Excerpts from speeches by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Mohammed Ali Jinnah : Muslims are not a Minority. Muslims are a Separate Nation. Muslims and Hindus can not live together.
I. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (born October 17, 1817, died March 27, 1898)
In no country do Muslims living as a minority identify themselves with the country's nation. For example, in Sri Lanka, racially Indian, linguistically Tamilian, but religiously Muslim, they call themselves Muslims and have a party like Sri Lanka Muslim Congress. In India, there is an Indian Union Muslim League. In France, UK, Norway and the US, they like to be called Muslims first. In India for quite some time past, they are saying they are Muslim Indians, not Indian Muslims. This means they are first and last Muslims who happen to be in India. This question, whether Muslims are part of the nation, has been clearly spelt out by the most leading intellectuals and politicians of Muslim Indians. As early as in 1888, that is just 3 years after the Indian National Congress was founded, Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan, the first tallest western educated Muslim of India, made a speech in Meerut on 16th March, 1888, asserting that Muslims are a separate nation. He advised the Muslims not to join the Indian National Congress. His speech was titled, "One Country Two Nations". Here are excerpts.
QUOTE
I think it expedient that I should first of all tell you the reason why I am about to address you on the subject of tonight's discourse. You know, gentlemen, that, from a long time, our friends, the Bengalis, have shown very warm feeling on political matters. Three years ago they founded a very big assembly, which holds its sittings in various places, and they have given it the name "National Congress." We and our nation gave no thought to the matter. And we should be very glad for our friends the Bengalis to be successful, if we were of the opinion that they had by their education and ability made such progress as rendered them fit for the claims they put forward. But although they are superior to us in education, yet we have never admitted that they have reached that level to which they lay claim to have attained. Nevertheless I have never, in any article, or in any speech, or even in conversation in any place, put difficulties or desired to put difficulties in the way of any of their undertakings. It has never been my wish to oppose any people or any nation who wish to make progress, and who have raised themselves up to that rank to which they wish to attain and for which they are qualified. But, my friends, the Bengalis have made a most unfair and unwarrantable interference with my nation, and therefore it is my duty to show clearly what this unwarrantable interference has been, and to protect my nation from the evils that may arise from it.
what I am about to say is not only useful for my own nation, but also for my Hindu brothers of these Provinces, who from some wrong notions have taken part in this Congress. At last they also will be sorry for it — although perhaps they will never have occasion to be sorry; for it is beyond the region of possibility that the proposals of the Congress should be carried out fully.
After this long preface, I wish to explain what method my nation — nay, rather the whole people of this country — ought to pursue in political matters. I will treat in regular sequence of the political questions of India, in order that you may have full opportunity of giving your attention to them. The first of all is this — In whose hands shall the administration and the Empire of India rest? Now, suppose that all English, and the whole English army, were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances, two nations — the Mahomedans and the Hindus — could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. At the same time, you must remember that although the number of Mahomedans is less than that of the Hindus, and although they contain far fewer people who have received a high English education, yet they must not be thought insignificant or weak. Probably they would be by themselves enough to maintain their own position. But suppose they were not. Then our Mussalman brothers, the Pathans, would come out as a swarm of locusts from their mountain valleys, and make rivers of blood to flow from their frontier in the north to the extreme end of Bengal. This thing — who, after the departure of the English, would be conquerors — would rest on the will of God. But until one nation had conquered the other and made it obedient, peace could not reign in the land. This conclusion is based on proofs so absolute that no one can deny it.
The aspirations of our friends, the Bengalis, have made such progress that they want to scale a height to which it is beyond their powers to attain. But if I am not in error, I believe that the Bengalis have never at any period held sway over a particle of land. They are altogether ignorant of the method by which a foreign race can maintain its rule over other races. Therefore, reflect on the doings of your ancestors, and be not unjust to the British Government to whom God has given the rule of India; and look honestly and see what is necessary for it to do, to maintain its empire and its hold on the country. You can appreciate these matters; but they cannot who have never held a country in their hands nor won a victory. Oh! my brother Musalmans! I again remind you that you have ruled nations, and have for centuries held different countries in your grasp. For seven hundred years in India, you have had Imperial sway. You know what it is to rule. Be not unjust to that nation which is ruling over you, and think also on this: how upright is her rule. Of such benevolence as the English Government shows to the foreign nations under her, there is no example in the history of the world.
we ought to unite with that nation with whom we can unite. No Mahomedan can say that the English are not "People of the Book." No Mahomedan can deny this: that God has said that no people of other religions can be friends of Mahomedans except the Christians. He who had read the Koran and believes it, he can know that our nation cannot expect friendship and affection from any other people. At this time, our nation is in a bad state as regards education and wealth, but God has given us the light of religion, and the Koran is present for our guidance, which has ordained them and us to be friends.
