Society & Lifestyle
|Analysis||Share This Page|
Dangerous Declaration of 2006
|by V. Sundaram|
'Hindus of India unite! You have nothing to lose but your self-chosen chains.'
By a historic declaration that Muslims of India - and particularly Muslims only - will have a knock-down priority in the vital matter of charge on scarce Indian national resources taken as a whole, Dr. Manmohan Singh has eminently qualified himself to be immediately proposed by President Bush and Tony Blair as the fittest candidate for the post of Prime Minister of Iraq in order to restore normalcy in that war-ravaged country. I am not invoking the classic instance of Iraq without valid reasons. Iraq has been the victim of unprovoked and unabashed Anglo-American imperialism. Like Herr Hitler launching a war against countries like Austria, Poland, France, Belgium, England, Russia, etc. during the II World War, President Bush and Blair - very much like Hitler and Mussolini - combined to attack Iraq without any provocation in 2003 giving the viciously imaginary reason of Iraq being in possession of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. After deploying the combined military might of their countries against a small country like Iraq, Bush and Blair could find nothing in Iraq excepting their own 'original weapons of mass destruction' which they had transported to Iraq for the purposes of a barbarous invasion running counter to all known principles of international law. After three years of Anglo-American misrule, Iraq is in a state of chaos, turmoil and confusion today. Criminal gangsters have taken over the land under the supreme benediction of Bush and Blair watching the situation with impotent despair.
In this terribly bad and sad situation, the only man who can restore normalcy there seems to be Dr. Manmohan Singh - the newly emerging patron-saint of Pan Islamism- acting as Iraq Prime Minister, with Sonia Gandhi as President and a Cabinet consisting of Islam-embracing men like Arjun Singh, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Ram Vilas Paswan, Karunanidhi and a few other stalwarts of global fame in the Islamic world. All of them seem to be politically pretending to have a better understanding of the mysteries of the Muslim psyche than even a Sigmund Freud - the father of modern psycho analysis.
The non-descript, non-performing, surrogate, Islam-embracing, Christianity-coveting and Hindu hating and artificially nominated, if not imposed, Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh has declared: 'Minorities, particularly Muslims, must have the first claim on resources.' L K Advani, who is a duly elected Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, has rightly thundered: 'What is this if not rank communalism? The statement the Prime Minister has made last Saturday is in violation of the spirit of the Constitution. It has shocked millions in the country. I demand that it be withdrawn. I expected the Prime Minister to say that those living below poverty line, particularly the dalits, tribals and the backward, shall have the first claim on the country's resources.'
In my view the Prime Minister's most inglorious statement in our recent history tantamounts to outraging the modesty of Mother India just for the sake of hit and run and shit and run electoral gains through the treacherous quick-sands of Muslim vote-bank politics in the ensuing Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections and the Lok Sabha elections in 2009.
Dr. Manmohan Singh's statement steeped in self-chosen infamy reminds me of the equally infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917. On 2 November, 1917, the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, wrote to Jewish leader Lord Rothshild, to assure him that his government supported the ideal of providing a homeland for the Jews. The British hoped thereby to win more Jewish support for the Allies in the I World War. The 'Balfour Declaration' became the basis for international support for the founding of the modern State of Israel.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 led to the artificial creation of the State of Israel by the Allied Powers after the II World War in the Middle East with disastrous consequences for the Arabs in Palestine. I am not for a moment suggesting that Jews were not entitled to their legitimate living geographical space. The Allied Powers failed to find such a living place for the beleaguered and stranded Jews after the II World War. The primordial seeds of Arab-Israeli conflict were sown in 1917 by the Balfour Declaration.
Like Lord Balfour in 1917, Mohammed Ali Jinnah sowed the seeds of Pakistan through his Fourteen Points at a meeting of the Council of the All India Muslim League on 28 March, 1929. He proposed them as part of a constitutional reform plan to safeguard the rights of Muslims in a self-governing India. He made it clear that the form of the future constitution should be Federal with the residuary powers vested in the provinces. Then came the Two Nation theory of Jinnah which led to the birth of Pakistan and partition of India on religious lines on 15 August, 1947.
