HISTORICAL INCIDENTS OF THE BRITISH IN INDIA

[ravi]

HISTORICAL INCIDENTS OF THE BRITISH IN INDIA



THE “DIVIDE AND RULE” POLICY OF THE BRITISH



JINNAH AND THE MUSLIM ATTITUDE FOR PARTITION



Mr. Jinnah and Lord Mountbatten were the most in favor of
the dividing of India into East and West Bengal, later to become
Bangladesh and Pakistan . … Gandhi’s policy of non-violence and
placating to the Muslim demands in hope they would see the light and
benefit of cooperation ultimately did much harm to India . But Jinnah
was the one, with his hardening demands, who most wanted a separate
place for the Muslims of India. He was continuing the basic standard
of the previous Mughals two centuries earlier of “Dar-ul-Islam,” or
the house of Islam, which was motivated merely by the Muslim hatred
toward Hindus, or all things non-Muslim. This hatred has been around
since the first invasions of the Islamic Arabs into India back in 650,
and at this point in time it looks like it is not completely going
away entirely as we reflect on the continuation of terrorism in India,
the struggles of Hindus in Bangladesh, and the ethnic cleansing that
has continued in Kashmir.



What has to be understood is that with many non-Muslims
who are converted to Islam, the new converts accept Arabia as their
main focus for a homeland, and become a member of “Dar-ul-Islam,” or
the house of Islam. Then they start to dislike or even hate all things
non-Muslim, even the country of his own birth or residence, even his
own family and relatives if they remain kafirs, or non-Muslim. So in
an independent India , how could the Muslims now live under a majority
rule by kafirs?



The Muslims had always invaded, raided, looted, and razed
India ’s temples, and killed, slaughtered, raped, forcibly converted,
and enslaved its people. And many Muslims have held this hatred toward
the image-worshiping, “infidel” Hindus to this day. Therefore, how
could any Muslim with this attitude have any inkling of willingness to
share on an equal level the freedom with the Indian citizens of an
independent India ?



This was the whole point of creating Pakistan, a country
where the Muslims could live on their own, by their own standards, and
leave the Hindus to themselves in India . This was the basis for the
almost total exodus of the Hindus from Pakistan , yet more than half
of India ’s Muslim population decided to stay in India where they were
not forced to leave by the majority Hindu population. …. Not a lot of
mercy has been shown as the Muslims of Pakistan systematically killed
numerous Hindus, raped the women, and persecuted them until they drove
many of them into India .. The same thing happened in East Pakistan,
now Bangladesh , which is why a 40% Hindu population there has been
reduced to only 8% today. In 1971, during the Bangladesh freedom
fight, the Pakistani soldiers killed over 800,000 Hindus in addition
to the Muslims, which few people discuss today.



…. while one group was passing another in their move into
or out of India/Pakistan, there were terrible slaughters of the Hindus
by the Muslims. Many stories came out of that terrible period. One was
that of a 40-year old man who explained to Shivananda Murty Garu how
he had been riding on the train from Lahore to Delhi , and before the
train had even entered Indian territory , the Muslims had stopped the
train and climbed on board. The man said he was the 5th child of his
mother, with two elder sisters and two elder brothers. It was a common
sight to see their kith and kin butchered in the trains. His mother
knew what would happen and spread her sari to hide the two young girls
and himself under the seat, but she could not hide her two other sons.
They were standing there, aged 14 and 11, and before his mother’s
eyes, her two sons were beheaded. It was not unlikely for only
remnants of families to get off the train in Delhi after leaving
Pakistan , with carloads of dead bodies. And this happened hundreds
and thousands of times. Yet, if we now see Hindus standing up to
defend themselves, they are called fundamentalists, fanatics, or
communalists. But should there not be an action-plan to preserve and
protect themselves and Sanatana-dharma? Are we supposed to be so
tolerant that we wait until all the Hindus of India are slaughtered,
either physically, mentally, or spiritually? The great heroes of India
did not wait for such a time but took action in many ways to preserve
and protect its culture and its people. Dharma is the appropriate
action in thought, word, and deed to accommodate the particular
situation. Dharma means to defend Dharma in whatever way is required.
If people can at least respect our Dharma, then we can also respect
them. But if they mean to kill us, or to disrespect Sanatana-dharma,
then are we not supposed to defend ourselves? What was the example
given us in Bhagavad-gita and by so many other great warriors who
fought for the rights we presently have today? We must continue to
work to keep those rights.



The partition of India caused one of the world’s bloodiest exoduses in
human history. It still goes on today as more Hindus are persecuted in
both Bangladesh and Pakistan and forced to flee to India . The
persecution continues to be spread by Muslims in Kashmir, which was
once a Hindu majority, the homeland of a vast Vedic culture hundreds
of years ago before Shah Mir (Mir Sayed Ali Hamadni) occupied Srinagar
in 1339 (some say 1370) and started converting the people to Islam. Is
it that they will not be satisfied until they have all of India , as
the original invaders had wanted?