The Non-violent Destruction of Akhand Bharat part I
CYBERHINWA
By: Adity Sharma
January 04, 2008
"If you come, with you, "if you don't, without you; and if you oppose,
in spite of you--the Hindus will continue to fight for their national
freedom as best as they can." - Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
"However pure Mr. Gandhi"s character may be, he must appear to me,
from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he
be without character." - Maulana Mohammed Ali
"I do regard Islam to be a religion of peace in the same sense as
Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are." - Mohandas Karamkhand Gandhi
"We have heard Muslim leaders declare that if the Afghans invaded
India, they would join their fellow-believers, and would slay the
Hindus who defended their motherland against the foe; we have been
forced to see that the primary allegiance of Mussalmans is to Islamic
countries, not to our motherland." Annie Besant
Delving in to the pages of primeval history, we observe that it is
replete with the theory of primordially, which postulates that people
will invariably remain the way they are due to the repeated actions of
their past. Their attitudes towards each other are influenced by a
prescribed and rigidly controlled edict that has given its followers a
sense of identity, and an unchanging worldview. When expounding on
religion and aspirations of a group of people, this theory gives way
to constructivism, which claims that there is a definite hand of
humans in ensuring actions of other humans. After all, monotheistic
cults have been created by psychopathic individuals with an over
inflated ego, and not because these individuals received any kind of
divine message for the betterment of the world. Therefore, one is
compelled to conclude that monotheistic faiths, that have been
constructed and fueled by self-seeking humans, are responsible for
much of the gory actions of the past rather than the innate nature of
mankind. For instance: the Romans, due to the instigations by the
emperors, did not stop quarreling among themselves to prevent the
formation and solidification of a Christian empire, the Spaniards did
not abandon their inhumane ways to live amicably with the native
American population in the hope of discovering new lands, and the
Muslims did not miss out on a chance to extirpate Hindu property and
to maraud innocent people, just because Bharat aspired to becoming an
independent nation.
Background Analysis
On August 15th, 1947, Bharat gained independence from the British.
This "propitious" day is celebrated with much fanfare. But there is
another less celebratory fact and that is Bharat was vivisected
forcefully by the silent consent of people who put themselves in
positions of protecting the Hindu homeland, but who in the end
cowardly surrendered one-third of the territory to Islam. Something
went terribly wrong somewhere, and with the right kind of maneuvering
and the right amount of concessions, the Congress came in to power to
reek havoc on the Indian polity with its brand of secularism which is
In full force even today.
"A strategy based on self-deception, stands defeated from the very
start". It is interesting when the secular polymaths professing to
know all the answers to the historical communal problems that lead to
partition, quickly point the finger of blame to British ploys and
later to Hindu communalism of the Hindu Mahasabha. But they will never
part with the notion they so dearly cherish,, i.e. the British created
the rift between Hindus and Muslims. The message we get from this
specious reasoning is that, Hindus and Muslims were the best of
neighbors before the wily British came around. This is false and
misleading; the uncouth invaders who were unquestionably pious Muslims
had never made it a priority to befriend the Kafirs of Bharat, instead
they had expressly come to efface paganism altogether. The fact is
that separatism is as intrinsic and fundamental to Islam, as an
adhyatmik quest for eternal Satya is to Sanatan Dharm. Of course, like
smart opportunists, the British did their part by exacerbating the
already existing grave ideological disparities between Hindus and
Muslims by offering Muslims favors to keep them aloof from the freedom
struggle. This entailed offering well-placed jobs, favoring Urdu over
Hindi, ignoring the Hindus demand for a ban on cow slaughter, granting
special rights under the pretext of minority protection, and
encouraging the already inherent separatist proclivities with the
prospect of a separate Muslim state. We can sum up British attitude
as: (divide and rule). As far as Hindu communalism being the culprit
is concerned, there was no movement to divide Bharat, no question of
surrendering territory to Islam, and there was certainly no concerted
effort to appease one community at the expense of another.
