Khilafat Movement

No Gandhi but there could be many Godses

This is a reprint from NewsBred.

Nathuram Godse killed Mahatma Gandhi on 30th January 1948. We also know the provocation was Gandhi’s insistence to newly-formed Indian government that Pakistan be paid the obligated Rs.55 crores from the treasury.

Godse’s full statement in his trial was banned for 20 years till the Bombay High Court lifted it in 1968.  It bears a reminder now for both Hindus and Muslims lest a similar communal frenzy overtakes the nation in our lifetimes, abetted by forces who don’t have the interests of Muslims, certainly not of Hindus, and most definitely not of the nation we know as India.

Godse believed Muslims were appeased by Gandhi at the cost of Hindus. He cited several instances such as Khilafat Movement in the early 20s; the move to separate Sind from Bombay presidency in 1928; Mahatma’s “neither support nor opposition” to the Government of India Act of 1935 which allowed elections on communal lines and prepared the way for the horrific Partition; and the Great Calcutta Killingsand Noakhali Riots where lakhs of Hindu men and women paid with their lives and honour.

The Muslim League feared Hindu domination. Hinduphobia was built upon by Jinnah and other leaders of the Muslim League, abetted by British policy of “divide-and-rule.” Gandhi’s desire for a united front of Hindus and Muslims against British never materialized. His doctrine of Ahimsa didn’t work. It only caused rivers of blood to flow in front of his eyes. His turned out to be violent pacifism.

MODERN TIMES: Muslim viewpoint

Fast forward to modern times. Muslims perceive a hostile climate against their lives and food habits abetted by the central BJP government. They don’t stop to question:

(a)if BJP indeed is communal how come it doesn’t react to hundreds of Hindu killings in Kerala and Bengal? Why Advani’s Ayodhya’s rath-yatra was completely bloodless;

(b)How come its first act was to provide new subsidy to Islamic schools;

(c)If BJP indeed was fundmanetalist, how come the most strident Hindu voices such as Arun Shourie and Dr. Subramanium Swamy were never inducted in the Cabinet?

(d)Every time a stray voice, such as Sakshi Maharaj or Jyoti Niranjan go extreme, the government most vehemently come down on it;

HINDU VIEWPOINT

Hindus have their own grouse.

(a)Hindus pride in their religion is termed as “bigotry”;

(b)Hindus can’t come to terms with Ayodhya where Rajiv Gandhi himself had allowed Hindus to worship in 1986 and where all the eminent historians, such as Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib were shown to be manipulating history and archeology by the three-member jury;

(c)Hindus detest when their nose is rubbed on the ground on their cultural sensibility, such as “jallikattu”, “Durga Puja”, “Padmavati” among others;

(d)They feel helpless when the organized intelligentsia of this country (media, academia, Left-Liberals) deny them the platform to air their views. Their viewpoint is never represented;

Above all, Hindus feel that media/Left-Liberals/academics for too long have played the role of British “divide-and-rule” in this country. Fed by foreign money and preachers, missionaries of specific countries of monotheist religions such as Islam and Christianity, every effort is being made to make a pagan religion like Hinduism suffer, and if possible, to disappear.

Englightened Hindus feel aghast that their Muslim brethrens can’t look at the example of the Vajpayee government (1998-2004) and see through this game.

(a)These very same experts had predicted Hindu fascism and that “all Muslims into the Indian Ocean” under the Vajpayee regime;

(b)Despite the Kargil outrage in 1999, Vajpayee stopped the Army to strike across the border at invaders’ base;

(c)It was BJP which had thrown the Indian media market open to foreign media ownership despite the strident opposition by these very forces who today champion the idea of “freedom of speech.”

Hence, I propose a following manifesto for Hindus and Muslims for the safety of their future generations and unity of India (for god’s sake, how many divisions you want, you stupid):

(a)That we are different but we have lived in harmony in the past and we can live in harmony in present and future;

(b)That we would learn our historical lessons and wouldn’t allow India-breakers to play on our fault-lines;

(c)That we would see each other’s point of view on cow-slaughter, such as food habits and religious sensibility and accommodate each other strictly on the laws of the land;

(d)That Hindus would come forward on killings in the name of cow-vigilante and Muslims likewise would question the media’s narrative on Bengal and Kerala as well as constant attempt to denigrate our armed forces;

Above all, our religious moorings shouldn’t be allowed to override our concern for One India, One Unity. A Uniform Civil Code isn’t an attack on Shariat. And if it is, Muslims anyway submit to such rulings in France or Australia. The majority in this country has chosen BJP to lead India’s destiny till 2019 and we ought not to let our communal prejudice or bias interfere in its task.

And certainly not allow these India-breakers a field day. They are desperate and fast losing ground. Their propaganda has no effect on the electorates. India is a virtual heaven in modern comity of nations. Muslims are safer here than in any other non-Muslim country of the world. We shouldn’t become a pawn to a handful of India-breakers who are subsisted, funded and promoted by foreign forces.

Just remember: we can all wear our religious glasses but it must show the horrible future which our children would suffer in times to come.

