Author: Dr. T.H. Chowdary
Publication: Organiser
Date: May 5, 2002
Introduction: The number of madarsas
in India alone increased from 1,075 in 1975 to over 31,000 by now. They
are financed by a few rich Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia. Forget
about Indians: no less a person than the President of Pakistan, Gen Pervez
Musharraf himself has said that the madarsas have become factories to produce
hate-filled jihadi terrorists.
As a perceptive Indian who has no
amnesia over India's history I am not a little surprised at the totally
distorted view of Hindu-Muslim relations presented (Newsweek, March 18,
2002) by Ashutosh Varshney, especially as he happens to be Director of
the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. Consider
not the 800year long struggle of the Hindus against the Islamic invaders
from Central Asia and their determined but failed attempts to convert Hindus
to Islam (recall that there is not one country in the world to save India,
which was conquered by Islam's generals, sultans, free booster's and kings,
but whose entire people had not been converted to Islam), but justs the
ninety years preceding 1947 when India was partitioned to create the Muslim-majority
state of Pakistan.
Muslims, in especially what is now
India asserted that they are not part of the Indian nation; they are a
separate Muslim nation (Recall that while the United Nations have a Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the Muslim nations in the Organisation of
Islamic Countries (OIC), brought out the Islamic Declaration of Human Rights,
differentiating themselves from the entire non-Islamic humans). Sir Syed
Ahmed, the founder of the Aligarh Muslim University told the British rulers
of India and lndia's Muslims that democracy is inappropriate for India
as it would mean majority, that is Hindu rule over Muslims (exactly like
white South Africans did not want till 1994, democracy, as it would mean
black majority rule). As representative rule was being gradually introduced
in India by the British, the Muslims demanded and got separate electorates
for them (not part o the Indian nation). Mahatma Gandhi wanted to win over
the Muslims for a united struggle against the British rule and involved
the Hindu population in the Indian Muslims agitation for restoration of
the deposed Caliph in far-off Turkey (1919-21). Mohammed Ali, the Muslim
leader of the Khilafat movement (to restore the Islam's Caliph), declared
jointly with Mahatma Gandhi, at the time of the movement itself that a
"fallen, sinful, criminal, murderous Muslim was, according to his faith,
Islam superior to Gandhi however virtuous Gandhi may be". When stunned
India asked him whether he indeed said so, Mohammed Ali reiterated the
statements! While Gandhi and the National Congress he led, demanded the
British to quit India (1942), Mohammed Ali Jinnah and his Muslim League
told the British, "Divide (India, to create Islamic Pakistan) and (only
then) quit". In the elections to India's provincial legislatures in 1946,
Muslims in all the provinces which are now India, en masse voted for the
division and Pakistan- demanding Muslim League; not a single Muslim put
up by Gandhi-Nehru's National Congress won. When in 1946 the British announced
that they would quit India, to force them to divide India, the Muslim League
declared 16 August 1946 as Direct Action Day. On that single day, over
10,000 Hindus were slaughtered in Calcutta city alone. The Hindu retaliation
commenced and the whole of North India saw the communal civil war, children,
men and women of both the communities perished. Frightened by the civil
war unleashed by the Muslim League, Gandhi and the National Congress who
for over 80 years opposed the division of India, in the hope that Muslims
and Hindus could be one nation capitulated to the Muslim's demand for Partition
of India and the creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan, on 14.8.1947.
Almost all Hindus and Sikhs had
been kicked out of Pakistan in 1947 itself; in Bangladesh the Hindu population
declined from 35% in 1947 to a little over 10% by now! The Muslims remains
in India, whose ancestors forced the Partition of India, and created the
Islamic states of Pakistan and Bangladesh but did not leave for the states
they created (Recall that Greece and Turkey effected an exchange of their
Muslim and Christian populations) grew from below 7 per cent in 1948 to
14 per cent (excluding about 25 million illegal Muslim infiltrators into
India from Bangladesh) now!
From about 1905 onwards when the
Indian National Congress was becoming increasingly agitationist for India's
independence from British rule, there were hundreds of Hindu-Muslim riots.