The Muslim League also played its part by fomenting hatred and
violence and overtly indulged in direct action also known as the Great
Calcutta Killings which left thousands of Hindus dead or homeless. The
Muslim League never truly supported the freedom struggle; the Hindus
were its main enemies, not the British. The riots that took place in
late 1946 and early 1947 could have been avoided. And, of course,
before this tragedy, the Muslim League had been making absurd demands.
So, is there another more subtle but equally important factor that
tipped the scales towards an ineluctable vivisection of the Hindu
homeland? Yes. That factor is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the
Indian National Congress. Now, it would be completely unfair and an
insult to the memory of Gandhiji to say that his contributions were
negligible. He had extraordinary appeal to the hoi-polloi, he
transmuted the freedom-movement in to a mass-movement, and the idea of
Swadeshi revolutionized the way the Bharatiya people viewed the
British Empire from an economic perspective. In order to defeat
Britain, Bharat would have to establish economic self-reliance, and
Gandhi understood that very well. Gandhi's principle of non-violence
has influenced many personalities such as Martin Luther King Jr. in
the fight for civil liberties for the Black community, and Nelson
Mandela's struggle to rid South Africa of apartheid.
It would also be pure exaggeration to claim that Gandhi and the
Congress were not honestly for a united Bharat. But the truth is, the
national leadership simply could not expect a community whose
essential belief is to eliminate Dar-ul-harb land of (infidels), and
to establish Dar-ul-Islam to constructively participate in an
essentially pagan nation's aspiration for freedom. Gandhi's distorted
knowledge of the Quran and its anti-humanity message was a major
factor that determined Bharat's blood-soaked fate. In two parts, this
essay attempts to explain a series of avoidable blunders made in the
hope of achieving unity with the Muslims which left Bharat bleeding,
its Hindu population fleeing from death and destruction, and the
leaders silently and heartlessly watching their mistakes burgeon but
too proud to admit that they indeed were wrong for entertaining even
the slightest possibility that Muslims would abandon their slake for
Hindu blood.
After the first war of independence of 1857, the British realized that
they would have to grant India a level of limited autonomy. So, in
1885, the Indian National Congress was formed by a British civil
servant with the objective of granting Indians some rights at the
local and even state level, but to have central British rule continued
unhindered. The Congress eventually split in to distinct ideological
camps. The moderates: were the ones who believed that if they complied
with the British authorities and worked on expanding the meager
reforms offered, it would sooner or later lead to freedom. The
extremists believed in a less forbearing method; they asserted that
freedom could only be achieved through conventional violence. Patriots
such as: Bipin Chandra Pal, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Orobindo Ghose,
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the Chafekar brothers, Kudiram Bose,
Madanlal Dhingra, Dadabhai Naoroji, Lala Hardayal, Rash Behari Bose,
Udham Singh, Shiam Krishna Verma, Sarat Chandra Chatargee,
Virendranath Chatopadhyaya, Ulhaskar Datta, Bhagat Singh, Bal
Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat rai and later Subhash Chandra Bose who
took an invigorating initiative by infusing national pride in the
populous and created an exhilarating ambience of infectious aspiration
for complete Svarajya.
It wasn't until 1914 when Gandhi was excommunicated from South-Africa.
Upon reaching Bharat, he immediately plunged in to political life. The
struggle for freedom however, was begun much earlier by more assertive
and discerning revolutionaries. It was only during Gandhi's reign that
the concept of Satyagraha (civil disobedience) was formulated and put
in to practice, and that is when the placation method commenced
culminating in an event drenched in so much blood that it can only be
likened to the Holocaust.
Separate Electorates: a Solution?
