Us vs. Them - we are not the same...
It does not matter how much the hallucination called secularism is murmured by the so-called Indian political leaders, the Hindus and the Muslims don't have any common history for which both the communities feel happy or sad together. That's why, the partition happened in Bharat and if the Hindus in the present Bharat believe in Sabka sath Sabka Vikaash, that's obviously an open sham - and can be deciphered with a simple tweak of the brain.
The following excerpts have been taken from B.R Ambedkar's book "Pakistan or The Partition of India" where even he claimed the same thing - the basis for the Musalmaans to demand their own country.
Wake up - Hindus of Bharat - don't remain as blindfolded fools.
Read... Read...
Let's know the reality of the #Hindu community in Bharat during the Muslim period.
History lessons
Remember, if we don't learn from history history will repeat itself
Taken from B.R Ambedkar’s book (page 63)
Pakistan or the Partition of India…
On the other hand, what was done was in accordance with the ruling ideas of the leaders of Islam in the broadest aspects. These ideas were well expressed by the Kazi in reply to a question put by Sultan Ala-ud-Din wanting to know the legal position of the Hindus under Muslim law.
The Kazi said
“They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them they should without question, and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt in their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it.....The due subordination of the Dhimmi is exhibited in this humble payment, and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islam is a duty, and contempt for religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ‘Keep them in subjection’. To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ‘ Convert them to Islam or kill them, and make them slaves, and spoil their wealth and property’. No doctor but the great doctor (Hanifah), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of jizya on Hindus; doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘Death or Islam’.”
Such is the story of this period of 762 years which elapsed
between the advent of Muhammad of Ghazni and the return
of Ahmadshah Abdalli.
"
Are there any common historical antecedents which the Hindus and Muslims can be said to share together as matters of pride or as matters of sorrow? That is the crux of the question. That is the question which the Hindus must answer if they wish to maintain that Hindus and Musalmans together form a nation. So far as this aspect of their relationship is concerned, they have been just two armed battalions warring against each other. There was no common cycle of participation for a common achievement. Their past is a past of mutual destruction—a past of mutual animosities, both in the political as well as in the religious fields. As Bhai Parmanand points out in his pamphlet called “the Hindu National Movement”— “In history the Hindus revere the memory of PrithviRaj, Partap, Shivaji and, Beragi Bir, who fought for the honour and freedom of this land (against the Muslims), while the Mahomedans look upon the invaders of India, like Muhammad Bin Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb as their national heroes.” In the religious field, the Hindus draw their inspiration from the Ramayan, the Mahabharat and the Geeta. The Musalmans, on the other hand, derive their inspiration from the Quran and the Hadis. Thus, the things that divide are far more vital than the things which unite. In depending upon certain common features of Hindu and Mahomedan social life, in relying upon common language, common race, and common country, the Hindu is mistaking what is accidental and superficial for what is essential and fundamental. The political and religious antagonisms divide the Hindus and the Musalmans far more deeply than the so-called common things are able to bind them together. The prospects might perhaps be different if the past of the two communities can be forgotten by both.
The pity of it is that the two communities can never forget or obliterate their past. Their past is embedded in their religion, and for each to give up its past is to give up its religion. To hope for this is to hope in vain.
In the absence of common historical antecedents, the Hindu view that Hindus and Musalmans form one nation falls to the ground. To maintain it is to keep up a hallucination. There is no such longing between the Hindus and Musalmans to belong together as there is among the Musalmans of India."
Hindus of Bharat..wake up... The TIME is NOW...
Read....
It's time for the Hindus of Bharat to wakeup and awaken other Hindus... Come on.... guys... open your eyes... dekh phar phar ke - seek only TRUTH and disseminate only TRUTH..
Read.... Read.... o my Hindus... wake up... don't remain wilfully blind... know the real history...
Response to the Intellectuals
Author: Shri Tapan Ghosh
I won’t listen to a blind man describe the beauty of a sunset. Nor will I hear a refugee say, “How good Muslims are.”
Go back to the other side of Bengal with your family’s women, live there for six months. Then come back and tell me how good Muslims are.
And about Muslim participation in the freedom struggle? No one but a collaborator would say such a thing.
In undivided Bengal, 54% were Muslims and 46% were Hindus. Muslims were the majority, and Hindus were the minority. So, if both had participated in the freedom struggle, there should have been more Muslim martyrs and prisoners than Hindus.
From Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki, a tradition of martyrdom began in Bengal’s freedom struggle. How many Muslims joined this fight and became martyrs by British bullets or the gallows? Was it 54% of the total martyrs? How many Muslims went to the Andaman Cellular Jail? Was it 54% of the total prisoners?
Marxists argue that Muslims lagged in education. On top of that, Hindu revolutionaries performed Kali Puja and read the Gita, so Muslims couldn’t join them. Fine, let’s say Hindus did their rituals. But why didn’t Muslims, chanting “Allah-Allah” and offering namaz, form their own revolutionary organization to fight the British?
Back then, they were the majority. As the majority, wasn’t it their primary duty to fight the British? So why didn’t they? Because they lagged in education? Why did they lag?
Before the British arrived, they ruled for 500 years. During those 500 years, Hindus struggled to save their lives, religion, and the honor of their women from their greed. That’s why Hindus fell behind in education back then. The ruling Muslims should have been far ahead in education. So why did they fall behind? Were Muslims responsible for this, or Hindus?
The truth is, everyone knows why they lagged. Marrying 4-5 times and producing 15-20 children makes it impossible to educate them. On top of that, for them, namaz, fasting, and Hajj were far more important than education. They valued Arabic over Bengali or English. This is why they fell behind in education. Why blame others for it?
Alright, let’s accept they lagged in education. So, their participation in the freedom struggle might have been lower. But it shouldn’t have been zero! If not 54% of the martyrs, it could’ve been half—27%, or even less, say 20% or 10%. Where are they? Name one Muslim martyr from Bengal. You can’t. Among the countless martyrs of undivided Bengal, Muslim martyrs are almost nonexistent. Why not? Shouldn’t this question arise? Of course, it should.
Revolutionary Masterda Surya Sen had around 150 members in his group, all ready to sacrifice their lives for the country’s freedom. In 1930, Chittagong’s population was 20% Hindu and 80% Muslim. Yet, all 150 members of Masterda’s revolutionary force came from that 20% Hindu population. He couldn’t find a single revolutionary among the 80% Muslims.
Why?
Was Masterda trained in an RSS school and became a Hindu communalist, deliberately keeping Muslims away? The same was true in Punjab. In undivided India, Punjab and Bengal produced the most martyrs. Yet, in both these provinces, where Muslims were the majority and Hindus the minority, not a single Muslim became a martyr in the anti-British struggle. All the martyrs came from the minority Hindus and Sikhs.
Does anyone know the name of a single Bengali or Punjabi Muslim martyr? So, what does this prove? That Hindus and Muslims fought together against the British for freedom?
How long will this false propaganda continue?
Here’s an important fact to remember: Muslims may have lagged in education, but does that mean they lacked political awareness? Before independence, elections were held twice (1937, 1946), and ministries were formed. There were three chief ministers in Bengal. Hindus were supposedly so advanced in education—doctors, lawyers, barristers, artists, writers, zamindars, Rai Bahadurs, all were Hindus. Yet, not one of the three chief ministers was Hindu. Why? The same was true in Punjab. In Bengal, the chief ministers were Khwaja Nazimuddin, Fazlul Haq, and Suhrawardy.
No matter how far behind they were in education or how distant they stayed from the freedom movement, in a Muslim-majority state, they wouldn’t accept a non-Muslim as chief minister. So where’s the evidence that their lack of education led to a lack of political awareness?
Oh, but when it came to going to jail or becoming martyrs, their awareness was suddenly lacking? Why didn’t this lack of awareness show when choosing Muslim chief ministers?
How long will these flimsy arguments persist?
They didn’t fight for freedom, didn’t go to jail, didn’t shed blood, didn’t give their lives. But when independence—earned through Hindu blood and lives—was near, they jumped in to claim their share. Suddenly, there was no lack of awareness. They raised slogans: “First give us Pakistan, then India will be free,” “We’ll fight and take Pakistan.” They didn’t just raise slogans—they drew knives, swords, and pistols. They rioted across the country for Pakistan, massacred Hindus, and finally, by managing Gandhi and Nehru, they secured Pakistan. Though the country was divided on religious lines, most of the Muslims whose votes won Pakistan stayed back here as opportunists.
They shed not a drop of blood in the freedom movement but spilled rivers of Hindu and Sikh blood to secure Pakistan.
So, is the picture of Hindus and Muslims fighting together in the freedom struggle clear now?
These fact-rich historical truths need to be known by all.
No comments:
Post a Comment