After independence, the Congress Party under the leadership of Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and now Sonia Gandhi has outdone the blatantly communal command performance of Jinnah by trying to create newer and newer Pakistans by means of fair or foul in different parts of North-Eastern India. Dr. Manmohan Singh's recent declaration has laid a solid foundation for the creation of more and more Pakistans in interminable succession in the not very distant future. Mir Jaffar stabbed the Nawab of Bengal in 1757 enabling Robert Clive to win the Battle of Plassey. Justice Rajindar Sachar has become the Mir Jaffar of today by giving a mischievous report for creating a government for the Muslims, of the Muslims and by the crypto-Muslims.
Dr. Manmohan Singh acting under the dictatorial anti-Hindu orders of Sonia Gandhi has made an unqualified declaration on behalf of the Muslims hoping that he and his Congress Party would be able to win the Islamic hearts of the Muslims in the coming elections. Mahatma Gandhi, quite unlike Dr. Manmohan Singh and Sonia, who was genuine in his love for the Muslims and who was not interested in the trappings of any high public office, failed magnificently to win the hearts of the Muslims of India. History tells us that even when Mahatma Gandhi was heading the Khilafat movement in 1922 upon the request of Ali Brothers, Mohammed Ali stabbed Mahatma Gandhi in the back by declaring: 'Mahatma Gandhi is only a Kafir. Even a degenerate and immoral Muslim will command greater respect and affection from me than the saintly Mahatma. I get this sanction from my religion and the Koran.'
Dr. Manmohan Singh is vainglorious in his partisan political belief that the Muslims of India would be infatuated with him for his recent declaration in their favor.
In his famous book Pakistan or the Partition of India?, Dr Ambedkar analyzed and criticized the many sinister views and designs of the advocates of Pakistan in 1944. It should not be forgotten that until 1944, not many Muslims of what are now Pakistan and Bangladesh were with the Muslim League. It was the Muslims of what is now India that were demanding the partition of India and the creation of an Islamic State. In the elections to the Central Legislative Assembly and to the Provinces in 1946, there were separate electorates for Muslims. The Congress under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel and Maulana Azad fought the elections promising that India would not be divided. The Muslim League under Jinnah fought the elections demanding and promising that India would be divided and Pakistan created. The savagely brutal 'Islamic' fact is that only 1.3 per cent of the Muslims voted for the Nationalist Muslim candidates of the Congress for the Central Legislative Assembly and only 4.67 per cent voted for Congress Muslims for the Provincial Legislatures. In other words, it is the Muslims of what is now India that asserted that they were not part of the Indian nation; they were a separate nation because they were Muslims and Pakistan should be carved out as a Muslim state.
They launched the Direct Action; that is, Civil War for creation of Pakistan on 16 August, 1946. A 'compassionate' and 'noble' man called H S Suhrawardy was the Muslim League Chief Minister of Bengal then. With Islamic 'compassion' and feelings of 'global brotherhood,' he declared holiday for the police for two days and sponsored a pogram of massacre of innocent Hindus in Calcutta which triggered supportive and retaliatory killings in many parts of Bengal and Bihar. This glorious record of Suhrawardy to demoralize the Hindus of India, has been put to shame by the impolitic declaration of Dr. Manmohan Singh today.
Mahatma Gandhi surrendered to the Ali Brothers during the days of Khilafat Movement in the early 1920s and to Jinnah in 1947. Jawaharlal Nehru surrendered to the Muslim marauders from Pakistan in Kashmir in 1949. He again surrendered to Liaquat Ali Khan in 1950 when he concluded an anti-Hindu agreement with him.
Indira Gandhi surrendered to Bhutto when she handed over 93,000 Pakistan Prisoners of War to Pakistan in 1972. In the strategic arena of pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu brand of Congress Politics, all of them have been swept away and put into oblivion in one stroke by the recent announcement of Dr. Manmohan Singh. When a totally selfless missionary like Mahatma Gandhi failed in his attempt to woo the Muslims, a known mercenary of Sonia Gandhi like Dr. Manmohan Singh is likely to do no better.