Although Lord Dufferon the Viceroy of India in 1888 was the first to
spur Muslim separatism by suggesting separate electorates and communal
representation, which became an unfortunate reality with the
introduction of the Moorley-Minto reforms, the Congress too, quietly
accepted the terms of the Lucknow Pact conceived at its 31st session
on December 29th 1916, and later agreed upon by the All India Muslim
League on the 31st. After the unsuccessful partition of Bengal in
1905, a tactic initiated by the governor General Lord Curzon, and its
annulment in 1911, the Muslims wanted some kind of special perquisites
because of their supposed delicate position in the Indian polity.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah although still belonging to the Congress, was the
chief architect for cementing one outrageous and destructive demand
after another eventually precipitating to the partition. The pact's
main clauses were increased self-government for Indians at the
provincial and central level, and more sinisterly the granting of
separate electorates and communal representation to the Muslims. One
of the first seeds of certainty that Akhand Bharat would no longer
exist as concrete reality had been sowed. Muslims did not have to fear
the Hindus at all, because the provinces in which the Muslims were a
minority, weight ages were granted to them. This was a gargantuan
mistake fore a united nation having separate electorates for each
community is unheard of and usually spells doom as far as harmony
between different religious groups is concerned. How can a section of
the population that is allowed special treatment in such a blatant and
partisan way be loyal to a state whose very political mechanism it is
being divided against? The Lucknow pact not only sanctioned the
intrinsic separatism of Islam, but it also let loose a juggernaut of
increasingly irrational Muslim demands, that made it impossible for
Gandhi and the Indian National Congress to refuse.
In Punjab Muslims were to represent as much as One-half of the
electorate! In Bombay One-third, in Madras 15 percent, in the central
provinces 15 percent, in bihar 25 percent, and in Bengal 40 percent.
In 1918, placating the implacable went further, the communal
representation was expanded to include Muslims not just in the
legislative and local bodies but also spread to the cabinet. The
Montague Chelmsford reforms which were devised by Mr. Edwin Montague
the secretary of state for India and the Viceroy Lord Chelmsford, lead
to the Government of India act in 1919. Here, communal representation
was increased, especially in Bengal where Muslims got more than what
had been surrendered by the Lucknow Pact. The craven attitude of
kowtowing to Muslims by surrendering vital issues that the Congress
adopted did not help Bharat to move towards a self-governing
eventuality; rather it emboldened certain minorities to look out for
their self-serving and partisan interests instead of being collective
citizens. There was more to come.
Khilafat Agitation = Mopla Rebellion
Turkey was expeditiously becoming a secular state, and the Sultan of
Turkey or the Khillifa was losing power. The Khilafat was an extra-
territorial pan-Islamic movement that sought to align Muslims with
Turkey. This movement had nothing to do with Svarajya, but it was a
detriment to Bharat; the Hindus would not gain anything at all by
assisting the Muslims. In a last bid to preserve Muslim domination,
the Muslim League invited the Congress to join in the Khilafat
agitation in its meet in December 1919. Gandhi was positively elated
at the prospect of Hindu and Muslims amalgamating to achieve the
"primary" goal, Svarajya. He was deluded however. The Congress also
lent its support to the Khilafat movement and from 1919 to 1921,
precious time was squandered to expedite an impracticable and anti-
national cause. Arvind Lavakare, a Rediff columnist, in an article
titled Of Sabarmati secularism & non-violence, quotes Gandhi from VB
Kolcarni's book "India and Pakistan", as saying: "If the Hindus wish
to cultivate eternal friendship with Mussalmans, they must perish with
them in the attempt to vindicate the honor of Islam." It is worth
asseverating that when the secularists hurl vituperations at the
Hindutva parties for mixing religion with politics, they would do well
to remember that it was the "Father of the Nation" who began the
deleterious practice.
The leaders of the Khilafat agitation in India were Maulana Mohammed
Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali also known as the Ali brothers. Gandhiji
of course, showered encomiums upon the Ali brothers, forgetting that
not only was Khilafat Andolan far removed from the goals of
independence, butt was also a violent movement that sought to bring
the entire world under the aegis of Islam. Gandhi thought that he
could intricately intertwine the non-cooperation movement, which he
started in support of the Khilafat, with Islam's desire to rule Bharat
once again. The two movements were diametrically opposed to each
other.