These are not a recent phenomenon in India nor do they not occur in Islamic
Pakistan. There, the majority of Sunnis have declared the Quadiani sect
as non-Muslim and prohibited them to have mosques (Recall that Sir Zafrullah
Khan, the rabidly partitionist Muslim Leaguer was Pakistan's foreign minister
in its early years, but notwithstanding that, his sect was declared non-Muslim;
and he had to live in disgrace) the Sunni Pakistanis are blasting the mosques
of Shias another Muslim sect). Intolerance appears endemic among the Muslim
in South Asia. Besides, the instruction given in the madarsas, is known
to be producing jihadis, Islamic religious warriors against the infidels,
Hindus, Christians, Bahais and Buddhists. The number of madarsas in India
alone increased from 1,075 in 1975 to over 31,000 by now. They are financed
by a few rich Gulf States including Saudi Arabia. Forget about Indians;
no less a person than the President of Pakistan, Gen Pervez Musharraf himself
has said that the madarsas have become factories to produce hate-filled
jihadi terrorists.
In India, Communists (from the 1940s
itself) and their fellowtravelling "eminent", progressive intellectuals
and the 4th generation Congress (the original Congress of Gandhi-Nehru-Patel
was split by Nehru's daughter in 1969 and again in 1977 to expel those
who don't accept the Dynastic succession-Nehru; his daughter, Indira Gandhi;
her son, Rajiv Gandhi, now Rajiv's, Italian-born widow Sonia, who acquired
Indian citizenship only when it became clear that her husband would succeed
his mother) have been encouraging and fanning the separatism and fundamentalism
of Muslims in India, solely to get their votes en masse as Muslims, not,
as Indians. These parties which had been in power in Delhi for all but
six and half years out of fifty five years of independence have done little
to improve the educational, social and economic conditions of Muslims and
ills like polygamy, lack of family planning, illiteracy, little interest
in skill-talent-knowledge and giving modern education are hardly addressed.
These very parties are inciting, encouraging and sustaining the cause of
the "disputed structure".
Babur was a Central Asian Muslim
invader. In 1528, his general one Mir Baqui demolished a temple on the
birth spot of Rama and built a mosque. The spot is referred to in the Muslim
and British rulers records as "Masjid Janmasthan (Birth place). Hindus
waged 75 battles since 1528 to repossess the site; a law suit was filed
by one Sri Mahant Raghuvir Das, (a Hindu) in March 1896 for the possession
of the site where the disputed structure stood. The suit remains un-adjudicated
even today! There had been no Muslim namaaz (prayers) since 1949 in that
structure. An idol of Rama has been in that place since 1949. The place
was locked up since 1949; the lock was opened and Hindu prayers were permitted
since December 23, 1949; then Hindus were permitted to lay a foundation
stone (Shilanyas) for a Ram temple on November 10, 1989. And both the events
were by permission of the Governments of the Congress Party (obviously
with a view to court Hindu votes!). But no permission was forthcoming for
the construction of the temple. Communists, their fellow-travelling intellectuals
and Muslim vote-courting "secular" parties joined the Muslim political
and other organisations to agitate that no temple should be allowed to
be constructed. The issue was taken up by all the political parties vying
for Muslim votes. It was only since then, as late as in 1990 that the Bharatiya
Janata Partay (referred to by the West as Hindu nationalist BJP) has begun
backing the demand for temple construction since 1990.
In 1990, the then Prime Minister
Chandra Sekhar invited the Viswa Hindu Parishad and others which were spearheading
the movement for Ram temple and a number of Muslim organisation which were
opposing this move to come out with the evidence that each party has about
the existence of a temple and its destruction by Babur's General or to
the contrary. The Muslim parties were backed by the Communists and fellow-travelling
historians. When it was becoming clear that the evidence about the existence
of a temple and its destruction was overwhelming, the Muslim parties and
their Communist supporters boycotted the subsequent meeting. No amicable
settlement was therefore, forthcoming. Exasperated at the dilatoriness
and various inciting and asserting positions that the Muslim organisations
took, hundreds of thousands of Hindus assembled in Ayodhya on December
6, 1992 to conduct a mammoth worship and begin the construction of a temple.
None knows the immediate provocation but the crowd pulled-down the dilapidated
disputed structure. This was the 76th battle for the possession of the
Ram Janmasthan (the birth place of Lord Rama). The image of Lord Rama which
was existing since 1949 in this very place was built around into a small
temple. This has been the situation since 1992.