Now God has made them rulers over us. Therefore we should cultivate friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis.
UNQUOTE
II. Mohammed Ali Jinnah (born December 25, 1876, died September 11, 1948)
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who is identified as singularly responsible for the division of India and creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan, had in his famous March 1940 speech at Lahore to the Muslim League, when it adopted the Pakistan resolution, once again asserted that Muslims are a separate nation, separate from Hindus and other non–Muslims. Here are excepts from his speech.
QUOTE
Notwithstanding thousand years of close contact, nationalities, which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into one nation, merely by means of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly together by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliament statutes. What the unitary government of India for 150 years had failed to achieve cannot be realized by the imposition of a central federal government.
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fall to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literature. They neither intermarry, nor interline together and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.
History has presented to us many examples such as the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Czechoslovakia and Poland. History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the subcontinent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many states as there are nations inhabiting them. The Bulkan peninsula comprises as many as seven or eight sovereign states. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula, Whereas under the plea of unity of India and one nation which does not exist, it is sought to pursue here the line of one central government when we know that the history of the last twelve hundred years has failed to achieve unity and has witnessed, during these ages, India always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India. The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet, but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His Majesty's government, will be the herald of the entire break-up with worse disaster than has ever taken place during the last one thousand years under Muslims. Surely, that is not the legacy which Britain would bequeath to India after 150 years of her rule,nor would Hindu and Muslim India risk such a sure catastrophe.
Muslim India cannot accept any constitution which must necessarily result in a Hindu majority government. Hindus and Muslims brought together under a democratic system forced upon the minorities can only mean Hindu Raj. Democracy of the kind with which the Congress High Command is enamored would mean the complete destruction of what is most precious in Islam. We have had ample experience of the working of the provincial constitutions during the last two and a half years (1937-39) and any repetition of such a government must lead to civil war and raising of private armies as recommended by Mr. Gandhi to Hindus of Sukkur, when he said that they must defend themselves violently or non-violently, blow for blow, and if they could not, they must emigrate.
Mussalmans are not a minority as it is commonly known and understood.
Mussalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nation and they must have their homelands, their territory and their state.
UNQUOTE
Muslims, who agitated, rioted and voted for the division of the country and creation of Pakistan in the two decades 1930s & 1940s have continued to live in India. Similarly, the former Razakars and their progeny, who wanted to establish the Islamic state of Nizam, who took to arms to convert the Nizam Nawab's of Hyderabad territory into a sovereign independent Islamic state are also continuing to live in Hyderabad and Telengana. Now, all these are calling themselves minorities and in order to assert their separatism, they have demanded and have been granted by the vote-seeking and hunting "secular" parties, minority commissions, minority educational institutions, minority finance corporations, minority (majority) districts, minority Urdu universities and now reservation for minorities. Very soon, they will be asking for separate electorate as before 1947 and then autonomy for the Muslim districts (90 of them as planned by the UPA government) and ultimately secession from India like in Kashmir. The "secular" parties, are either innocently or criminally collaborating with this minority, whose ultimate goal is the restoration of the whole of this country to Muslim rule either by conquest or by demographic explosion.
Author: Excerpts from the speeches by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Mohammed Ali Jinnah
For more articles, please visit the following sites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Showing posts with label Muslim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslim. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tripuraneni Hanuman Chowdary on Islam
Co-existence of Islam with other faiths and cultures
Speaking at a meeting, Dr Tripuraneni Hanuman Chowdary, Chairman of Pragna Bharati, appreciated the assertion of Muslim intellectuals that Islam is a religion of peace and that there is no compulsion in religion and that Islam holds the taking of life of innocent people as a very serious crime against God. He has however noted that in contrast to these noble expressions contained in the Holy Koran and reiterated by Muslim intellectuals, every time a terrorist act is perpetrated by those claiming to be waging a jihad against the tormentors of Muslims, no concerted action has ever been taken by Muslim leaders and Muslim organizations to isolate these deviants from true Islam. These terrorist activities and insurgencies spread around the globe and of which India has been paying a heavy toll are at total variance with the noble expressions expounded by Islamic intellectuals. He enumerated some issues on which Muslim intellectuals expounding Islam as religion of peace must clearly come out and wage a movement to sensitize the Muslim masses against the deviants and aberrants.
