allama Iqbal . . .17

Allama Iqbal, “Tarana-e-Hindi” (1904), “Tarana-e-Milli” (1910) ,

“Shikwa” (1910) , “Jawab -i-Shikwa” (1913), mooted the idea of

Pakistan (1930)

On Iqbal’s death in 1938, Mahatma Gandhi wrote in his

condolence message for the nation : “ What can I write about Dr. Iqbal

except that I was sobbing due to emotions when I first read his famous

poem ‘Sare Jahan se Accha’. When in Yerawada Jail, I must have

sung this poem over hundred times. Each and every word of this great

poem is very sweet to me and even while writing this message I can

feel hearing the couplets of this poem into my ears.”

22

Gandhi supports ‘Khilafat’ . . .18

After the First World War (1918), the Sultan of Turkey (who

had pretensions to the title of ‘Caliph’ – the religious head of the

Muslims; however, Muslims outside India did not recognize him as

Caliph. The Turks themselves under Kemal Ataturk drove the Sultan

into exile !) was dethroned . Muslims in India formed committees to

press the British Government to restore the sultan; the movement

known as the ‘Khilafat’ . . . Gandhi supported the ‘Khilafat’, hoping

to gain support of Muslims to his non-violent, non-cooperation

movement for ‘Swaraj’:

---[NS Rajaram, ‘Gandhi, Khilafat & The National Movement’, p.15]

23

Gandhi supports ‘Khilafat’ . . .19

Gandhi supported the ‘Khilafat’, unequivocally, in preference

to the ‘Swaraj’:

“To the Mussalmans Swaraj means, as it must, India’s ability

to deal effectively with the Khilafat question. . .It is impossible not to

sympathize with this attitude . . . I would gladly ask for the

postponement of the Swaraj activity if we could advance the interest

of the Khilafat . . .”

“We talk of Hindu-Mahomedan unity. it would be empty

phrase if the Hindus hold aloof from the Mahomedans when their vital

interests are at stake.”

---[NS Rajaram, ‘Gandhi, Khilafat & The National Movement’, p.15] 24

Gandhi supports Khilafat. . .20 Writes N.S Rajaram :

‘In support of Khilafat movement Gandhi placed his

authority and trust in the hands of two unscrupulous Muslim

clergymen/adventurers – the notorious and fanatical Ali Brothers.

(He provided them also funds from the Tilak Swaraj Fund). . . . He

even returned his military honors and decorations as a gesture of

his support for the Khilafat . . . Gandhi had received several honours

from the British for his service in the Boer War, including the

prestigious Kaiser-e-Hind medal. In returning these decorations

Gandhi declared:

“Valuable these honours have been to me, I cannot wear them

with an easy conscience so long as my Musalman countrymen

have to labour under the wrong done to their religious

sentiment.” ’ ’

----[N. S. Rajaram, “A Hindu view of the World”, p.207-208] 25

M. Ali humiliates Gandhi . . .21 To quote from N.S Rajaram :

‘Maulana Mohammad Ali, whom Gandhi had called (his) ‘brother’

publicly humiliated him. He (Mohammad Ali )said that any Muslim

regardless of his character was better than Gandhi because of his

faith. His exact words were:

“However pure Mr. Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear

to me from the point of view of religion inferior to any

Mussalman, even though he be without any character.

“Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adultrous

and fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr. Gandhi.” ’ ’

----[N. S. Rajaram, “A Hindu view of the World”, p.208-209] 26

The Khilafat leadership . . .22

Khilafat leaders like the Ali brothers made no secret of their loyalty to

Islam above India. Historian R.C. Mujumdar records:

“in their public speeches they emphasized the identity of their

interests of the Indian Muhammadans with the interests of the

Muhammadans everywhere in Tripoli and Algeria in preference to the

Hindus. . . . .”

When there were rumours that the Amir of Afghanistan might invade

India, Muhammad Ali said:

“If the Afghans invaded India to wage holy war, the Indian

Muhommadans are not only bound to join them but also to fight the

Hindus if they refuse to cooperate with them .”

---[NS Rajaram, ‘Gandhi, Khilafat & The National Movement’, p.15] 27

Gandhi’s sophistry. . . .23

When it (Khilafat) failed, he (Mahatma Gandhi) lacked the objectivity to

admit it and found arguments using his “unintentionally sophistic logic” :

“I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central fact: with the

Maulana Muhammad Ali because it is his religion, with me because , in

laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that

is my religion, from the knife of the Musalman.”

---[NS Rajaram, ‘Gandhi, Khilafat & The National Movement’, p.17]

28

Aurobindo on the ‘Khilafat’ . . .24

Sri Aurobindo wrote in 1920 :

“A gigantic movement of non-cooperation merely to get

some Punjab officials punished or to set up the Turkish Empire

which is dead and gone, shocks my ideas both of proportion and

commonsense.” [p.207]

And yet again:

“You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is

toleration. But how Is it possible to live with a religion whose

principle is “I will not tolerate you”? How are you going to have unity

with these people?.” [p.213]

----[N. S. Rajaram, “A Hindu view of the World”, p.207, p.213]

29

When ‘Khilafat’ failed . . .25

. . . Annie Besant. That spirited English woman wrote:

“ . . . It would be well if Mr. Gandhi could be taken into Malbar to see with

his own eyes the ghastly horrors which have been created by the

preaching of himself and his ‘loved brothers’ , Mohammed and Shaukat

Ali. The Khilafat raj is established there; on August 1,1921, sharp to the

date first announced by Mr. Gandhi for the beginning of Swaraj and the

Vanishing of the British rule, . . From that date onwards, thousands of the

forbidden war-knives were secretly made and hidden away, and on

August 20, the rebellion broke out, Khilafat flags were hoisted on police

stations and government offices . . .