It is indubitable that Gandhi did not fully understand the
implications or repercussions of what he was doing, or that what he
was trying to accomplish, i.e. (Hindu-Muslim unity), could not be
achieved as long as Islam retained its fundamentals of inequity
between the believer and the "unbeliever". In a book titled:
"Pakistan, or, the Partition of India", Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
perspicuously elucidates the irrational positions that the Congress
and Gandhiji adopted in order to defend their formula of Hindu-Muslim
unity. For instance: they had no qualms about defending a violent
movement that without any doubt was against Ahimsa. The author states,
that when the Hindus expressed their doubts about supporting the
Khilafat on the grounds that:
The Muslims would never support a ban on cow slaughter. There was a
good possibility that the Amir of Afghanistan might invade bharat.
Finally, the main concern was Muslims might gain political dominance
over the Hindus.
But Gandhiji had explanations for all these valid concerns. For the
issue of cow slaughter, he advised the Hindus to assist the Muslims
without placing any conditions in supporting the Khilafat (Ambedkar
109). Regarding concerns over the Amir's invasion of Bharat, Gandhi
informed his faithful followers that he would certainly assist the
Amir of Afghanistan if he were to wage war against the British (109).
In short, this statement was a clear endorsement of the invasion of
Bharat. Finally, regarding the possibility of the potential for
political dominance of the Muslims, he simply said that the Hindus
were right to raise these concerns, but the Muslim position was
irresistible. He suavely asserted: "If I deem the Mahomedan to be my
brother, it is my duty to help him in his hour of peril to the best of
my ability, if his cause commends itself to me as just (110)." So,
supporting Khillifat movement was just? But was it not the complete
antithesis of what Gandhi's non-violence was all about? Ambedkar
further evinces how Gandhi not only lent his support to the
Khilafatists but was also their one and only enthusiastic Hindu guide.
In a fruitless attempt to win eternal friendship with the Muslims,
Gandhi forgot the real goal of the Bharatiya people which was to win
freedom.
Another blunder that Gandhi made was like all things, he over-
emphasized Ahimsa, and the Chauri Chaura incident was no exception.
When the enraged mob burned down the police station after being
provoked by passing constables, Gandhi hurriedly withdrew the non-
cooperation movement. This incident was relatively minor compared to
some of the sanguinary history and more grim incidents that would
occur in the near future. In short, Chauri Chaura did not merit a
cancellation of a movement whose aim was freedom, and not allegiance
to a gross misinterpretation of Ahimsa.
The Khilafat agitation failed and the Khilifa in far off Turkey was
defeated. Furious at being thwarted by the British regime in the
attempt to reestablish the Khilafat, the Muslims vented their anger on
the Hindus of Malabar. Thousands of Hindus were killed, their property
looted, women raped, and many more were forcibly converted to Islam.
British troops were called to quell the unprecedented bloodshed.
Gandhi also called an immediate halt of hostilities, against the
Hindus? No. Gandhi wanted the British troops to suspend hostilities
against the Moplas! As proof of Gandhi's and Congress's soft-corner
for Muslim intransigence and barbarism, Dr. Ambedkar presents the
resolution passed by the Congress Working Committee (CWC), which
claimed that, the reports published on behalf of the government were
very one-sided and exaggerated accounts of Mopla enormities against
the Hindus. The resolution was very carefully worded, so as not to
hurt Muslim sentiments. The CWC still urged the Khilafatists to adopt
the message of non-violence; if the CWC and other national leaders had
bothered to study Islamic theology, they would have known that non-
violence against the infidels did not figure in the Quranic
vocabulary. The CWC was blissfully incognizant of the seriousness of
the attacks on Hindus, or, perhaps, if such enormities were
acknowledged, then that would patently suggest that the Muslims were
at fault. For the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity, no atrocity against
Hindus could even be alluded to, let alone acknowledged. Another
interesting instance cited by Dr. Ambedkar is the CWC's reaction to
the massive bloodshed. While mildly condemning the pernicious actions
of moplas, the congress asserted that the blood of the Hindus had been
spilled due to provocation. This was pure and unadulterated casuistry,
because there was no provocation by the British government or the
Hindus. Today, going by the logic that the Congress employed during
the Mopla massacres, we can safely conclude that the post-Godhra
incident is also pure exaggeration, just as the enormities committed
by the Moplas were one-sided and exaggerated. The Muslims and their
Mullahs and Maulvis think of it as a divine right to slaughter the
Kafirs (unbelievers). It is not difficult at all to locate the Quranic
Ayats from which this divine inspiration to eliminate Kafirs came
from. But Gandhiji did not like to face reality, instead he clinched
the matter by saying, "They are brave and god-fearing people who were
fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner which
they consider
as religious."