1. Saudi Arabia does not allow the practice of any religion other than Islam
Saudi Arabia and its ruler are the protector of Islam and its holy places. Why is it that such an Islamic state, while welcoming Hindus and Christians as workers, engineers and doctors, does not allow these people to carry pictures or images of their gods, goddesses, saints, prophets etc. and why does it not allow the practice of any religion other than Islam? Is it right of it to expect freedom of religion and worship in non-Muslim countries for Muslims, while denying the same for non-Muslims in its own country?
2. Muslim rulers imposed jizya on Hindus
If Islam is so tolerant, why was jizya (see wikipedia on Jizya, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya ) imposed upon Hindus at different times under Muslim rulers? What is the meaning of dhimmies (see wikipedia on Dhimmi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi ) and what were the disabilities imposed upon them by the Muslim rulers in India?
3. Prophet said that in his land there should be no second religion
It is said that the Prophet declared that in his land there should be no second religion. If that is true, can the upholders of other religions in the states they are in majority reciprocally say that in their lands, there should be no Islam? Is not reciprocity a symbol of peaceful co-existence and mutual respect?
4. Indian Muslims oppose common civil code
In countries such as USA, France, Russia and China, there is common civil code for all citizens irrespective of religion. Article 44 of the Constitution of India also envisages a common civil code. But, the Indian Muslims are opposing common civil code. Why? Why are some of the Indian Muslims demanding that the relevant Article 44 of the Constitution should be repealed?
5. Indian Muslims oppose registration of marriages
While government wants that every marriage should be registered in the Government Registrar of Marriages in order to ensure that women are not cheated and defrauded, Muslim organizations are opposing this and say that what they practice is good enough. We often learn terrible things about minor girls given in marriage for as little as Rs. 10.00 (rupees ten only) to already several times married octogenarian aliens.
6. Azan or call for prayer is given out from several loud speakers several times
Azan or call for prayer is given out from several loud speakers several times even at the dead of night or early morning. Is not that loudness offensive? Is not the assertion that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his prophet amount to denial of other Gods and therefore offensive to others? Will broadcasting of bhajans be allowed in Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh as frequently and as loudly as the Azan?
A Judge of High Court in Patna had begged for a transfer because his requests to the near-by mosque not to blare the Azan when the Court was in sitting was not only ignored but also he was threatened with dire consequences.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that the loudness of the Azan should not exceed a certain decibel strength. The mosques declared that the Calcutta High Court ruling will not be obeyed and it can not be applicable to mosques.
7. Muslims attacked Hindus for blasphemy cartoons in Denmark
There were blasphemy cartoons in Denmark. Months after that, here in Hyderabad, immediately after the Friday prayers in mosques, Hindus and their shops were attacked, looted and burnt.
8. Indian Muslims demand that India should always be favourable towards Islamic countries
The United States of America is leading a war on Iraq, but the protesters here are demanding that the Government of India (GOI) should not have any alliance with it. GOI, in national interest, is voting in a particular way in regard to Iran in the meetings of the IAEA. The Muslim citizens of this country are demanding that GOI should not vote against Iran. How can India's interest be sacrificed for the interest of Islamic countries?
9. Indian Muslims practice double standards in matters of ethnic cleansing
Whenever there is some trouble between Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews, demonstrations are held in India. India is asked to support the right of Palestinian Muslims to return to Israel, but the Muslim citizens of India are totally silent about the total ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from Kashmir. 99% ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs took place in Pakistan. In the Islamic state of Bangladesh, the Hindu and Buddhist population reduced from 28% to 9% and is reducing further. Do they see ethnic cleansing as wrong if it affects Muslims, but right if it affects Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists in India and other countries? Is this conducive to fraternal co-existence?
10. Muslim populations took to insurgency and secession in several countries
Why is it that the Muslim minority populations took to insurgency and secession in Philippines, Thailand, Myanmar, China, Russia, Cyprus, Kosovo (Yugoslavia), Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kashmir? Do these insurgencies and the movements for separation from the nation-states spread all over the world support the view that Islam is a religion of peace and can co-exist with other faiths?