“Mr. Gandhi may talk as he pleases about N.C.O.s (Non-Co-operators)

accepting no responsibility. It is not what they accept; it is what facts

demonstrate. He accepted responsibility for the trifling bloodshed of

Bombay. The slaughter in Malabar cries out for his responsibility. . . ”

----[N. S. Rajaram, “Gandhi, Khilafat & The national Movement”, p.64-5] 30

The Moplah Rampage. . .26

Following the failure of Khilafat movement, in Kerala, a memo

submitted to Lady Reading:

“ . . . It is possible that your Ladyship is not fully apprised of all the

horrors and atrocities perpetrated by the fiendish rebels; of many

wells and tanks filled up with the mutilated, but often only half dead

bodies of our nearest and dearest ones who refused to abandon

the faith of our fathers; and of pregnant women cut to pieces and

left on the roadsides and in the jungles, with the unborn babe

protruding from the mangled corpse; of our innocent and helpless

children torn from our arms and done to death before our eyes and

of our husbands and fathers tortured, flayed and burnt alive; of our

helpless sisters forcibly carried away . . .

----[N.S. Rajaram, “Gandhi, Khilafat and the National Movement “, p.69]

]

31

The Moplah Rampage. . .27

The memo submitted to Lady Reading (contd):

“ . . . of our helpless sisters forcibly carried away from the midst of

kith and kin and subjected to every shame and outrage which the

vile and brutal imagination of these inhuman hell-hounds could

conceive of; of thousands of our homesteads reduced to cinder-

mounds out of sheer savagery and a wanton spirit of destruction; of

our places of worship desecrated and destroyed and of images of

deity shamefully insulted by putting the entrails of slaughtered cows

where flower garlands used to lie or else smashed to pieces....."


32

‘What they consider religious’. . . .28

Sir Sankaran Nair, an eyewitness to the Mopla horrors had this to say in

his book ‘Gandhi and Anarchy’:

"For sheer brutality on women, I do not remember anything in

history to match the Malabar [Mopla] rebellion. ... The atrocities

committed more particularly on women are so horrible and

unmentionable that I do not propose to refer to them in this book. I have

selected a few out of literally hundreds . . . One narrative is by Mrs.

Annie Besant.."


What was Gandhi's reaction to the Mopla outrages? He called

the Moplas "God fearing" and said they "are fighting for what they

consider as religion, and in a manner they consider as religious.” . . !

---[NS Rajaram, “Nationalism and Distortions in Indian History’’ ]

33

The ‘inspiration’ behind the

Rampage . .29

Annie Besant wrote :

“How does Mr. Gandhi like the Mopla spirit as shown by

one of the prisoners in the hospital, who was dying from

asphyxiation ? He asked the surgeon if he was going to die ?, and

the surgeon answered that he feared that he would not recover.

“Well, I am glad that I killed fourteen infidels,” said the Brave, God-

fearing mopla whom Mr. Gandhi so much admires, who “are

fighting for what they consider religion, and in a manner they

consider religious.” Men who consider it “religious” to murder, rape,

loot, to kill women and little children, cutting down whole families,

have to be put under restraint in any civilized society.”

----[N.S. Rajaram, “Gandhi, Khilafat and the National Movement “, p.65] 34

Pan-Islamism . . .30

Historian R.C. Mujumdar writes [“History of Freedom Movement in India”, Vol-III,

p.450-1]:

“ . . . The Hindu-Muslim fraternity, artificially created by Gandhi at the

behest of Muhammad Ali and other pan-Islamists, tumbled down like a

house of cards as soon as the ‘Khilafat’ movement came to an ignoble

end, . . signalized by communal riots . . . Most of the so-called Muslim

nationalist leaders –who were only Pan-Islamists masquerading under

the disguise – now appeared in their true colour.

“Muhammad Ali, who was the principal lieutenant of Gandhi in his

Satyagraha campaign in 1920-21, refused to join him in his second

campaign in 1930. . . He made no secret of the fact that Muslims were

guided by Pan-Islamism. . . In his address as Congress President in

1923 he reminded the audience that ‘extra-territorial sympathies are part

of the quintessence of Islam’ ."

----[N.S. Rajaram, “Gandhi, Khilafat and the National Movement “, pp. 49-50] 35

Cracked mindset. . .31

On May 28,1940, Sri Aurobindo was even more specific when he told a

disciple :

“Have you read what Gandhi has said in answer to a

correspondent ? He says if eight crores of Muslims demand a separate

state, what else are the twenty five crores of Hindus to do but surrender

? Otherwise there will be civil war.”.

The shocked disciple said “I hope that is not the type of conciliation he is

thinking of .” Sri Aurobindo had no such illusions . He replied:

“Not thinking of you say ? He has actually said that and almost

yielded. If you yield to the opposite party beforehand, naturally they will

stick strongly to their claims. It means that the minority will rule and the

majority must submit . . . . This shows a peculiar mind. I think this kind of

people are a little cracked ."

--[Quoted by N.S. Rajaram, “Gandhi, Khilafat and the National Movement “, p.50] 36

Spent Force. . .32

. . . After the failure of Quit India movement of 1942, the Congress –

and Gandhi – was a spent force. . . Gandhi’s standing was by then so

low that when he wrote to the new Viceroy Lord Wavell with a

proposal for India after the War, the Government of Britain responded

that Gandhi’s proposal “obviously did not even form the starting point

for a profitable discussion.”

After this rebuff Gandhi realized that he and the Congress

were not in a position to negotiate with the Government, and his only

hope lay in reaching an agreement with the Muslim League in the

hope of presenting a united front. . . .

----[Quoted by N.S. Rajaram, “Gandhi, Khilafat and the National Movement “,

p.50-51] 37

A‘servant and friend’. . . 33

‘Actually Gandhi had been negotiating with Jinnah through

Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) well before this; only things were now critical.

His situation was now bordered on the pathetic. On July 17, 1944, he

(Gandhi) wrote to Jinnah :

“I have always been a servant and friend to you. Do not disappoint

me” . Jinnah refused Rajaji’s plan, but agreed to discuss the partition

with Gandhi.

This led to a furious reaction throughout the country. Savarkar

only echoed the indignation of the people when he asserted that the

“Indian provinces were not the private properties of Gandhiji and

Rajaji so that they could make a gift of them to anyone they liked.” ’


The crack was visible . . .34

‘As Mujumdar puts it (Vol.-III, pp.573-4):

“The Gandhi-Jinnah talks commenced on 9 September 1944,

and continued till the 27th, but the two failed to arrive at an agreement.

The concrete offer made by Gandhi was a partition of India into

Hindustan and Pakistan, on a basis which did not materially differ

from the plan finally accepted in 1947.”