Jai Hind.

Guha and the Gandhi he hides

This is a reprint from NewsBred.

Ramachandra Guha today hogged the Indian Express edit page with his column: “Does Gandhi have a caste?”.

Guha, already a book old on Gandhi–“Gandhi before India”– will have his second one on the man next year. Apparently, the cottage industry on Gandhi is a useful tool for self advancement and setting up the political agenda in this country.

Guha’s peg is the recent reference of Amit Shah where the BJP president had called Gandhi the “Chatur Baniya.” This has Guha in an outrage even though he himself reminded readers of “residue of Bania upbringing” in Gandhi in his book.

Guha’s entire premise is built on the assertion that Gandhi didn’t differentiate between castes and he repeatedly asked Hindus to “disregard matters of caste in where they lived…”

Gandhi is larger than life to most Indians. That doesn’t mean he is above examination. A Hindu mind isn’t shy of evaluating his own Gods. There is no reason a Mahatma be exempt from such a scrutiny. Gandhi himself would’ve approved of such “experiments with truth.”

So let’s examine if Gandhi didn’t differentiate between castes. In his over two decades of stay in South Africa, Gandhi didn’t think Black Africans were worth his time. In 1893, he wrote to the Natal parliament saying that Indians were better “than savages of the Natives of Africa.” He supported more taxes on impoverished African people and turned a blind eye to the brutality of the Empire on Africans. He termed them “kaffirs” an extremely offensive racist slur.

No less than Gandhi’s grandson and his biographer, Rajmohan Gandhi, has acknowledged that Gandhi was “prejudiced about South African blacks.” Historian Patrick French wrote in 2013 that “Gandhi’s blanking of Africans is the black hole at the heart of his saintly mythology.” Today a large number of Africans view Gandhi as a racist vis-a-vis Black Africans. A revision in his stature is already underway.  Last year his statue was banished from Ghana University in Accra after massive protests by professors over his racist stance.

Guha of course would hide such facts from our view. Closer home, one would be interested to find out Guha’s opinion on Gandhi’s role in the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Most of us don’t know about it as a sanitized history is propagated by Left-Liberal combine in whose company Guha clearly is comfortable.

At the end of the World War I in 1919, Ottoman Turkey lay beaten by the Allied forces. Their pretensions of being Caliphs of the Islamic world was in ruins. It got the hackles up of Muslim leaders in India. They formed a committee to force the British government to restore the Sultan. This in brief is known as the Khilafat Movement.

Gandhi and the Congress launched the non-cooperation movement in support of the Khilafat demand. It clearly was a quid pro quo move. Gandhi, in return, got the Muslim support. It helped him become the biggest political actor of the Indian stage. (Bal Gangadhar Tilak had died on August 1, 1920). Gandhi justified his move thus:

“I would gladly ask for the postponement of the Swaraj activity if we could advance the interest of the Khilafat.” So Swaraj, which meant self-rule, became a subordinate action compared to restoration of Caliphate in a faraway land!!! It never occurred to Mahatma how the natives would make sense of such a sympathy for the Muslim cause which had nothing to do with India’s reality.

Mohammad Ali, a prominent leader of the Khilafat movement, went further: “If the Afghans invaded India to wage holy war, the Indian Muhammadans are not only bound to join them but also to fight the Hindus if they refuse to cooperate with them.”

This clearly was not respect-all-castes approach. And what was Gandhi’s reaction to this all? He supported Mohammad Ali for being true to his religion! So much for caste-free politics and the spirit of nationalism.  Over to Gandhi:

 “I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central fact, with the Maulana Mohammad Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the knife of the Mussalman.”

Let’s leave cow for the moment as it is a more sensitive subject than Mahatma these days. It must be mentioned though that Gandhi diverted a substantial sum of money from the Tilak Swaraj Fund to the Khilafat movement.

Gandhi’s support for Khilafat led to Mopla Rebellion of 1921. (Moplas are a Muslim sect of Malabar in Kerala). Murder and rapine followed the failure of Khilafat. It soon became a full-scale rebellion. Civil authorities caved in and army had to be summoned. Khilafat flags were hoisted on police stations and government offices. It took seven months to put it down completely.

Guha’s subtle message is that all religions are the same.  Hindus must not make any distinctions vis-à-vis Islam, Christianity and other religions. And by inference, Ahimsa, the cornerstone of Gandhi’s philosophy, must be internalized.

But religious distinctions are there for all to see. Hindus don’t follow one book like Koran or Bible. They don’t have one God like Islam and Christianity. There is no prophet or messenger who stands between the God and humanity. There is no central religious authority like Pope to them.

Every time you open a newspaper, you read a piece by Guha, Sagarika Ghose and their ilks who appeal to the pacifist image of Hindus. Their method to neutralize the majority is simple: beat them with the creeds of Mahatma and shame them on the untouchability ills of Hindu society. Hemmed in by such imagery, India hasn’t responded to million cuts which aggressive neighbours inflict on it regularly. Bleed India to death is this creed. The Break-India plot must be thwarted with rigour and alertness for the forces have shifted gears.