11. Muslims in Kashmir demand autonomy
The Muslim citizens in Kashmir want autonomy but they deny autonomy to Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh. Why? If any Muslim woman in Jammu and Kashmir marries somebody outside the state, she forfeits the right of inheritance. Why?
12. Muslims oppose shifting of their places of worship
In Saudi Arabia, the famous mosque where Prophet Mohammed himself prayed had been removed to make way for some reconstruction, but here in India Muslims oppose any shifting of their places of worship. For example, on the Tank Bund road, right in the carriage way, there is a mazar and there are so many such constructions in many cities. Why their removal is made into an issue of religion and not of the welfare of citizens? (The opposition of Hindus, Sikhs and Christians for removal of such places of their veneration from the pavement and carriage ways is equally reprehensible. They are not being removed as the followers of these religions insist that unless the Muslim mazars are simultaneously removed from the pavements and carriage ways, their sacred places alone can not be removed.
13. Muslims consider non-Muslims as kafirs or infidels
Non-Muslims are kafirs? How sad such a depiction was made during the Khilafat Movement! Mohammed Ali, whom Gandhiji hailed as a brother and a great soul speaking at Aligarh and Ajmer publicly announced:
"However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to be from the point of view of religion, inferior to any Mussalman, even though he be without character."
The statement created a great stir. Many did not believe that Mr. Mohamed Ali, who testified to so much veneration for Mr. Gandhi, was capable of entertaining such ungenerous and contemptupus sentiments about him. When Mr. Mohamed Ali was speaking in a meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow, he was asked whether the sentiments attributed to him were true. Mr. Mohamed Ali without any hesitation or compunction replied: "Yes! According to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and fallen gentleman to be better than Mr. Gandhi."
Coming from such holy and venerated like Mohamed Ali, for whose Islamic cause the Hindus of the Congress were asked to go to jail, does it conduce to peaceful co-existence and mutual respect?
Terrorism, suicide-bombing and killing of innocents are all said to be prohibited by Islam. Why are fatwas not issued against the leaders of the organizations and their followers who are publicly claiming and taking pride in carrying out such terrorist activities?
14. M. F. Hussein paints Hindu Gods and Goddesses nude
M. F. Hussein has been repeatedly painting the Gods and Goddesses of Hindus and lately, even Bharat Mata in the most repulsive nude. While Muslims here are protesting against blasphemy against the holy Prophet in Denmark, did they organize even one demonstration or issue even one fatwa against M. F. Hussein? What does this convey to Hindus?
Dr Tripuraneni Hanuman Chowdary appealed to the Muslim intellectuals to kindly and truthfully address the issues raised and come out in a very strong demonstrable way to establish that Islam is indeed a religion of peace, that it respects other religions and that it values reciprocity of treatment. In fact, the terrorism and the jihadi acts that are being carried out by people with Muslim names claiming that they are doing for the glory and defence of Islam are bringing bad name to a religion and its civilization. In order to defend that real glory of Islam, it would be even appropriate if, just like the Border Security Force, an anti-jihadi terrorist force is raised under the leadership of Muslims and the un-Islamic acts of the terrorists are put to an end by that specially tasked force.
For more articles, please visit the following sites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Speaking at a meeting, Dr Tripuraneni Hanuman Chowdary, Chairman of Pragna Bharati, appreciated the assertion of Muslim intellectuals that Islam is a religion of peace and that there is no compulsion in religion and that Islam holds the taking of life of innocent people as a very serious crime against God. He has however noted that in contrast to these noble expressions contained in the Holy Koran and reiterated by Muslim intellectuals, every time a terrorist act is perpetrated by those claiming to be waging a jihad against the tormentors of Muslims, no concerted action has ever been taken by Muslim leaders and Muslim organizations to isolate these deviants from true Islam. These terrorist activities and insurgencies spread around the globe and of which India has been paying a heavy toll are at total variance with the noble expressions expounded by Islamic intellectuals. He enumerated some issues on which Muslim intellectuals expounding Islam as religion of peace must clearly come out and wage a movement to sensitize the Muslim masses against the deviants and aberrants.
1. Saudi Arabia does not allow the practice of any religion other than Islam
Saudi Arabia and its ruler are the protector of Islam and its holy places. Why is it that such an Islamic state, while welcoming Hindus and Christians as workers, engineers and doctors, does not allow these people to carry pictures or images of their gods, goddesses, saints, prophets etc. and why does it not allow the practice of any religion other than Islam? Is it right of it to expect freedom of religion and worship in non-Muslim countries for Muslims, while denying the same for non-Muslims in its own country?