The main point of difference was Gandhi’s refusal to accept

Jinnah’s two nation theory, and the right of the Muslims to self

determination on that basis. The nation should be grateful to Gandhiji

on this point, but it is not true that he was opposed to the creation of

Pakistan to the very end. . . .’


Jinnah’s ‘pound of flesh’ . . .35

In July 1946, Jinnah held a press conference at his home

in Bombay where he declared his intent to create Pakistan. Jinnah

proclaimed that the Muslim league was "preparing to launch a

struggle" and that they "have chalked a plan". He had decided to

boycott the Constituent Assembly. He rejected the British plan for

transfer of power to an interim government which would combine

both the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress. He said

that if the Muslims were not granted Pakistan then he would launch

"Direct Action". When asked to specify Jinnah retorted: "Go to the

Congress and ask them their plans. When they take you into their

confidence I will take you into mine. Why do you expect me alone

to sit with folded hands? I also am going to make trouble.”

---- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day] 40

Jinnah’s ‘direct action’ . . .36

On the next day, Jinnah announced 16 August 1946 would

be "Direct Action Day" for the purpose of winning the separate

Muslim state. . . . . .The notice drew divine inspiration from the

Quran, emphasizing on the coincidence of Direct Action Day with

the holy month of Ramzaan, claiming that the upcoming protests

were an allegory of Prophet Muhammad's conflict with heathenism

and subsequent conquest of Mecca and establishment of the

kingdom of Heaven in Arabia.

Troubles started on the morning of the 16 August (1946). . . .On 17

August, . . . The mob began loot and wholesale massacre. . .

..Some sources put the death toll at 7,000–10,000. . . . These

events sowed the seeds for the eventual Partition of India.

---- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Day] 41

Partition of India . . .37

Mountbatten had been warned in his briefing papers that Jinnah

would be his "toughest customer" who had proved a chronic

nuisance because "no one in this country [India] had so far gotten

into Jinnah's mind".

Mountbatten met with Liaquat . . .with Jinnah, and . . . told Attlee and

the Cabinet in May, that "it had become clear that the Muslim League

would resort to arms if Pakistan in some form were not conceded.”

Christopher Beaumont, Radcliffe's private secretary, later wrote that

Mountbatten "must take the blame – though not the sole blame – for

the massacres in the Punjab in which between 500,000 to a million

men, women and children perished". As many as 14,500,000 people

relocated between India and Pakistan during and after partition.

--- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah] 42

Munshi & Nehru on Partition. . .38

K.M. Munshi:

“We accepted Partition to avoid civil war, but we got both: the

partition and the civil war”

---[Quoted in N.S. Rajaram, “ Gandhi Khilafat. . .” , p.30]

Nehru stated in 1960:

“ . . . the truth is that we were tired men and we were getting on in

years ... The plan for partition offered a way out and we took it."

--- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah] [Quoted from

Khan, pp-85-87]

43

G’s appeasement policy . . .39

‘The following statement by Gandhi, made as far back as 1909,

illustrates Gandhi’s attachment to appeasement in the name of unity:

“As a man of truth I honestly believe that Hindus should yield up to

the Mohammadans whatever the latter desire, and that they should

rejoice in so doing. We can expect unity only if such mutual large-

heartedness is displayed.”

It is an example of Gandhi’s propensity for combining contradictions

with the help of his ‘unintentionally sophistic logic’ – as Sri Aurobindo

put it.

----[N. S. Rajaram, “Gandhi, Khilafat & The national Movement”, p.9]

44

G’s appeasement policy. . .40

‘As Mujumdar observed (“History of freedom movement in India”,Vol-

II, pp. 313-314):

“The first sentence is one of those pro-Muslim sayings which bore

the special trademark of Gandhi did incalculable harm to Hindu-

Muslim unity by putting a premium on Muslim intransigence. It was

repeated in 1947 when Gandhi made the proposal which astounded

even his devout followers, that Jinnah should be the supreme ruler

of India , with a cabinet of his own choice, which might consist only

of Muslim ministers. The word ‘mutual’ in the second sentence is

meaningless, as Gandhi never dared to make similar request to the

Muslims, and they never showed the slightest intention of doing any

such foolish thing. Gandhi’s attitude did not change even after the

creation of Pakistan.”


45

Gandhi’s advice to British . .41

Gandhi addressed the British people during the Second World War:

“I appeal for cessation of hostilities . . . Because war is bad

in essence. You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the

same work of destruction as the Germans. The only difference is

that perhaps you are not as thorough as the Germans.. . . . I venture

to present you with a nobler and braver way, worthy of the bravest

soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or . . . With non-

violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as

being useless for saving you or humanity. . . . Invite Herr Hitler and

Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call

your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island

with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but not

your souls nor your minds . . .”

----[Complete Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 72, p.230] 46

G’s advice to Hindu refugees. . . .42 ‘In response to desperate appeals for help to their kith and kin left behind by

Hindu and Sikh refugees, Gandhi told them to pray. Here it is in his own words :

“I advised them to remain calm. After all God is great. There is no

place where God does not exist, meditate on Him and take His name;

everything will be alright. They asked me what about those who still

remain in Pakistan . I asked them [refugees] why they all came here

[Delhi]. Why they did not die there ? Even if our men [sic women also] are

killed, why should we feel angry with anybody, you should realize that

even if they are killed they have a good and proper end . . . I will advise

you. . . should go there . . . and meet the Sikh and Hindu refugees, tell

them politely to return to their places in Pakistan unaided either by the

Police or the Military.

“Not one of those who died in Punjab is going to return. In the end

we too have to go there. It is true that they were murdered, but then some

others die of Cholera or due to other causes. He who is born must die.” ’

---[NS Rajaram, ‘A Hindu View of the World’, p.215] 47

Gandhi – an enigma ?. . .43

Nehru on Mahatma Gandhi :

“Gandhi was a unique personality and it was impossible to judge him by

the usual standards, or even apply the ordinary canons of logic to him”

----[Quoted in N.S. Rajaram, “ Gandhi Khilafat. . .” , p.54]

Sir Shankaran Nair is more emphatic if less subtle. Writing in the

context of the Punjab atrocities , he charges :

“Mr. Gandhi is not a student but an impulsive fanatic indifferent to facts

but obsessed by phantasmagoria. He jumps to what he calls

conclusions, which have in fact no premises.”