Although the forcible conversions and assaults on Hindus of Malabar
were widespread, Gandhi and the Congress were mum on the matter. It is
time to question the whole idea of Gandhi's version of Ahimsa, which
becomes glaringly patent even in an early stage of this essay that it
was applied selectively, and was reserved exclusively for the Hindus.
Gandhi was no specialist in Islamic theology, and therefore did not
realize that the sudden interest in defeating the British patrons was
simply fugacious, and had ulterior pan-Islamic motives.
However, not everyone had fallen victim to Gandhiji's sophistic logic,
and Dr. Annie Beasant was certainly not impressed by the slogan of
"Ishwar Allah Tere Naam". In a report titled: Malabar's Agony that
appeared in New India on November 29, 1921, she criticized the stance
of Gandhi on the plight of the Hindus of Malabar. She rightfully
claimed that the predictable outcome was due to Gandhi's impolitic
idea of supporting the Khilafat movement, and mixing it up with non-
cooperation. Dr. Beasant described the sufferings of the Malabar men,
women, and children At the hands of the "God fearing" Moplas. For
instance: the report sites an instance where a Muslim asked the Doctor
if he would live, when the answer was in the negative, the Mopla's
reply was: "Well, I"m glad that I killed fourteen infidels", but of
course this was the true and righteous Mopla spirit and religion
according to Gandhi.
Despite these sharp observations recorded by Dr. Beasant, and the
report by the British government, the CWC put the number of forcible
conversions at only three. The Moplas did not hesitate even a second
to slay innocent Hindus, and Gandhi's attitude vis-à-vis the Moplas
reflected anything but condemnation for the savage acts sanctioned by
Islam.
More Fruits of Hindu-Muslim Unity
In spite of Gandhi's tireless efforts to encourage the so-called
nationalist Muslims to participate constructively in the national
struggle, nothing was achieved as far as Hindu interests were
concerned. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there were ferocious riots
that claimed a high loss of life. These riots were usually started
under pretexts such as: a Muslim holiday, around a mosque, or over
Hindu religious processions passing through Muslim dominated
neighborhoods. The book "Pakistan, or the Partition of India" further
clarifies Gandhi's hazardous obsession with Hindu-Muslim unity. In
1924, Gandhi fasted for 21 days to bring about unity among Hindus and
Muslims; this fast was taken under the roof of a Muslim house (233).
The fast produced unity conferences, which, were superficial and
ephemeral to say the least. There was heavy rioting from 1924 to 1926.
As Bharat's struggle for achieving freedom unfolded, so did the
results of Gandhi's misguided and stubborn policies.
The Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayananda Saraswati, was proactive in
removing untouchability, promoting widow remarriage, denouncing animal
sacrifice, discouraging Sati (widow immolation), and most crucially,
the founder of this pioneering reformist organization actually
bothered to examine Islamic dogma and was one of the few Hindu
revivalists to recognize the cult for what it really is. But of
course, this novel and liberating approach did not stand a chance,
when Gandhiji and the Congress were so busy overdosing the Hindu Samaj
with otiose "all religions are equally true" slogans.