This tale is not the end; not even the beginning of the end. It is only an end of the beginning.
Today I was hoping to elaborate on the disastrous pronouncement of Dr Manmohan Singh on the imperative national need for declaring Muslims as the super citizens of India to the strategic secular exclusion of all non-Muslim citizens from the Agenda of the Union Government. After reading this morning's major English media Newspapers I have been left gasping and breathless by the uncontrolled flood of portentous and irresponsible statements made not only by Dr Manmohan Singh but also by his esteemed Cabinet colleagues. My head is in a whirl. Should I write about Pranab Mukherjee's perspective plan to handover certain bits of India to China or about the childish warning issued by the Union Minister of State for Home, Sriprakash Jaiswal to the kith and kin of the security personnel who lost their lives on 13 December, 2001 defending the Parliament against terrorists like Mohammad Afzal Guru. I am ashamed by the small-minded and wicked observation of Sriprakash Jaiswal who has said: 'Nobody should do anything against the Constitution'. He has warned the families of the security personnel killed during the attack on Parliament in 2001 who have returned the medals to the President yesterday, calling it unconstitutional. Sanjay Gandhi was the hangman for Indira Gandhi during the dark days of emergency from 1975 to 1977. Sriprakash Jaiswal seems to be the hangman for Sonia Gandhi today!
In this context, I fully endorse the view of Capt Balakrishnan who has said very clearly that he will not be surprised if Sriprakash Jaiswal issues a statement with unconcealed fervor and elemental passion to this effect: 'I strongly recommend that our revered and cosmic 'Roman Mata' should move a Parliamentary Resolution for the imposition of a 'Secular Jiziya' on these eight families for having daringly acted against the tenets of 'Nehruvian Secularism'. How dare they act in such a manner?
Undeterred by the uncalled for warning by the Union Minister Jaiswal, the eight families of the victims marched to Rashtrapati Bhawan yesterday with great dignity and moral courage and returned the medals - Keerti Chakras, the dead were honored with. Their medals were framed together, and returned to the office of the President. In their joint memorandum to President APJ Abdul Kalam, with whom Afzal's mercy petition is pending, the families of the slain security-men said: 'We regard the gallantry medals a 'humiliation' in the light of the delay in the execution of the death-row convict. A pardon means making a mockery of the brave soldiers and civilians who laid down their precious lives while performing their duty for the nation. Hence we have decided to return the medals to the government given to our near and dear ones, which now seem to us like humiliation piled on us.' The memorandum presented by them was signed by ten people, including widows of two CPWD men and of a TV journalist who were killed in the attack.
The families of the eight victims later told the media that they have lost faith in the sanctity of these medals. Jaywati Devi, who's husband, head constable Vijender Singh, took a bullet in his chest, had declared on Tuesday: 'Our martyrs' sacrifice will be futile if Afzal doesn't get the death penalty. We will be returning the medals to the President on Wednesday. The government is trying to insult us with these medals. We will take back these medals after Afzal is hanged'. Ganga Devi, widow of sub-inspector Nanak Chand said with anguish: 'We did not order execution of Afzal. It's the court that has ordered it. But this vile politics over his death sentence, which is being delayed, has led us to return these medals.' The Chairman of the All India Anti-Terrorist Front, M S Bitta, who led the affected families to Rashtrapathi Bhavan said, 'if the government has decided to make a joke of their sacrifice, then there is no point in keeping these medals'.
Our tasteless, colorless, odorless, tactless and directionless Home Minister spoke with sanctimonious pseudo-secular humbug when he said that any mercy petition from a condemned Prisoner takes eight to nine years for final disposal. Afzal Guru has moved the Supreme Court for a curative review of the judgement awarding him the death sentence. Shivraj Patil covered himself with disgrace when he said that the families of the victims were being provoked by the BJP. The families rejected Patil's remarks in Parliament about them, which they said have left them sad, dazed and shocked.