48

Sri Aurobindo on Gandhi. . . .44

Sri Aurobindo wrote in 1926 :

“. . . Gandhi is a European – truly a Russian Christian in an

Indian body . . When Europeans say that he is more Christian than

any Christians (some even say he is the “Christ of our times” ) they

are perfectly right. All his preaching is derived from Christianity, and

though the garb is Indian the essential spirit is Christian. He may not

be Christ, but at any rate he comes in continuation of the same

impulsion in him. He is largely influenced by Tolstoy, the Bible and

has a strong Jain tinge Indian scriptures – the Upanishads or the

Gita which he interprets in the light of his own ideas”

----[N. S. Rajaram, “A Hindu view of the World”, p.202]

49

Lest we forget . . .45

“A fear of wounding the susceptibilities of the sister community

haunts the minds of Hindu politicians and historians, and not only prevents

them from speaking out the truth, but also brings down their wrath upon those

who have the courage to do so. But history is no respecter of persons or

communities, and must always strive to tell the truth, so far as it can be

deduced from reliable evidence. This great academic principle has a bearing

upon actual life, for ignorance seldom proves to be a real bliss either to an

individual or to a nation. In the particular case under consideration, ignorance

of the actual relation between the Hindus and the Muslims throughout the

course of history - an ignorance deliberately encouraged by some - may

ultimately be found to have been the most important single factor which led to

the partition of India. The real and effective means of solving a problem is to

know and understand the facts that gave rise to it, and not to ignore them by

hiding the head, ostrich-like, into sands of fiction.”

-- R.C Mujumdar, “The History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume VI, The

Delhi Sultanate, 1960, p. xxix”, p. 59

50

Gandhi’s contribution . . .46

When B. P. Chakravarti was acting Governor of West Bengal, Lord Atlee

visited India and stayed as his guest for three days at the Raj bhavan.

Chakravarti asked Atlee about the real grounds for granting independence

to India. Specifically, his question was, when the Quit India movement lay in

ruins years before 1947, where was the need for the British to leave in such

a hurry ? Atlee’s response is most illuminating and important for history.

Here is the Governor’s account of what Atlee told him:

“In reply Atlee cited several reasons, the most important were the activities

of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the

attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government.

Towards the end, I asked Lord Atlee about the extent to which the British

decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhi’s activities. On hearing the

question, Atlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly,

putting emphasis on each single letter – ‘mi-ni-mal’.”


51

‘What they consider religious’. . . .47

o Khilafat movement (1921)

o Direct Action Day (1946)

o Rama Janmabhumi (1991)

o Godhra Carnage (2002)

52

References 1. Swami Ranganathananda, “The Message of the Upanishads”,

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1980

2. Will and Ariel Durant , “The story of Civilization”, Vol. I , Chapter 6, Muslim conquest of India

3. Ram Swarup, “ Hindu view of Christianity and Islam” , Voice of India,

4. Sita Ram Goel, “ Calcutta Quran Petition”, Voice of Dharma

5. Koenraad Elst, “ Negationism in India”, Voice of Dharma, New Delhi

6. S.Radhakrishnan, “Eastern religions and Western Thought”

7. Jadunath Sarkar, “Fall of the Mughal Empire”, Vol. II, 4th Edition

8. Jadunath Sarkar, “History of Aurangzib", Vol- III, 1928

9. R.C. Majumdar (ed.), “The History and Culture of the Indian People”, Volume VII, The Mughal Empire, 1973

10.Swami Vivekananda, “Complete Works”, Vol. II and Vol.IV

55

References

11. Elliot and Dowson, “History of India as told by its own Historians”, Volume II

12. S.N. Sen, “The Military system of the Marathas”

13. NS Rajaram, “Nationalism and Distortions in Indian History”

14. NS Rajaram, “Gandhi, Khilafat & The National Movement”, 1999

15. K.S. Lal, “The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India”

16. Mohammad Habib and K.A. Nizami (ed.), “A Comprehensive History of India”, Volume V, The Sultanat, 1970

17. Kazi Ismail (appointed by Qasim),”Chachnama”

18. Edward Sachau, “Alebruni's India”, vol. 2,

19. < http://www.islamawareness.net >

20. <www. Wikipedia.org>

56

‘Show the other cheek’. . . 1.

Gandhi inspired by the Christian Ideal of not resisting evil:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for

tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps

you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if

anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat

as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two

miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the

one who wants to borrow from you.”

-----[Matthew 5:38-42]

57

K M Munshi on history. . .

58

“In my little study of history, I have found that the rise and fall of a

nation has depended on the strength or weakness of the group

sentiment which dominates its army in relation to the country”.

Mujumdar on Gandhi. . .1

Nehru on Mahatma Gandhi :

“Gandhi was a unique personality and it was impossible to judge him by

the usual standards, or even apply the ordinary canons of logic to him”

Historian R.C. Mujumdar notes:

“This kind of absolute devotion and self surrender has been highly

extolled by certain religious sects . . . But when it forms the basis of

political action and is cited as justification for doing things not approved

on rational principles, it becomes difficult for a historian to appreciate

the laudable sentiments of his disciples. The inevitable effect of such

sentiments was that the great political leaders of the Congress came to

look upon Gandhi as a superman, who was infallible and acted by

instinct, not logic or reason, and therefore should not be judged by

ordinary standards which we apply to other leaders. ”


59

Mujumdar on Gandhi. . .2

As Mujumdar observes (Vol. III, p.271) :

“ Everything was nominally left to the All India congress Committee

but practically to Gandhi . . . Undeterred by the past experience of

hopeless muddles in which Gandhi placed himself and the great

national organization on more than one occasion, he was chosen to

be the Dictator, a position which he maintained, with rare exceptions,

for the next thirteen years.” (1930)


60

First attempt at Negationism . . .1

“The political context of the first attempts at negationism

was chiefly the attempt of the independence movement, led by the

Indian National Congress, to eliminate all factors of disunity

between Hindus and Muslims. It was the time of the Khilafat

movement (1919-23), the agitation of Indian Muslims against the

British take-over of the Islamic sacred places from the deceased

Ottoman empire. . . . Congress saw in this the occasion to enlist

the Muslims in the national freedom struggle against the same

British imperialists. .”