2. Muslim rulers imposed jizya on Hindus
If Islam is so tolerant, why was jizya (see wikipedia on Jizya, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya ) imposed upon Hindus at different times under Muslim rulers? What is the meaning of dhimmies (see wikipedia on Dhimmi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi ) and what were the disabilities imposed upon them by the Muslim rulers in India?
3. Prophet said that in his land there should be no second religion
It is said that the Prophet declared that in his land there should be no second religion. If that is true, can the upholders of other religions in the states they are in majority reciprocally say that in their lands, there should be no Islam? Is not reciprocity a symbol of peaceful co-existence and mutual respect?
4. Indian Muslims oppose common civil code
In countries such as USA, France, Russia and China, there is common civil code for all citizens irrespective of religion. Article 44 of the Constitution of India also envisages a common civil code. But, the Indian Muslims are opposing common civil code. Why? Why are some of the Indian Muslims demanding that the relevant Article 44 of the Constitution should be repealed?
5. Indian Muslims oppose registration of marriages
While government wants that every marriage should be registered in the Government Registrar of Marriages in order to ensure that women are not cheated and defrauded, Muslim organizations are opposing this and say that what they practice is good enough. We often learn terrible things about minor girls given in marriage for as little as Rs. 10.00 (rupees ten only) to already several times married octogenarian aliens.
6. Azan or call for prayer is given out from several loud speakers several times
Azan or call for prayer is given out from several loud speakers several times even at the dead of night or early morning. Is not that loudness offensive? Is not the assertion that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his prophet amount to denial of other Gods and therefore offensive to others? Will broadcasting of bhajans be allowed in Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh as frequently and as loudly as the Azan?
A Judge of High Court in Patna had begged for a transfer because his requests to the near-by mosque not to blare the Azan when the Court was in sitting was not only ignored but also he was threatened with dire consequences.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that the loudness of the Azan should not exceed a certain decibel strength. The mosques declared that the Calcutta High Court ruling will not be obeyed and it can not be applicable to mosques.
7. Muslims attacked Hindus for blasphemy cartoons in Denmark
There were blasphemy cartoons in Denmark. Months after that, here in Hyderabad, immediately after the Friday prayers in mosques, Hindus and their shops were attacked, looted and burnt.
8. Indian Muslims demand that India should always be favourable towards Islamic countries
The United States of America is leading a war on Iraq, but the protesters here are demanding that the Government of India (GOI) should not have any alliance with it. GOI, in national interest, is voting in a particular way in regard to Iran in the meetings of the IAEA. The Muslim citizens of this country are demanding that GOI should not vote against Iran. How can India's interest be sacrificed for the interest of Islamic countries?
9. Indian Muslims practice double standards in matters of ethnic cleansing
Whenever there is some trouble between Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews, demonstrations are held in India. India is asked to support the right of Palestinian Muslims to return to Israel, but the Muslim citizens of India are totally silent about the total ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from Kashmir. 99% ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs took place in Pakistan. In the Islamic state of Bangladesh, the Hindu and Buddhist population reduced from 28% to 9% and is reducing further. Do they see ethnic cleansing as wrong if it affects Muslims, but right if it affects Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists in India and other countries? Is this conducive to fraternal co-existence?
10. Muslim populations took to insurgency and secession in several countries
Why is it that the Muslim minority populations took to insurgency and secession in Philippines, Thailand, Myanmar, China, Russia, Cyprus, Kosovo (Yugoslavia), Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kashmir? Do these insurgencies and the movements for separation from the nation-states spread all over the world support the view that Islam is a religion of peace and can co-exist with other faiths?
11. Muslims in Kashmir demand autonomy
The Muslim citizens in Kashmir want autonomy but they deny autonomy to Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh. Why? If any Muslim woman in Jammu and Kashmir marries somebody outside the state, she forfeits the right of inheritance. Why?
12. Muslims oppose shifting of their places of worship
In Saudi Arabia, the famous mosque where Prophet Mohammed himself prayed had been removed to make way for some reconstruction, but here in India Muslims oppose any shifting of their places of worship. For example, on the Tank Bund road, right in the carriage way, there is a mazar and there are so many such constructions in many cities. Why their removal is made into an issue of religion and not of the welfare of citizens? (The opposition of Hindus, Sikhs and Christians for removal of such places of their veneration from the pavement and carriage ways is equally reprehensible. They are not being removed as the followers of these religions insist that unless the Muslim mazars are simultaneously removed from the pavements and carriage ways, their sacred places alone can not be removed.