The humanitarian concern that is being shown to Afzal Guru is not being shown by the Union Home Minister and his Deputy to the families of the security personnel who laid down their lives to defend our Parliament against the terrorists. The UPA government believes in Muslim appeasement at all costs. Mahatma Gandhi was the man who sowed the seeds of this Muslim appeasement policy at the time of Khilafat Movement in 1920-21. Dr B R Ambedkar had made it clear in these relevant words: 'Gandhi has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus. It is a notorious fact that many prominent Hindus who had offended the religious susceptibilities of the Muslims either by their writings or by their part in the Shuddhi movement have been murdered by some fanatic Musalmans. The leading Muslims never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs. This attitude of the Muslims is quite understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of Mr. Gandhi.' The same argument of Dr Ambedkar applies to Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Dr Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi.
On 23 December 23, 1926, Swami Shraddhananda was murdered by one Abdul Rashid. The Swami was recovering from an attack of pneumonia and was in bed when the miscreant entered his home and killed him with a dagger. Perhaps, as a tribute to the murder, Rashid's community in Delhi collected a substantial fund for his defence in the law courts. Congressman Asaf Ali, in whose memory a prominent road has been named in Delhi, defended him in court. Despite Asaf Ali's best efforts, Rashid was sentenced to death and hanged in due course. It was reported at that time that for earning merit for the soul of Abdul Rashid, the murderer of Swami Shraddhananda, in the next world, the students and Professors of the famous Theological College of Deoband finished five complete recitations of the Koran. At the Guwahati session of the Congress in 1926, Gandhi's perverted response to Rashid's act of crime surprised many people. To quote the words of Pattabhi Seetharamaiah who was present at that session: 'Gandhi expounded what true religion was and explained the causes that led to the murder. Gandhi said: 'Now you will perhaps understand why I have called Abdul Rashid a brother and I repeat it'. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami's murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feelings of hatred against one another'.
It was Mahatma Gandhi who sowed the seeds of total conceptual and operational confusion about pseudo-secularism afflicting the nation of India today. In order to prove this point, I have to quote Mahatma Gandhi's words once again on the same issue: 'Let every Musalman also understand that Swami Shraddhanandji was no enemy of Islam, that his was a pure and unsullied life and that he has left for us all the lessons of peace written in his blood'.
Before partition of India and our independence we had a Muslim Pakistan and near-Muslim India. After independence, thanks to the vision of Pan-Islamic Nehru, we devoutly devoted ourselves to the task of transforming this Dar-ul Hindu Harab into Dar-ul Islamic secularism. And we went about it with missionary zeal. We drew up a Constitution with built-in clauses favoring Muslims. When that was not enough, our Prime Minister Nehru made it explicitly 'secular' to make it implicitly Islamic. This he did by mischievously introducing Articles 29 and 30 in the Indian Constitution only to promote the cause of Islamic communalism. Nehru had taken only a Post-Graduate degree in his anti-Hindu brand of Islam-embracing secularism. Indira Gandhi took a D Sc degree in this field by amending the Constitution several times in order to divide the Hindus of India. This work has been taken to its logical conclusion by the UPA government through its Justice Sachar Committee Report. By his recent declaration, Dr Manmohan Singh has clearly given a signal to all the non-Muslims that they are only III Class citizens in India.
How I wish Dr Manmohan Singh had taken care to read the complete works of Dr Ambedkar who showed a clairvoyant vision about the evil intentions of Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the Indian Muslims as early as in 1940. To quote his words: 'Past experience shows that Hinduism and Islam are too irreconcilable and too incompatible to permit Hindus and Muslims ever forming one single nation or even two harmonious parts of one whole. Those differences have the sure effect of not only keeping them at war, the differences are permanent and the Hindu-Muslim problem bids fair to be eternal. To attempt to solve it on the footing that Hindus and Muslims are one or if they are not one now, they will be one hereafter, is bound to be a barren occupation - as barren as it proved to be in the case of Czechoslovakia. On the contrary, time has come when certain facts must be admitted as beyond dispute, however unpleasant such admission may be. In the first place, it should be admitted that every possible attempt to bring about union between Hindus and Muslims have been made and that all of them have failed'.