---[Koenraad Elst, “Negationism In India”, Section 2.1, p.36 of 130]

62

Negationism in India . . .2

“The next generation of political leaders, especially the left-

wing that was to gain control of Congress in the thirties, and

complete control in the fifties, would profess negationism very

explicitly. The radical humanist (i.e. bourgeois Marxist) M.N. Roy

wrote that Islam had fulfilled a historic mission of equality and

abolition of discrimination, and that for this, Islam had been

welcomed into India by the lower castes. If at all any violence had

occurred, it was as a matter of justified class struggle by the

progressive forces against the reactionary forces, meaning the

feudal Hindu upper castes..”


63

Jawaharlal Nehru. . .3

“The best-known propounder of negationism was certainly Jawaharlal

Nehru. He was rather illiterate concerning Indian culture and history, . . . .

Witness his assessment of Mahmud Ghaznavi, who, according to his chronicler

Utbi, sang the praise of the temple complex at Mathura and then immediately

proceeded to destroy it.

About this he (Utbi) wrote: "There are here a thousand edifices as firm as the

faith of the faithful; nor is it likely that this city has attained its present condition

but at the expense of many millions of dinars, nor could such another be

constructed under a period of 200 years."

Nehru writes: “Building interested Mahmud, and he was much impressed

by the city of Mathura near Delhi”.

And that is all: Nehru described the destroyer of Mathura as an admirer

of Mathura . . .”

---[Koenraad Elst, “Negationism In India”, Section 2.2, p.39 of 130] 64

Nehru on Ghaznavi . . .4

“Nehru denied that Mahmud had committed his acts of

destruction out of any religious motive: "Mahmud was not a religious

man. He was a Mohammedan, but that was just by the way. He was in

the first place a soldier, and a brilliant soldier."

That Mahmud was definitely a religious man, and that he had

religious motives for his campaigns against the Hindus, is quite clear

from Utbi's contemporary chronicle. . . .. At Somnath, he (Muhammad

Ghaznavi) turned down a Hindu offer to give back a famous idol in

exchange for a huge ransom:

"I prefer to appear on Judgment Day as an idol-breaker rather

than an idol-seller."

---[Koenraad Elst, “Negationism In India”, Section 2.2, p.39,43 of 130]

65

Maulana Azad. . .5

“. . . Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who was Congress president

for several terms and who was to become minister of Education in free

India. Understandably but unjustifiably, Azad has often been described

as moderate and nationalist Muslim: he rejected the Partition of India

and the foundation of Pakistan, not because he rejected the idea of a

Muslim state, but because he wanted all of India to become a Muslim

state in time . .

“When in the forties the Partition seemed unavoidable, Azad

patronized proposals to preserve India's unity, stipulating that half of all

members of parliament and of the government had to be Muslims (then

24% of the population), with the other half to be divided between

Hindus, Ambedkarites, Christians, and the rest. Short, a state in which

Muslims would rule and non-Muslims would be second-class citizens

electorally and politically. . . . ”


66

Azad and Cabinet Mission. . .6

“. . . The Cabinet Mission Plan, proposed by the British as

the ultimate sop for the Muslim League, equally promised an

effective parity between Muslims and non-Muslims at the Central

Government level and a veto right for the Muslim minority. Without

Gandhiji's and other Congress leaders' knowing, Congress president

Azad assured the British negotiators that he would get the plan

accepted by the Congress. When he was caught in the act of lying to

the Mahatma about the plan and his assurance, he lost some credit

even among the naive Hindus who considered him a moderate. But

he retained his position of trust in Nehru's cabinet, . . . . ”


67

Azad’s ‘Hindu-Muslim pact’. . .7

“. . . Maulana Azad's pleas for Hindu-Muslim co-operation had an

esoteric meaning, clear enough for Muslims but invisible for willfully

gullible non-Muslims like his colleagues in the Congress leadership. Azad

declared that Hindu-Muslim cooperation was in complete conformity with

the Prophet's vision, for "Mohammed had also made a treaty with the

Jews of Madina". He certainly had, but the practical impact of this treaty

was that within a few years, two of the three Jewish clans in Medina had

ben chased away, and the third clan had been massacred to the last man

(the second clan had only been saved by the intervention of other

Medinese leaders, for Mohammed had wanted to kill them too). . . . ”

Maulana Azad could mention Mohammed's treaty with the Jews

as a model for Hindu-Muslim co-operation only because he was confident

that few Hindus were aware of the end of the story, and that better-

informed Hindus honoured a kind of taboo on criticism of Islam and its

Prophet.


68

Azad and Ahmed Sirhindi. . .8

“. . . As Mohammed Iqbal wrote: "All land belongs to the

Muslims, because it belongs to their God." . . .

“Maulana Azad shared this view of history. He condemned Moghul

emperor Akbar's tolerant rule as the near-suicide of Indian Islam, and

praised fanatics like the theologian Ahmad Sirhindi, who through his

opposition to Akbar's tolerance had brought the Moghul dynasty back

on the right track of Hind-persecution.. . . ”


69

‘Rewriting’ Indian History ?. . .9

Around 1920 Aligarh historian Mohammed Habib launched a

grand project to rewrite the history of the Indian religious conflict.

1. Firstly, it was not all that serious. One cannot fail to notice that the

Islamic chroniclers (including . .Teimur and Babar) have described

the slaughter of Hindus, the abduction of their women and children,

and the destruction of their places of worship most gleefully. But,

according to Habib, these were merely exaggerations . . .

2. Secondly, that percentage of atrocities on Hindus which Habib was

prepared to admit as historical, is not to be attributed to the impact

of Islam, but to other factors. . . . . In reality economic motives were

at work. The Hindus amassed all their wealth in temples and

therefore Muslim armies plundered these temples


70

‘Rewriting’ Indian History ?. . .10

Around 1920 Aligarh historian Mohammed Habib launched a

grand project to rewrite the history of the Indian religious conflict.