13. Muslims consider non-Muslims as kafirs or infidels
Non-Muslims are kafirs? How sad such a depiction was made during the Khilafat Movement! Mohammed Ali, whom Gandhiji hailed as a brother and a great soul speaking at Aligarh and Ajmer publicly announced:
"However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to be from the point of view of religion, inferior to any Mussalman, even though he be without character."
The statement created a great stir. Many did not believe that Mr. Mohamed Ali, who testified to so much veneration for Mr. Gandhi, was capable of entertaining such ungenerous and contemptupus sentiments about him. When Mr. Mohamed Ali was speaking in a meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow, he was asked whether the sentiments attributed to him were true. Mr. Mohamed Ali without any hesitation or compunction replied: "Yes! According to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and fallen gentleman to be better than Mr. Gandhi."
Coming from such holy and venerated like Mohamed Ali, for whose Islamic cause the Hindus of the Congress were asked to go to jail, does it conduce to peaceful co-existence and mutual respect?
Terrorism, suicide-bombing and killing of innocents are all said to be prohibited by Islam. Why are fatwas not issued against the leaders of the organizations and their followers who are publicly claiming and taking pride in carrying out such terrorist activities?
14. M. F. Hussein paints Hindu Gods and Goddesses nude
M. F. Hussein has been repeatedly painting the Gods and Goddesses of Hindus and lately, even Bharat Mata in the most repulsive nude. While Muslims here are protesting against blasphemy against the holy Prophet in Denmark, did they organize even one demonstration or issue even one fatwa against M. F. Hussein? What does this convey to Hindus?
Dr Tripuraneni Hanuman Chowdary appealed to the Muslim intellectuals to kindly and truthfully address the issues raised and come out in a very strong demonstrable way to establish that Islam is indeed a religion of peace, that it respects other religions and that it values reciprocity of treatment. In fact, the terrorism and the jihadi acts that are being carried out by people with Muslim names claiming that they are doing for the glory and defence of Islam are bringing bad name to a religion and its civilization. In order to defend that real glory of Islam, it would be even appropriate if, just like the Border Security Force, an anti-jihadi terrorist force is raised under the leadership of Muslims and the un-Islamic acts of the terrorists are put to an end by that specially tasked force.
For more articles, please visit the following sites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Monday, November 9, 2009
Varun Gandhi tormented for what?
Article by Mrs. Hilda Raja on Varun Gandhi's remarks a few days before 2009 May elections in India
The Election Commission had found Varun's remark in Pilibhit as derogatory references and serious provocative language. Now it is Priyanka's turn to slam it as "not what the Family stands for". And the media immediately made it into a Gandhi versus Gandhi controversy.
Did Varun claim that he was the spokesperson of The Family and that he was articulating what The Family stood for? What he proclaimed in clear and loud terms was that he is a Hindu and a Gandhi and an Indian, by no stretch of one's imagination can this be capsuled into what The Family stands for. The Hindu is as ageless as this country - It did not resurrect 2000 years ago, nor was It imported into this country as all other religions were. By the way how can Priyanka claim to be the repository of The Family? Is she referring to the Vadra family to which she now belongs or to the Gandhi family to which Varun stands a greater claim because he and his mother are only citizens of this country - they do not hold dual citizenship? His mother did not acquire an Indian citizenship but was born into it. All this weakens the tall claim made by Priyanka that Varun has not expressed what The Family stands for. But the issue is not about which family member is correct regarding what The Family stands for. It is not a family affair - a family squabble. Varun had articulated national concerns, this cannot be capsuled into a family concern. One billion people with one billion ideas and aspirations and Varun has come out as a champion of the persecuted, the besieged, the hounded, the slain and the deprived - which for him is the Hindu. Where is communalism in this?