No one in the UPA government today can dare to dismiss the above observations of Dr Ambedkar as communal and saffronized. If that be true, then the unanswerable question will be why did a pseudo-secular, Islam-embracing and Hindu-hating Prime Minister like Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru make Dr Ambedkar the first Law Minister of independent India?
Jawaharlal Nehru was a multidimensional bungler and wangler. In dealing with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue he bungled. In dealing with China on the Tibetan and other border issues he bungled. In dealing with economic issues he bungled. Many do not know that he only laid the corner stone for communalism in India. Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution had their genesis in Nehru's communalism. The Constituent Assembly was elected in January 1946. On 13 December of the same year, Jawaharlal Nehru, as head of the interim government, moved, what was called, an Objective Resolution, whose primary political aim was to appease Jinnah's Muslim League in the hope that it would not press for partition. In this context it should not be forgotten that no final decision had yet been taken on the grant of independence to India till 20 February 20, 1947.
What is extraordinarily indefensible and unpardonable is that the Objective Resolution and the resulting Articles of the proposed Constitution continued to be debated, as if nothing had happened on August 15, 1947. To quote the words of Jawaharlal Nehru from a speech which he delivered in the Constituent Assembly on November 8, 1948: 'Nearly two years ago, we met in this hall and on that solemn occasion it was my high privilege to move a resolution which has come to be known as the Objective Resolution. It tried to embody the spirit that lay behind the Indian people at the time. It is difficult to maintain the spirit of a nation or a people at a high level all the time. Nevertheless, I hope that it is in that spirit that we have to approach the framing of this Constitution - Always using that Resolution as the yard measure with which to test every clause and phrase of this Constitution' (Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume-VII, Lok Sabha 1999).
Articles 29 and 30 conferred princely privileges on the Minorities (in effect it meant only Muslims at that time) and they were described in the Resolution as safeguards provided for Minorities. The fact that those two cardinal Articles were conceived to protect communalism was never explicitly mentioned or debated or discussed. In the process, unconscionable discrimination was introduced in the educational system. A school is either run by the Government or aided by the State. In either case, the Government has the final say in the policies of a school. If, however a school happens to be run by members of a minority religion or group, the government does not interfere in its running. In short only Muslims or Christians can expect to run a school without any interference from the Government - regardless of whether they choose to get government aid or not. On the other hand, a school run by Hindus either accepts Government aid and faces blatant interference, or abstains from getting any aid and yet faces marginal Government interference. Thus in the name of protection of Minorities, a constitutionally approved system of treacherous discrimination against the Hindus as a whole has been crystallized and institutionalized with no hope of any redemption or relief in perpetuity till the Constitution gets suitably amended by a genuinely secular Government committed to the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity. India's the only country in the world where people belonging to a majority religion have been reduced to the level of landless serfs. This death blow to the Hindus was given in a calculated manner by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in 1949.
Nehru turned a blind eye to the fact that the Muslim League had demanded an exchange of population as an integral part of the country's vivisection. All the Muslims of Hindustan were to immigrate to Pakistan. And all non-Muslims from Pakistan were to come over to Hindustan. All the top leaders of the Muslim League like Jinnah, Feroze Khan Noon, Nawab of Mamdot, Pir Ilahi Bux, Mohammed Ismail, I. Chundrigar, Shaukat Hayat Khan and Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan demanded an exchange of population. While Jinnah knew how to get rid of Hindus from Pakistan, Nehru only succeeded in making the Minority Muslims the favored children of the Indian State by treating the majority Hindus as impotent refugees from an alien land.