3. Thirdly, according to Habib there was also a racial factor: these

Muslims were mostly Turks, savage riders from the steppes who

would need several centuries before getting civilized by the

wholesome influence of Islam. Their inborn barbarity cannot be

attributed to the doctrines of Islam.

4. Finally, the violence of the Islamic warriors was of minor

importance in the establishment of Islam in India. What happened

was not so much a conquest, but a shift in public opinion: when the

urban working-class heard of Islam and realized it now had a

choice between Hindu law (smrti) and Muslim law (shariat), it

chose the latter.


71

Firuz Shah Tughlaq (1351-88). .11

. . . Firuz Shah Tughlaq (1351-88), personally confirms that the destruction of

Pagan temples was done out of piety, not out of greed:

“The Hindus had accepted the zimmi status and the concomitant jizya

tax in exchange for safety. But now they built idol temples in the city, in

defiance of the Prophet's law which forbids such temples. Under divine

leadership I destroyed these buildings, and killed the leaders of idolatry,

and the common followers received physical chastisement, until this

abomination had been banned completely."

When Firuz heard that a Pagan festival was going on, he reacted forcefully:

"My religious feelings exhorted me to finish off this scandal, this insult to

Islam. On the day of the festival I went there myself, I ordered the

execution of the leaders and practitioners of this abomination... I

destroyed their idol temples and built mosques in their places.”


72

Aurangzeb’s fanaticism. .12

According to the official court chronicle, Aurangzeb "ordered all

provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans

and to make a complete end to all Pagan teachings and practices".

The chronicle sums up the destructions like this: "Hasan Ali

Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been

destroyed... His majesty went to Chittor, and 63 temples were

destroyed... Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of

Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground."

Aurangzeb's reign was marked by never-ending unrest and

rebellions, caused by his anti-Hindu policies, which included the re-

imposition of the jizya and other zimma rules, and indeed the

demolition of temples.

---[Koenraad Elst, “Negationism In India”, Section 2.5, p.4-5 of 130]

73

Aurangzeb’s fanaticism . . . 13

Aurangzeb did not stop at razing temples: their users too were

levelled. There were not just the classical massacres of thousands of

resisters, Brahmins, Sikhs. What gives a more pointed proof of

Aurangzeb's fanaticism, is the execution of specific individuals for

specific reason of intolerance. To name the best-known ones:

Aurangzeb's brother Dara Shikoh was executed because of apostasy

(i.e. taking an interest in Hindu philosophy), and the Sikh guru Tegh

Bahadur was beheaded because of his objecting to Aurangzeb's policy

of forcible conversions in general, and in particular for refusing to

become a Muslim himself. Short, Percival Spear's statement that

Aurangzeb's fanaticism is but a hostile legend, is a most serious case

of negationism.


74

It was no walk over . . .14

This is not to say that the entire report which the Muslim

chroniclers have left us, should be accepted at face value. For

instance, writers like Ghaznavi's contemporary Utbi give the impression

that the raids on, and ultimate conquest of Hindustan were a walk-over.

Closer study of all the source material shows that the Muslim armies

had a very tough time in India. From Muslim chronicles one only gets a

faint glimpse of the intensity with which the Hindus kept on offering

resistance, and of the precariousness of the Muslim grip on Hindustan

through the Muslim period. The Muslim chroniclers have not been

caught in the act of lying very often, but some of them distort the

proportions of victory and defeat a bit. This is quite common among

partisan historians everywhere.


75

Negationist view . . . 15

An example of a less blatant (i.e. more subtle) form of

negationism in Western histories of India, is the India entry in the

Encyclopaedia Brittannica. Its chapter on the Sultanate period (which

was much more bloody than even the Moghul period) does not mention

any persecutions and massacres of Hindus by Muslims, except that

Firuz Shah Tughlaq "made largely unsuccessful attempts to convert his

Hindu subjects and sometimes persecuted them".

The article effectively obeys the negationist directive that

"characterization of the medieval period as a time of Hindu- Muslim

conflict is forbidden".


76

‘Not Muslims’ . . . ‘but Islam’. .16

“Habib tried to absolve the ideology (Islam) of the undeniable facts

of persecution and massacre of the Pagans by blaming individuals

(the Muslims). The sources however point to the opposite state of

affairs: Muslim fanatics were merely faithful executors of Quranic

injunctions. Not the Muslims are guilty, but Islam.”


77

Tolerant India . .17

“Many foreign groups of people persecuted for their religion came to

seek refuge in India. The Parsis have thrived. The heterodox Syrian Christians

have lived in peace until the Portuguese came to enlist them in their effort to

Christianize India. The Jews have expressed their gratitude when they left for

Israel because India was the only country where their memories were not of

persecution but of friendly co-existence. Even the Moplah Muslims were

accepted without any questions asked. All these groups were not merely

tolerated, but received land and material support for building places of

worship.”

“What should really clinch the issue, is the tolerant treatment which

the Muslims received after their reign of terror had been overthrown and

replaced with Hindu rashtras like those of the Marathas, Sikhs, Rajputs and

Jats. The Hindus could have emulated the policy of the Spanish Christians

after the Reconquista, and given the Muslims the choice between conversion

and emigration. With the benefit of hindsight, we can say that they would have

saved many lives and India's unity by doing so, but forcing people to convert

was not in conformity with their traditions.”


78

Genocide is ideological. . . 18

Genocide is not natural to any individual or nation. The

behaviour of human beings is conditioned not so much by their blood

or ancestry or nationality, but by their thinking. Genocide is the

outcome of an ideology. It could happen to Moses' Israelites and to

Hitler's Germans, to the Caliph's Turks and to the colonizing

Europeans, because they believed that genocide was justified as a

means to a superior goal. Each of the genocidal movements believed it

was a kind of chosen people, destined to rule a specified part of the

world (as in the case of Christianity, Colonialism, Islam and

Communism). . . . . So, the comparative assessment of Hitler's and

Stalin's massacres, and the . . . genocides on the Red Indians, Black

Africans, Tasmanians, Armenians, Gypsies and other nations, are

legitimate objects of study. They don't need suspect political motives. it

is the refusal to address these topics of history, the desire to prevent

such lines of study, that demonstrates political compulsions.