Muslims and their Communist backers
are asking proof that Rama was indeed a historic figure, and that he was
born at this place. It is as ridiculous as non-Christians asking proof
for the virgin birth of Jesus and for Jesus to have walked out of his grave
after he was buried or asking for proof of Prophet Mohammed going on a
white horse to heaven to commune with Allah and landing at Al-aqsa site
in Jerusalem. It is the belief of billions of Hindus for thousands of years
that Lord Rama was a historic person and that he was born at the place
called Ramajanmasthan in Ayodhya where Baburs General built a mosque by
pulling down an existing temple. Pulling down temples - and breaking images
has been the standard and religiously enjoined practice for Muslim invaders
of India since Mohammed Gazhni, a thousand years ago. Even Prophet Mohammed
himself broke hundreds of images he came across except Kaba in Macca.
The Muslim conquerors pulled down
hundreds of churches in Spain and built mosques in those very places. Of
course, when the Christians expelled the Muslims from Spain, they pulled
down the mosques and reconstructed the churches. As recently as last year,
the Taliban, on the authority of the Koran and the Prophet blew the centuries
old Buddha's. Statues at Baniyan in Afghanistan to pieces. In the light
of these, it is not unreasonable to believe that the temple for Lord Rama
in Ayodhya was pulled down and in that very place a mosque was built. Also
in two other places, Varanasi and Mathura held to be the most sacred places
for Hindus (along with Ayodhya) adjacent to and almost encroaching upon
the temples of Lord Siva and Krishna respectively mosques had been constructed.
The continued existence of the disputed structure and the mosques adjacent
to and almost encroaching upon the temples in Varanasi and Mathura constantly
remind Hindus of the humiliation inflicted upon them.
The Hindu peoples movement for the
repossession of Rama's birth place in Ayodhya is viewed by many as reassertion
of the self-respect and nationalism of the Hindu people. It is not a mere
movement for a judicial title to a disputed piece of land- less than one
acre. Nations which had been humiliated, after throwing off the foreign
yoke and native dictators have always restored their former symbols of
civilisation, culture and sovereignty and honour. In Warsaw, Poland, a
church belonging to a certain sect of the conqueror was pulled-down as
representing over-lordship of conquerors, was pulled-down of the native
and a church sect was built in that very place recently. Statues- of Stalin
and Lenin had been pulled-down in the former soviet satellite states: and
also within India, the statues of the British King and Queens had been
removed. Streets and places and gardens named after dies British are being
given Indian names, after Indian heroes. After decolcinization the Gold
Coast became Ghana; Rhodesia became Zimbabwe; Ceylon became Srilanka, Burma
became Myanmar; Siam became Thailand; Peking became Beijing and Canton
became Ghang Zhow.
It is necessary that the thousand-year
long history of the Hindu-Muslim conflict in India especially during the
last hundred years is recalled before one ventures to pontificate about
what is happening in India. Generally, many a person deIndianised by MarxismLeninism-Maoism
has been invoking "secularism", in order to trash Hinduism. Whosoever ridicules
and trashes Hinduism and criticises their faith and culture and civilization
is called a secularist. Any body calling himself a Hindu is called a Communalist,
Fascist, fundamentalist, reactionary, etc. A number of these "secularists"
are ensconced in the universities in India and abroad. It is these who
are giving a very wrong picture of Hindu-nationalism. Macaulay, a British
colonial official, responsible for the discontinuance of the traditional
system of Indian education and substituted English system of education
in India, noted that the new system would produce large numbers of Indian
people who would be Indian in blood and colour only but would think and
act like the British. Macaulay seems to have succeeded beyond his expectations
if one consider the tribe of left, democratic, secular, socialist, progressive,
eminent intellectuals who write in English newspapers and journals in India
and abroad, presenting Hindu nationalism as "communal, fundamentalist,
Fascist", (swear words that Communists have always been using for about
a century to denounce their adversaries). Shri Siddharth Varshney appears
to be one such up-rooted Indian, catering to Hindu and India-baiters. This
school of "Indians" are mortally afraid to criticise polygamy, gender-based
inequality, begetting of numerous children; madarsa education; religious
intolerance and ethnic cleansing of minorities (eg: Pakistan, north-cast
Cyprus, Kosovo, Kashmir) in Islamic countries. The fundamental fact of
Islam in India is: religious intolerance, violence, hosting terrorists;
aversion to modern education bullying privilege-seeking, separate laws,
transnational belonging and rioting at the slightest pretext like hurt
"sentiments".