The Arya Samaj was also active in the Shuddhi program started by Swami
Shraddhananda that sought to bring the alienated Muslims and
Christians back to the Hindu fold. This movement gained tremendous
popularity in the early 1900s, and at the same time Mullahs began to
denounce this movement and openly called for the elimination of Swami
Shraddhananda. The call was taken up by one Abdul Rashid, a Muslim
youth who assassinated the Swami in his sick bed. Rashid was hanged
for his untenable crime, but the Muslim community treated him as a
martyr. Gandhi as usual went a step further, and pronounced that he
considered Abdul Rashid to be a brother.
From 1926-1930, several prominent Hindu leaders were killed or
severely injured, and the death toll from rioting also rose
exponentially. The Muslim community defended these acts by simply
asserting that the Quranic law sanctioned the killings of Kafirs. The
Congress under the leadership of Gandhi, did not condemn Muslim
aggression; no protestation at all was expected from the Muslim
leaders.
In 1927, the Simon Commission was set up to monitor and proffer
suggestions regarding the constitution, the Muslims quickly rushed
forth with yet another set of intemperate demands, which entailed:
autonomy for all provinces, central legislature to constitute one-
third Muslim representation, more safeguards for Islamic personal law,
culture, and religion, raising the North-West Frontier Provinces and
Baluchistan to the status of self-governing provinces, weakened
authority of the central government, and the separation of Sind from
the Bombay presidency. Ironically, along with the Hindus, the Simon
Commission also opposed the importunities, but when push came to
shove, the British gave in and each of the desires was fulfilled.
Thus far we have observed an abysmal pattern of: the Muslims make a
demand, the Congress and Gandhi rise magnificently to meet that
demand, which is then ensued by sanguinary acts by the Muslims. Was
this constant surrender necessary, was it called for? Gandhi
frequently invoked the Bhagavad-Gita as his divine inspiration.
Although the Bhagavad-Gita does focus on Ahimsa as a virtue to be
emulated, however it does not put a premium on the aggressor's
excesses regarding morality. Shri-krishna urges Arjun to fight; he
does not advise the Pandavs to lay down their arms and lead a protest
against the outrages of the Kauravs.
In the English translation of the Bhagavad-Gita by A.C.Bhaktivedanta
Swami, Shri-Krishn asserted that Arjun should perform his duty as a
Kshatriya, and advises Arjun not to hesitate in defending Dharm
against Adharm. ShriKrishn further affirms: "Do thou fight for the
sake of fighting, without considering happiness or distress, loss or
gain, victory or defeat -- and by so doing you shall never incur Sin".
Simply from a few verses of the Gita, we can patently observe that
it's essential meaning is not full surrender to the forces of evil,
but rather it is a call to defeat this evil, first by dialogue, than
if necessary by force.. Ahimsa does play a prominent role in
dissuading the enemy from their unjust deeds, but the Gita does not
rule out all other alternatives. If Gandhi had really comprehended the
clarion message, than he would not have spent all his time trying to
enlist Adharmic forces in support of Bharat's independence, and that
Adharmic force is Islam.
With separate elections firmly established, the Mopla uprising being a
success in once again terrorizing the Islam incognizant Hindu samaj in
to making more concessions, and the subsequent street riots playing an
efficacious role, the Muslim League with each successive election
became increasingly powerful. One sagacious step that Gandhi and the
Congress could have taken, was to join the Hindu Mahasabha to check
the alarming growth of the Muslim League and its irrational demands.
However, as we have observed and will continue to observe, Gandhi had
very little time or patience with anyone opposed to his scheme of
Hindu-Muslim unity and his distorted version of Ahimsa. Finally, we
are left with the rhetorical question: if valorous Hindus like the
Marathas, the Rajputs, the Sikhs, and the Jats had followed Gandhi's
interpretation of the Bhagavad-Gita in dealing with Islamic invaders,
would Bharat still be predominantly Hindu at present?
Adity Sharma
Mirza Ghalib
contributer to www.theswordoftruth.com web magazine, which
unfortunately,
after the death of Arvind Ghosh closed.