In the Constituent Assembly on 8 November, 1948, Z H Lari, a Muslim League Member from Uttar Pradesh who had got himself elected on a pro-partition ticket. He passionately spoke in favor of reservation and special rights for Muslims in India. He said: 'We never said that Muslims in these parts are going to migrate to Pakistan. We are the children of the soil and as such we claim the rights of citizens of India.' A Congress member called Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi shot back: 'Why did your leaders create Pakistan? What have they done to the Hindus there?' Prof K T Shah another member tried to insist that no expenditure on any private institution should be defrayed from the public purse. Dr B R Ambedkar was equally categorical that no such burden should be cast upon the State. He clarified that religious instruction must be distinguished from research or study. He said: 'So far as the Islam religion is concerned, it means that you believe in one God, that you believe that Pagamber the Prophet is the last Prophet and so on. In other words, what we call 'Dogma'. A 'Dogma' is quite different from study.'
Yet, Islam-embracing Jawaharlal Nehru and his Government ignored the patriotic and selfless exhortations of great national leaders like Dr Ambedkar and went on to enshrine in the Constitution financial burdens in perpetuity which most States are now finding it difficult to bear for the simple reason that the combination of subsidy and freedom of management has led to the planned proliferation of Madrassas throughout the country.
Dr Manmohan Singh's recent announcement makes it indirectly very clear that they are treating the Hindus of India as 'Zimmis'. Throughout the period of Muslim Rule in India starting with the invasion of Mohammed Bin Qasim in A.D. 712, Hindus were considered as 'Zimmis' or specially protected species. All of them were liable to pay the legendary 'Jizya' or poll tax as the price for this protection. In any case, devoid of any real power or authority, there was not much that any Hindu initiative could achieve. The fear of being punished killed all initiatives. All in all, by any benchmark of human equality, the Zimmi's was a subhuman status. In her landmark book, Islam and Dhimmitude (Associated University Press, New Jersy, USA 2002), Bat Ye'or has suggested that it was better to be a Muslim slave than being a non-Muslim 'Zimmi'. The simple reason she gives is that slaves were known to have risen to the position of Kings. Incidentally, even in India, Qutbuddin Aibak, the First Sultan of Delhi was a slave of Mohammed Gori. The UPA Government is clear in its political commitment of treating more than 800 millions of Hindus in India as impotent 'Zimmis'.
The concept of 'Zimmi' was first enunciated in a contract signed in AD 720 between Khalifa Omar II and the local Jewish and Christian leaders of Arabia.
Some of the main terms of the contract were as follows:
The root of the concept of 'Zimmi', however, dates back to AD 628 when Prophet Mohammed arrived at an agreement or a 'Zimma' with the Jews of Khaybar situated 140 kms away from Mecca. For the first time 'Jizya' was paid by the Jews, in order to save their religion as well as their right to cultivate their land. According to Koranic doctrine, any land, property or life captured as a result of Jihad belongs to the conqueror.
Throughout the period of Muslim Rule in India, Hindus were treated as 'Zimmis' and often humiliated so much that the trauma has lasted till today. In a book called 'Studies in Medieval Indian History' authored by Dr P Saran and published in 1952, Prof Mohammed Habib in his introduction gives a poetic description on the manner in which 'Jizya' should be paid. To quote Mohammed Habib's ecstatic words: 'The Schools of Al Shafe'l and Malik agree in the view that when the 'zimmi' comes to pay the 'jizya' he should keep standing while the collector is seated, and he must wear the distinctive dress prescribed for the 'zimmis'. During the process of payment, the 'zimmi' is seized by the collar and vigorously shaken and pushed about'. Qazi Mughisuddin of Bayana stated that the Hindu, Khirajguzar, or payer of 'jizya' is he who, should the collector chose to spit into the mouth, opens the same without hesitation so that the official may spit into it.'
The eyes of the world are upon the Hindus of India in absolute majority in terms of numbers. Are they going to be wise enough and brave enough to unite against the combined forces of Islam, Christianity, Marxism and Nehruvian Secularism attempting to convert the Hindus of India into 'Zimmis' in the sense in which Prof. Mohammed Habib has described them as detailed above?