79

Demographic depletion . .19

“In 1948, Hindus formed 23% of the population of Bangla

Desh (then East Pakistan), in 1971 the figure was down to 15%,

and today (1993) it stands at about 8%. No journalist or human

rights body goes in to ask the minority Hindus for their opinion

about the treatment they get from the Muslim authorities and

populations; . . . .”


80

NCERT Directives . . . 20

“ . . . in 1982 the National Council of Educational Research and

Training issued a directive for the rewriting of schoolbooks. Among

other things, it stipulated that: "Characterization of the medieval period

as a time of conflict between Hindus and Muslims is forbidden.” ”


81

Marxist Muscle . . . 21

“ . . . In this context, one should know that there is a strange

alliance between the Indian Communist parties and the Muslim

fanatics. In the forties the Communists gave intellectual muscle and

political support to the Muslim League's plan to partition India and

create an Islamic state. After independence, they successfully

combined (with the tacit support of Prime minister Nehru) . . . to force

India into the Soviet-Arab front against Israel. Ever since, this

collaboration has continued to their mutual advantage as exemplified

by their common front to defend the Babri Masjid, that symbol of

Islamic fanaticism. Under Nehru's rule these Marxists acquired control

of most of the educational and research institutes and policies.”


82

Marxist viewpoint. . . 22

“ . . . Moreover, they had an enormous mental impact on the Congress

apparatus: even those who formally rejected the Soviet system,

thought completely in Marxist categories. They accepted, for instance,

that religious conflicts can be reduced to economic and class

contradictions. They also adopted Marxist terminology, so that they

always refer to conscious Hindus as the communal forces or elements

(Marxism dehumanizes people to impersonal pawns, or forces, in the

hands of god History). The Marxist historians had the field all to

themselves, and they set to work to de-communalize Indian history-

writing, i.e. to erase the importance of Islam as a factor of conflict..”


83

A ‘ Govt. directive’ . . . 23

"All the West Bengal Government recognised secondary school

Headmasters are being informed," it begins, "that in History textbooks

recommended by this Board for Class IX the following amendments to

the chapter on the medieval period have been decided after due

discussions and review by experts." "

"The authors and publishers of Class IX History textbooks," it

continues, "are being requested to incorporate the amendments if

books published by them have these aushuddho [impurities, errors] in

all subsequent editions, and paste a corrigendum in books which have

already been published. A copy of the book with the corrigendum

should be deposited with the Syllabus Office (74, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai

Road, Calcutta – 16)." Signed, "....Chattopadhyaya, Secretary.“

---[Arun Shourie, “Not just White wash; Hogwash too”, India Connect, July 27,1998]

84

History books . . . 24

Book: Bharat Kahini, by G. C. Rowchoudhury, published by A. K.

Sarkar and Co.

Page 130: Ashuddho -- "That is why he (Allauddin khilji) adopted the

policy of converting Hindus to Islam – so as to increase the number of

Muslims. Those Hindus who refused to discard their religion were

indiscriminately massacred by him or his generals."

Shuddho – Delete.

---[Arun Shourie, “Not just White wash; Hogwash too”, India Connect, July

27,1998]

85

‘Shuddho –Ashuddho’ . . . 25

Book: Bharat Katha, prepared by the Burdwan Education Society,

Teachers Enterprise, published by Sukhomoy Das....

Page 141: Aushuddho -- "Fourthly, using force to destroy Hindu

temples was also an expression of aggression. Fifthly, forcibly marrying

Hindu women and converting them to Islam before marriage was

another way to propagate the fundamentalism of the ulema."

Shuddho : though the column reproduces the sentences only from

"Fourthly....", the Board directs that the entire matter from "Secondly....

to ulema" be deleted.


27,1998]

86

‘Shuddho-Ashuddho’. . . 26

Book: Bharatvarsher Itihash, by Dr. Narendranath Bhattacharya,

published by Chakravarty and Son....

Page 89: Aushuddho -- "Sultan Mahmud used force for widespread

murder, loot, destruction and conversion."

Shuddho -- "There was widespread loot and destruction by Mahmud."

That is, no reference to killing, no reference to forcible conversions.

Page 89: Aushuddho -- "He looted valuables worth 2 crore dirham from

the Somnath temple and used the Shivling as a step leading up to the

masjid in Ghazni."

Shuddho -- "Delete 'and used the Shivling as a step leading up to the

masjid in Ghazni.'"


27,1998]

87


Book: Bharatvarsher Itihash, by Dr. Narendranath Bhattacharya,

published by Chakravarty and Son....

Page 112: Aushuddho -- "Hindu-Muslim relations of the medieval ages

is a very sensitive issue. The nonbelievers had to embrace Islam or

death."

Shuddho -- All matter on pages 112-13 to be deleted.

Page 113: Aushuddho -- "According to Islamic law non-Muslims will

have to choose between death and Islam. Only the Hanafis allow non-

Muslims to pay jaziya in exchange for their lives."

Shuddho -- Rewrite this as follows : "By paying jaziya to Allauddin

Khilji, Hindus could lead normal lives." Moreover, all the subsequent

sentences "Qazi....", "Taimur's arrival in India...." to be deleted.


27,1998]

88


Book: Bharuter Itihash, by P. Maiti, Sreedhar Prakashini.

Page 117: Ashuddho – "There is an account that Allauddin attacked

the capital of Mewar, Chittorgarh, to get Padmini, the beautiful wife of

Rana Rattan Singh."

Shuddho – Delete.

Page 139: Ashuddho – "There was a sense of aristocratic superiority

in the purdah system. That is why upper class Hindus adopted this

system from upper-class Muslims. Another opinion has it that purdah

came into practice to save Hindu women from Muslims. Most probably,

purdah came into vogue because of both factors."

Shuddho – delete.


27,1998]

89


Book: Bharuter Itihash, by Shobhankar Chattopadhyaya, published by

Narmada Publishers.

Page 181: Aushuddho -- "To prevent Hindu women from being seen by

Muslims, they were directed to remain indoors."

Shuddho -- Delete.


27,1998]

90


Book: Itihasher Kahini, by Nalini Bhushan Dasgupta, published by B. B.

Kumar.