It is not the first time that Priyanka has projected her ignorance and narrow mindset. Last elections she preened herself and asked if anyone has made sacrifices "as my family had". She little knows the sacrifices of the millions, the unsung heroes of India. They ask for no power nor do they tom-tom the sacrifices - the widow who lost her husband ,the father of the family who never returned from his vigil at the borders - the son who never knew that his parents were no more, the shattered families all silently shed their tears - given a pittance to keep their brokenness together. That's sacrifice. And what are the sacrifices of the Antoinette Maino Gandhi Vadra Family? Indira Gandhi was shot at her backdoor by her own security men - Who conspired and why? Priyanka Vadra should probe and bring out the truth. The nation has a right to know. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated not before he allowed the IPKF to torture and kill and rape hundreds of Tamils in Sri Lanka. It was he who made Prabhakaran what he is today - nurtured him ... But then, without any qualms, Antoinette Maino Sonia Gandhi did not hesitate to ally with a party, which the Shah Commission faulted as the needle of suspicion pointing to it in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. What you sow you reap. Can these be termed as sacrifices made for the country or the karma of the evil and wrongs wrought on this country and on its innocent gullible people? Terming these as sacrifices is like the renunciation power drama. Let it be known that India is not the serfdom of the Gandhi's.
At least Varun - one Gandhi - has the vision. Now every method will be used to stifle his voice. Priyanka Vadra would do well to read up history. If Varun had stated that he will protect mosques and Muslims, that would have been secular. The moment one mentions Hindu and mandir, it becomes communal. All political parties have anchored themselves on communal and caste lines, which the EC does not find provocative and derogatory. Murderers and history sheeters can become candidates to represent people in the highest forum of democracy - that is not abominable and against the very Constitution which the EC is suppose to uphold more than the code of conduct.
Priyanka Vadra has missed the whole point when she advised Varun to read the Gita. Coming to the hand which Varun threatened to cut if it destroys the Hindu. The hand of a destroyer must be cut off, that's what Gita says. The hand of a terrorist, the hand of a destroyer, the hand of a murderer, the hand of an Asuri shakthi must be cut off. This is the role of a protector - a guardian and one who stands with and for the people.
And finally what does The Family stand for? Selfish vested interest! The family which brought in Quatrocchi to swindle the land, and allowed him to flee the justice of this land, Rajiv Gandhi who ordered the locks of the Babri Masjid to be broken and thus brought communalism to centre stage of politics, with Antoniette Maino Sonia Gandhi's renunciation started the complete demolishment of every Constitutional institution and in her, a de facto PM of the country. When today in the election campaigns, Antoinette Maino Sonia Gandhi praises Manmohan Singh - she is praising herself - the puppeteer and not the puppet. What is it that Priyanka Vadra thinks that the family stands for? It is The Family which injected divisive politics, created vote bank politics, accepted a communalized Sachar report (which must be thrown into the dustbins of history), on its basis created a ministry, a whole budget for a people based on religion. Can Priyanka Vadra point out anywhere in the world such blatant communalism? Priyanka should visit Mallapuram in Kerala to witness the trend of communalism or tell us why under The Family ethnic cleansing was resorted to in Jammu & Kashmir? These will indicate the rabid communalism which The Family stood for and continues to stand for. It is not decent to continue insulting the people of this country by equating it to just The Family. This country - of Hindustan, of the HINDU, is ageless - to catch its dazzling brilliance, people like Priyanka Vadra should break out of their cocoons of security and tread the length and breath of this ancient land. One must in all humility shed off one's arrogance, self-righteousness, and all-knowing attitude and be humble to learn from the rustic people - the common folk - the depth of values of this country. One should be honest to credit the simple people of this country with greater scholarship, greater resilience, and greater sacrificing capacity blend with a fierce patriotism - and delve into the ethos of this country.
(The author, Prof. Mrs. Hilda Raja, is a retired Professor from Stella Maris College, Chennai, and lives in Vadodara, Gujarat)
For many more interesting articles on secular politics of India, please visit the following websites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
The Election Commission had found Varun's remark in Pilibhit as derogatory references and serious provocative language. Now it is Priyanka's turn to slam it as "not what the Family stands for". And the media immediately made it into a Gandhi versus Gandhi controversy.
Did Varun claim that he was the spokesperson of The Family and that he was articulating what The Family stood for? What he proclaimed in clear and loud terms was that he is a Hindu and a Gandhi and an Indian, by no stretch of one's imagination can this be capsuled into what The Family stands for. The Hindu is as ageless as this country - It did not resurrect 2000 years ago, nor was It imported into this country as all other religions were. By the way how can Priyanka claim to be the repository of The Family? Is she referring to the Vadra family to which she now belongs or to the Gandhi family to which Varun stands a greater claim because he and his mother are only citizens of this country - they do not hold dual citizenship? His mother did not acquire an Indian citizenship but was born into it. All this weakens the tall claim made by Priyanka that Varun has not expressed what The Family stands for. But the issue is not about which family member is correct regarding what The Family stands for. It is not a family affair - a family squabble. Varun had articulated national concerns, this cannot be capsuled into a family concern. One billion people with one billion ideas and aspirations and Varun has come out as a champion of the persecuted, the besieged, the hounded, the slain and the deprived - which for him is the Hindu. Where is communalism in this?