When Mohammed Gazni attacked the Somnath temple in the 11th century AD and destroyed all the idols there, he did less damage to the Hindu psyche than what Dr Manmohan Singh has done today through his Islam-embracing and Hindu-obliterating statement on knock down priority to the Muslims of India in all matters relating to welfare and development. His specially chosen hangman in so far as more than 800 million Hindus in absolute majority in India are concerned is Justice Rajinder Sachar who has given his infamous report based on half truths, fable, fiction, contrived and manipulated statistics to hide the blatant truth at all costs with transcendental pseudo-secular fervor. His only focus has been to advance the political fortunes of the dying Congress Party.
Now the question is what was the provocation for the appointment of Justice Sachar Committee? The answer can be given in the trenchant words of Dr T H Chowdary, a great technocrat and humanist and a great son of India with total indivisible commitment to Sanatana Dharma: 'In order to gain the block votes of Muslims to boost the sagging fortunes of Sonia-led Congress, the UPA Government directed by the Italy-born Dr. Sonia Maino Gandhi and kept in power by the non-Indian communist parties, the Prime Minister, who has been reduced to a rubber-stamp by the Adhinayaki of Congress appointed the Justice Rajinder Sachar Committee to study and report on the economic and social conditions of Muslims in the 'secular' democratic republic of India.
The Sachar Committee has brought out the very well-known facts that Muslim residents in India are miserably lagging behind Hindus, in some respects, even behind the scheduled castes. The Committee laments that while Muslim population is 15 per cent and above, their representation in prestigious services like IAS and IPS and IFS is only 2 per cent to 3 per cent. It wanted to find out the percentage of Muslims in armed forces but rightly and very patriotically, they refused to give that information as it will be used for dividing the nation and communalizing the armed forces which alone today are the sole guarantor and preservers of the country's integrity and nation's independence. The learned Justice Rajinder Sachar conveniently forgot or he did not know what Dr B R Ambedkar, the great patriot and statesman of India had to say about employment of Muslims in India's armed services. Dr Ambedkar held it would be very dangerous and risky to have Muslims in the armed forces. In profusion of his sympathy, Justice Rajinder Sachar had advocated the adoption of proactive measures that could bring up Muslim representation in proportion to their population in every sector of India's economic and government activities. There is a suggestion that the budget f every government department and development project should set apart 15 per cent for helping Muslims'.
Justice Sachar has conveniently ignored the fact that the contribution of the Muslim population to the GDP is not even 2 per cent and that they are the largest consumers of welfare schemes because of the ever expanding profusion of the poor amongst them. They are poor and unemployable because of their total lack of concern for modern merit-giving and employability-promoting education, especially for the girl children. If the reservations for Muslims are conceded as affirmative action to remove their backwardness, can Christians be left behind? It is very clear that there is a calculated move of the Congress to first make a promise to Muslims so that by violence, militancy and terrorism, the Muslims will get it and therefore the Christians will find it easy to follow soon.
The fundamental question is whether this nation, especially Hindus owe anything to the Muslims. We should not forget that the backwardness among Muslims is a characteristic attributes of Muslims in every country in the world. The Human Development Index in in Bangladesh and Pakistan, the two states not ruled by Hindus, is no better than that of India. The few Hindus – the Kafirs, according to the Koran – could not have imposed backwardness on their Islamic rulers. A United Nations Study of Arab countries has established that despite their oil riches, Human Development Index in Muslim Arab countries compares very poorly with the countries of comparable per capita GDP, in Europe and elsewhere.
In India Muslims ruled several parts of the country for about 700 years. They imposed Persian, not an Indian language but a foreign one, as government language upon the people of India. In the Nizam's state of Hyderabad, Muslims were the rulers until September 1948. Urdu not Telugu, Marathi or Kannada was the medium of instruction from primary to the University level. 90 per cent of the government jobs were for the less than 10 per cent Muslims. How have they become backward in so short a period in that region?
