Author: Dr M.K. Ganju
Publication: IndiaCause
Date: January 14, 2003
The same sin and folly, which the national
leadership committed in the name of Hindu-Muslim unity in the years before
partition, continue to be committed by national political parties in the name
of secularism. The unilateral attempts to achieve unity before partition made
the secularists to give concession after concession to the Muslims, while
the appetite and aggressiveness of the latter went on increasing. Eventually,
the national leaders agreed to partition to stave off the bloodshed. But neither
bloodshed nor partition was averted nor was Hindu-Muslim unity achieved. Today,
the same mirage is being chased by our politicians, pseudo-secularists, mulla-commie
combine and their fellow travellers, etc. May be the opinions given hereunder
will instill some sense in them and make them recognize the reality.
Rabindranath Tagore: As reported in an interview
to "The Times of India, April 18th, 1924". The poet said that he
had very frankly asked many Mohammedans whether, in the event of any Mohammedan
power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbor
to defend their common land. He could not be satisfied with the reply he got
from them. He said that he could definitely state that even men like Mr. Mohammed
Ali had declared that under no circumstances was it permissible for any Mohammedan,
whatever his country might be, to stand against any other Mohammedan. (Quoted
by A. Ghosh in "Making of the Muslim psyche" in Devendra Swarup,
Politics of conversion, New Delhi, 1988, p148).
Lala Lajpat Rai: "I have devoted most
of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim History and Muslim
Law and I am inclined to think that Hindu-Muslim unity is neither possible
not practicable… I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity
and desirability of Hindi-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust
the Muslim leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis.
The leaders cannot override them". (Ibid, p147).
Sarat Chandra Chatterji (Oct, 1926): "If
we go by the lessons of history we have to accept that the goal of the Hindu-Muslim
unity is a mirage. When Muslims first entered India, they looted the country,
destroyed the temples, broke the idols, raped the women and heaped innumerable
indignities on the people of this country. Today it appears that such noxious
behavior has entered the bone marrow of Muslims. Unity can be achieved among
equals…. I am of the view that Hindu-Muslim unity, which could not be
achieved during the last thousand years, will not materialize during the ensuing
thousand years". (Ibid p148).
Mrs. Annie Besant (A former Congress president):
Writing about the aftermath of Khilafat movement, she said," The inner
Muslim feeling of hatred against 'unbelievers' has spring up naked and unashamed….
We have seen, revived, as guide in practical politics, the old Muslim religion
of the sword…. In thinking of an independent India, the menace of Mohammedan
rule has to be considered. (The future of Indian Politics, p. 301-305)
Mahatma Gandhi (May 29, 1924): In a rare event
of realization of the reality and temporarily coming out of his amnesia about
barbaric behavior of Muslims towards Hindus, he wrote in Young India (dated
May 29, 1924): " My own experience confirms that the Musalman as a rule
is a bully…."
Aurobindo Ghosh (April 18, 1923): " I
am sorry they have made a fetish of Hindu-Muslim unity. It is of no use ignoring
facts; some day the Hindu may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare
for it…When some one said that there is also the question of Hindu-Muslim
unity which the non-violence school is trying to solve on the basis of their
theory. Sri Aurobindo replied: 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 cannot build unity on such basis.
Perhaps the only way of making the Mohammedans harmless is to make them lose
their faith in their religion"(Evening talk with Sri Aurobindo recorded
by A.B.Purani, Second series, Pondicherry, 1974, p48).
Dr. B.R Ambedkar: "To talk about Hindu-Muslim
unity from a thousand platforms or to give it blazoning headlines is to perpetrate
an illusion whose cloudily structure dissolves itself at the exchange of brickbats
and desecration of tombs and temples….
Nothing I could say can so well show the futility
of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hindu-Muslim unity up to now was at least in sight
although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of sight and also out of mind"
(Pakistan, P186)
Ram Swarup (a very renowned scholar): "Religious
harmony is a desirable thing. But it takes two to play the game. Unfortunately
such a sentiment holds a low position in Islamic theology". (Quoted by
K.S. Lal in Theory and Practice of Muslim state in India, Aditya Prakashan,
Delhi, 1999, p322).
Shiv Prasad Roy (a very perceptive Bengali
writer): Writing of Muslim mentality he states: " Pakistan and Bangladesh
are their fixed deposits. Those are Islamic states. No one else can lay claim
on them. India is a joint account. Plunder it as much as you please"
(Dibbyagyen Roy, Kandagyan Chai, Calcutta, 1982).