It is not the first time that Priyanka has projected her ignorance and narrow mindset. Last elections she preened herself and asked if anyone has made sacrifices "as my family had". She little knows the sacrifices of the millions, the unsung heroes of India. They ask for no power nor do they tom-tom the sacrifices - the widow who lost her husband ,the father of the family who never returned from his vigil at the borders - the son who never knew that his parents were no more, the shattered families all silently shed their tears - given a pittance to keep their brokenness together. That's sacrifice. And what are the sacrifices of the Antoinette Maino Gandhi Vadra Family? Indira Gandhi was shot at her backdoor by her own security men - Who conspired and why? Priyanka Vadra should probe and bring out the truth. The nation has a right to know. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated not before he allowed the IPKF to torture and kill and rape hundreds of Tamils in Sri Lanka. It was he who made Prabhakaran what he is today - nurtured him ... But then, without any qualms, Antoinette Maino Sonia Gandhi did not hesitate to ally with a party, which the Shah Commission faulted as the needle of suspicion pointing to it in Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. What you sow you reap. Can these be termed as sacrifices made for the country or the karma of the evil and wrongs wrought on this country and on its innocent gullible people? Terming these as sacrifices is like the renunciation power drama. Let it be known that India is not the serfdom of the Gandhi's.
At least Varun - one Gandhi - has the vision. Now every method will be used to stifle his voice. Priyanka Vadra would do well to read up history. If Varun had stated that he will protect mosques and Muslims, that would have been secular. The moment one mentions Hindu and mandir, it becomes communal. All political parties have anchored themselves on communal and caste lines, which the EC does not find provocative and derogatory. Murderers and history sheeters can become candidates to represent people in the highest forum of democracy - that is not abominable and against the very Constitution which the EC is suppose to uphold more than the code of conduct.
Priyanka Vadra has missed the whole point when she advised Varun to read the Gita. Coming to the hand which Varun threatened to cut if it destroys the Hindu. The hand of a destroyer must be cut off, that's what Gita says. The hand of a terrorist, the hand of a destroyer, the hand of a murderer, the hand of an Asuri shakthi must be cut off. This is the role of a protector - a guardian and one who stands with and for the people.
And finally what does The Family stand for? Selfish vested interest! The family which brought in Quatrocchi to swindle the land, and allowed him to flee the justice of this land, Rajiv Gandhi who ordered the locks of the Babri Masjid to be broken and thus brought communalism to centre stage of politics, with Antoniette Maino Sonia Gandhi's renunciation started the complete demolishment of every Constitutional institution and in her, a de facto PM of the country. When today in the election campaigns, Antoinette Maino Sonia Gandhi praises Manmohan Singh - she is praising herself - the puppeteer and not the puppet. What is it that Priyanka Vadra thinks that the family stands for? It is The Family which injected divisive politics, created vote bank politics, accepted a communalized Sachar report (which must be thrown into the dustbins of history), on its basis created a ministry, a whole budget for a people based on religion. Can Priyanka Vadra point out anywhere in the world such blatant communalism? Priyanka should visit Mallapuram in Kerala to witness the trend of communalism or tell us why under The Family ethnic cleansing was resorted to in Jammu & Kashmir? These will indicate the rabid communalism which The Family stood for and continues to stand for. It is not decent to continue insulting the people of this country by equating it to just The Family. This country - of Hindustan, of the HINDU, is ageless - to catch its dazzling brilliance, people like Priyanka Vadra should break out of their cocoons of security and tread the length and breath of this ancient land. One must in all humility shed off one's arrogance, self-righteousness, and all-knowing attitude and be humble to learn from the rustic people - the common folk - the depth of values of this country. One should be honest to credit the simple people of this country with greater scholarship, greater resilience, and greater sacrificing capacity blend with a fierce patriotism - and delve into the ethos of this country.
(The author, Prof. Mrs. Hilda Raja, is a retired Professor from Stella Maris College, Chennai, and lives in Vadodara, Gujarat)
For many more interesting articles on secular politics of India, please visit the following websites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
