The
Congress Party claims to be a
‘secular’ party. The party president Ms.
Sonia Gandhi and PM Dr. Manmohan Singh have repeatedly stated that
Congress is a ‘secular’ party to the core.
The dictionary meaning of ‘secular’ is: ‘not pertaining to or
connected with religion’.
Let us look at some of the
allies of the ‘secular’ Congress:
1. Indian
Union Muslim League (IUML) in Kerala – a Muslim party
2. Kerala Congress (Mani) [KC(M)] in Kerala – a
Christian party
3. All India Majlis e-Itaahid al-Muslimin
(MIM) in Andhra Pradesh – a Muslim party.
Among
these 3 parties, the two Muslim parties are exclusively Islamic in
their outlook and membership. How could these parties be called
‘secular’? Can the Congress justify its alliance with these parties?
IUML
is the new arm of erstwhile Muslim League which partitioned the nation
on the basis of religion. The Muslims of North Kerala were staunch
supporters of Muslim League in the pre-independence era and had also
showed their beastly nature by killing thousands of Hindus during the
Moplah rebellion. Post-independence, the community has been
supporting
IUML. This shows that the situation has not changed a single bit. These
Muslims do not consider themselves a part of the national mainstream
and IUML is a party which is representing such internal
‘anti-nationals’. Still, the Congress party is in alliance with IUML
for decades. Can it explain the reason for this? If the Muslims of the
region had changed their opinion, why does the Congress still need the
IUML which is basically the same party which advocated Islamic
extremism and partitioned the nation?
MIM
is even more radical. It was a party which opposed the integration of
Hyderabad with India. It was the
party which organised Razakars who
went about killing thousands of Hindus to maintain the ‘Islamic’ State
of Hyderabad. The party was initially banned in 1948 and the
Razakars’
leader was deported to Pakistan in the late 1950s. The current party
organisation tries to separate itself from the activities during the
period of Indian independence. But the party has always maintained its
‘Islamic’ nature and character. Anyone who believes that the party
members suddenly became pro-India after Indian independence must be
living in a ‘fools’ paradise’.
Thus,
we see that Congress is allied not only with three ‘communal’ parties
but also, two ‘anti-national’ parties.
Still, it dares to call itself
has ‘secular’ (or perhaps they mean ‘sickular’).
Next, look at the policies
of the Congress party.
The
Constitution of India (Article 44) clearly states that the State shall
‘endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout
the territory of India’. Does the party believe that the framers of
the
Indian Constitution were ‘communal’ for having stated such in the
Constitution? If not, why is it that the Congress does not support
the
forming of a ‘Common Civil Code’? The party claims that the
endeavour
for adoption of a Common Civil Code must come from within the Muslim
community. This is utter nonsense. The Common Civil Code will go a long
way in bringing the Muslim community into the national mainstream. The
Indian nation is secular. Being so, why should the government create a
separate civil code for each community? Secular government should
be
‘equally sceptical’ to all religious practices. It does not mean
‘enclosing all religious practices’. Will the Congress party accept to
any demand for implementation of Shariat for cases of rape, murder etc
in which the accused or the victim is a Muslim? If not, why is Shariat
followed in the case of civil code? This practice is an utter nonsense
which divides the society on communal lines. Congress wants to maintain
this situation in perpetuity. Still, the party calls itself ‘secular’.
PM
Manmohan Singh had stated that Muslims shall have the first right on
the nations’ resources. May I know what is the difference
between our
PM and Bengal’s Muslim League government of Mr. Suhrawardy who
advocated that preference shall be given to a Muslim candidate with a
third-class degree over a Hindu candidate with a first-class degree (as
happened in the case of filling a vacancy for lecturer in the
Government College near Calcutta)? What is the difference between
Manmohan Singh and Sir Bamfylde Fuller who had stated that in the
Eastern Bengal, Muslims would be nurtured and Hindus will be neglected
(an advocate of the partition of Bengal which occurred during 1905).
Sir Fuller did that to garner the support of Muslims. Isn’t Manmohan
doing the same thing by stating that Muslims will be preferred over
others? He appears to be an ‘anti-national’ who wants to implement the
policies of the traitorous Muslim League and the colonist British
Empire. He does so to get the votes of the Muslim community. On the
whole, the party is certainly not secular.
The
current Congress leadership does not appear to care about the integrity
of the country. This party’s leadership accepted to a partition
of
India. How can we be sure that they will not do so once again just to
remain in power? After all, the support given by this treacherous party
to the various successor parties of the anti-national Islamic parties
and the way they encourage illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims
into Assam and West Bengal does show the true philosophy of the party
leadership which is ‘anything shall be done to remain in power’. It is
lead by power-mongers who do not care about the nation a single bit.
May
Goddess Bharati save this nation from these modern-day demons who do
not worry about destroying the nation for their own selfishness.
http://ravilochanan .blogspot. com/2009/ 04/secular-
congress- or-communal- anti.html
Thanks & Regards,
Sudhir Srinivasan
B.Arch, Dip.ID, Dip.CAD,
Dip.PM, AIIA, IIID, ARIAI
| Architect |
Thanks & Regards,
Sudhir Srinivasan
B.Arch, Dip.ID, Dip.CAD, Dip.PM, AIIA, IIID, ARIAI
| Architect |