Fran Gautier (a well known writer): "This
is a profession of faith of a Muslim: 'I certify that there is no God than
Allah, of whom Mohammed is the only prophet', which means in effect: After
and before Mohammed, there is nobody else…'Thus the whole religion of
Islam is based on negation: nobody but us, no other religion but ours'. And
if you disagree, you shall die. This puts a serious limitation to tolerance
and from this strong belief sprang all the horrors of the Muslim invasion
of India."(Arise again, O' India). In other place in the same book he
writes: " The happiest in this matter must be the Muslims themselves.
They must be telling themselves.… What fools these Hindus are, we killed
them in millions, we wrestled the whole nation out of them, we engineered
riots against them and they still defend us." (emphasis added).
Will Durant (one of the most famous historians):
"Mohammedans conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history."(The
story of Civilization, vol1, New York, 1972).
Snouck Hurgronj, C (a renowned author): "Islam
has never favored democratic tendencies". (Selected works, G.H.Bousquet
and J Schact, eds., Leciden, 1957, p277)
Curt Van den Hevvel: "Freedom of religion
is a part of every civilized country. However, what do we do when one of these
religions is antithetical to every thing that Democracy stands for? Islam
does not recognize the right of other religions to exist. Murder of apostates
is not only condoned, but also encouraged by the prophet (Honest Intellectual
Enquiry, USA, 11.8,1977)
Rizwan Salim: "Their minds filled with
venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large
number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim
chronicles and others of the time.
"…Islamic invaders from Arabia and
Western Asia broke and burnt everything beautiful they came across the Hindustan.
So morally degenerate were these Muslim sultans that rather than attract Hindu
'infidels' to Islam through force of personal example and exhortation, they
just built a number of mosques at the sites of torn down temples. And foolishly
pretended that they had triumphed over minds and culture of Hindus…"(The
Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 20 Dec 1997)
Jan Knappert: "Islamic propaganda, funded
by the unlimited means of the Gulf States, is responsible for a plethora of
untrue ideas of Islam. Firstly, that it is a religion of peace. It is not
and never was, witness the endless expansive wars fought by Muslim rulers
and raiders. Even now the majority of conflicts of the world have Islam at
their roots: Sudan, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Sin Kiang, Kashmir, Timor, Azerbaijan,
and the Philippines"(quoted by K.S. Lal, op.cit p302).
Koenraad Elst (A prolific writer): "More
ideologically developed Hindu thinkers hold that the British role in the development
of Muslim separatism was auxiliary at most, that separatism is an intrinsic
feature of Islam (at least when it is the weaker party, unable to grab the
whole territory)…. Pakistan's ideologues too claim that Pakistan came
into existence the day Mohammed Bin Qasim stepped in Sindh…."
Writing about pre-partition days, he writes
in another place: "No Muslim leader is known to have explicitly accepted
the prospect of a purely democratic polity in a united India without any special
privileges for the Muslims" (Gandhi and Godse, A review and A Critique,
voice of India, New Delhi, 2001 p 33-34 p 57)
K.S.Lal (Renowned Historian): "The Islamic
principles of denigrating non-Muslims, of aggression and violence against
them, principles that perpetually incite to riot and rapine, have boomeranged.
However brave face the fundamentalists may try to put up, the victims of Islam
today are by and large Muslims themselves. The prophet must have known that
violence begets violence and repeatedly exhorted Muslims not to kill one another
after his death. He also had premonition that violence of Islam against non-Muslims
will be met with a backlash. There is a hadis in Sahih Muslim which says that
once the Rasul (Prophet) opined that Islam which began in poverty in Medina
would one day return to Medina in poverty, "just as a snake crawls back
and coils itself into a small hole, so will Islam be hunted out from everywhere
and return to be confined to Mecca and Medina " (op cit. p 296-297).
Hence, the pursuit of the Hindu-Muslim unity
not only seems futile but counter productive owing to the intransigent spirit
inculcated by Islam. Those who still persist in this direction should diagnose
the causes for the hostile attitude of Muslims. In fact, no one is born hostile
till the up-bringing inculcates in him/her the attitude of hatred and violence
towards others. The time has come when Muslims should ponder whether beliefs
inculcated in them through the doctrines of Kafir, Jehad, Gazi, Munkir, Mushrik,
Jaziyah, Ganimah, Dhimmi, Dar-al-harb, etc., allow them to live in peace in
a secular democracy along with people of other faiths. Hence, a suitable change
in the conditioning of mind will enable them to live in harmony with others
and this task ought to be taken-up by them on a priority basis.