Page 154: Aushuddho -- "As dictated by Islam, there were three

options for non-Muslims: get yourself converted to Islam; pay jaziya;

accept death. In an Islamic State non-Muslims had to accept one of

these three options."

Shuddho-- Delete.

Page 161: Aushuddho -- "The early Sultans were eager to expand the

sway of Islam by forcibly converting Hindus into Islam."

Shuddho -- Delete.


27,1998]

91

Vivekananda and Marx. . . 31

. . . while Ram Mohan Roy is mentioned, while Keshab

Chandra Sen – in whom Max Muller had seen such hope of

Christianizing India! – is mentioned, while Devendra Nath Tagore is

mentioned in this "History of Civilization", Bankim Chandra is not

mentioned! After all, for the constituency which our secular

Communists have been wooing, Bankim Chandra, being the author of

Bande Matram, of Ananda Math, is anathema. Many would think it

natural that as such "Histories of World Civilization" are written in and

for Bengal, Bengali personages – including K. C. Sen! – should figure

more prominently than reformers and leaders from outside Bengal. But

even they would be surprised – though you would not expect me to be

surprised! -- by what the teachers point out in regard to the most widely

used textbook : that while Swami Vivekananda gets one line, Karl Marx

gets forty two!

---[Arun Shourie, “Devices to further the Circular”, India Connect, Sept 1,1998]

92

‘Comprehensive Revolution’. . 32

. . . this book, (By) Sabhyatar Itihash, "The History of Civilization,"

1998, also presents the Russian Revolution as the culmination of that

evolution. A remarkable, comprehensive revolution.... While these

books are published in 1995, 1998 etc., there is not a word in them

about the purges under Stalin, about the fact that under him at least 28

million Soviet citizens were killed, nor of the fact that close to 60 million

were killed under Maoist rule in China, there is not a word of the slave

labour camps of these regimes. And, of course, there is not a word

about what has happened to the Soviet Union, to Eastern Europe since

then, nor about the leap which China has taken to abandon the

bankrupt Communist economic system.


93

Marxist design . . . 33

Hence the design is not just what was set out in that Circular

to erase the evil that Islamic rulers heaped upon India and Indians. It is

to attribute evil to the religion of our country, Hinduism; it is to present

Islam as the great progressive force which arose; it is to lament the fact

that humanity did not heed the teachings of progressive men like

Mohammed – till the "remarkable and comprehensive" Russian

Revolution of 1917!


94

Macaulay’s Residue. . . 34

“Nor is Macaulayism malevolent like Islamism or mischievous

like Christianism. It is rather mild and well-meaning, more like an

imperceptible breeze which blows in silently, fins up the psychological

atmosphere, creates a mental mood, inspires an intellectual attitude, and

finally settles down as a cultural climate – pervasive, protean and

ubiquitous.

Unlike Islamism and Christianism, Macaulayism does not employ

any meticulously matured methods to propagate or proliferate itself. It is

not out to use a specified section of Indian society as a vehicle of its

virulence. It is not a potent potion like Islamism which destroys the body

of a culture in one fell sweep. It is not subtle like Christianism which

subverts a society surreptitiously. But at the same time, it is a creeping

toxemia which corrodes the soul of a culture and corrupts a social system

in slow stages. And its target is every section of Indian society. ..”

---[Sitaram Goel, “Hindu Society under Siege”, Chapter4 : Residue of

Macaulayism]

95


1. A skeptical, if not negative, attitude towards Hindu spirituality, cultural

creations and social institutions with solemn airs of scholarship and

superior knowledge. Nothing in Hindu India, past or present, is to be

approved unless recognised and recommended by an appropriate

authority in the West;

2. A positive, if not worshipful, attitude towards everything in Western

society and culture, past as well present, in the name of progress,

reason and science. Nothing from the West is to be rejected unless it

has first been weighed and found wanting by a Western evaluation;


Macaulayism]

96


3. An intellectual inclination to compare Hindu ideals and institutions

from the past not with their contemporaneous ideals and institutions

in the West but with what the West has achieved in its recent history-

the 19th and the 20th Centuries;

4. A mental mood to judge the West in terms of the ideals and utopias

it proclaims from time to time, while judging the Hindus with an all too

supercilious reference to what prevails in Hindu society and culture

at the present time when the Hindus have hardly emerged from a

long period of struggle against foreign invasions;


Macaulayism]

97


5. A psychological propensity to scrutinise, interpret and evaluate Hindu

culture, history, society and spirituality with the help of concepts and tools

of analysis evolved by Western scholarship. It is never granted that the

Hindus too have well-developed concepts and tools of analysis, derived

from their own philosophical foundations, that it would be more profitable

to use these concepts and tools of analysis for a proper understanding of

the Hindu heritage, and that it is less than fair to employ alien and

incompatible methods of evaluation while judging this heritage. If the

Hindus use their own concepts and tools of analysis to process and

weigh the Western heritage, our Macaulayists always throw up their

hands and denounce the exercise as unscientific and irrelevant to the

universe of discourse.


Macaulayism]

98


6. The intellectual and cultural fashions and fads of our Macaulayists

change as freely and frequently as the intellectual and cultural climate in

the West. Now it is English Utilitarianism, now German Idealism, now

Russian Nihilism, now French Positivism or Existentialism, now American

Consumerism-whatever be the dominant trend in the West, it

immediately finds its flock among the educated Hindus. But one thing

remains constant. The platform must first be prepared in the West before

it could or should find an audience in India.


Macaulayism]

99

References

1. Koenraad Elst, “Negationism in India”, VOI

2. Sitaram Goel, “Hindu Society under Siege”

3. NS Rajaram, “Nationalism and Distortions in Indian History”

4. NS Rajaram, “Gandhi, Khilafat & The National Movement”, 1999

5. K.S. Lal, “The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India”

6. Mohammad Habib and K.A. Nizami (ed.), “A Comprehensive History of India”, Volume V, The Sultanat, 1970

7. Kazi Ismail (appointed by Qasim),”Chachnama”

8. Edward Sachau, “Alebruni's India”, vol. 2,

9. < http://www.islamawareness.net >

10. <www. Wikipedia.org>

102

recent history 1 - wordpress.com · 10.01.2015 · ‘the sealed nectar’. . . ... that, to pay...

Documents