I fully endorse the view of Dinanath Mishra: 'The Sachar Committee report, submitted recently to Parliament, is pregnant with disastrous consequences. It may result in balkanization of the nation on communal lines. It also contains the seeds of the two-nation theory propounded in the early decades of the 20th century'.
It is not for a government appointed committee to look into the political status of different religious groups in India. Justice Sachar, just in order to politically qualify himself for being appointed as Governor or some such sinecure post, has transgressed his limits under the mischievous garb of 'political participation' and made several political recommendations to advance the political fortunes of the Congress Party. No enlightened citizen can fail to note that most portions of the report have been penned by Marxist Historian Irfan Habib and known Hindu-baiters belonging to Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) alumnae. Justice Sachar Committee Report proudly bears an authentic AMU stamp.
Justice Sachar by suggesting a method for the greater participation of the Muslims in the political process through the establishment of a more rational procedure for Delimitation of Constituencies has put his spiritual and political progenitor Mohammed Ali Jinnah who was responsible for the disastrous partition of India to Himalayan shame. This Islamic recommendation alone will entitle Justice Sachar for the award of a new title of honor to be brought in exclusively for his sake called 'Supersecular Bharatratna' at a special investiture ceremony to be presided over by Sonia Gandhi, with Dr Manmohan Singh acting as an obedient Master of Ceremonies, and sanctified by the presence of more than one dozen Islamic Heads of State – both Sunni and Shia without any communal discrimination! That day will be the most glorious day in the long and chequered history of India – more glorious than the Arab conquest of Sind in 712 AD.
The Constituent Assembly in 1947-49, while dealing with the question of reservations for Muslims unanimously rejected the idea of religion based reservations. It would be interesting to look into one member's arguments at that time :
Begum Aizaz Rasul (United Provinces):
Recently I have finished reading a brilliant book on Muslim Politics in India by an Indian Muslim called Hamid Dalwai who describes one of the symptoms of Dhimmitude with great candor and courage in plain English. He pays his brilliant tribute to the timid and cowardly Hindus in these words : 'A Hindu is used to playing several roles and he is an expert in assuming different forms on different occasions. But I must frankly state that there is a kind of Hindu who is always terrified when he thinks of Muslims. This is no doubt a shameful state of affairs. At every critical moment this particular type of Hindu pretends to be more of a Muslim than a Muslim himself, and thwarts the attempts of those who are trying to make the average Muslim less of a fanatic'. (Dalwai, 1968, pp. 44-45)
Hindus will do well to learn from the experience of Mahatma Gandhi. He spent a lifetime in singing hymns of praise to the 'noble faith of Islam' and extolling the Koran and the Prophet. And yet, he was regarded by the majority of Muslims as the 'greatest enemy of Islam' and abused as such in the foulest language by the Urdu Press. He lived to see the holocaust of Partition caused by Islam. According to the Congressmen of today, his only fault was that, unlike the votaries of secularism, he was very proud of being a Hindu.
Thus it will be clear that people like Dr Manmohan Singh, Justice Sachar, Arjun Singh, Sonia Gandhi and others who cherish the illusion that Muslims can be persuaded to make concessions if Islam is flattered, live in a fool's paradise. The whole history of Islam in India and elsewhere is a witness that Muslims have never made a concession to the 'Kafirs', particularly when it came to the essentials of their creed. Hindus have to realize at once that their temples are not safe so long as they recognize Islam as a religion and thus permit it to retain its self-righteous aggressiveness under the paternal care of the UPA Government in New Delhi holding aloft their flag of pseudo-secularism.
Kulapathi K M Munshi wrote long ago that Prime Minister Nehru reduced the Congress President to a rubber-stamp. In a magnificent act of subterranean reversal of that despicable act, Congress President Sonia Gandhi has reduced the Prime Minister to a rubber-stamp.
God save India and her people!!
|More by : V. Sundaram|
|Views: 3422 Comments: 1|
Comments on this Article
10/13/2011 16:41 PM
|Top | Analysis|