The current issue of the journal briefly highlights how a crypto-Muslim State has been functioning in India since 1947. The architect of this half-sovereign state was none other than Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister (1947-1964) of India. He is fondly remembered as Chacha Nehru or just Panditji. A few characteristics that he shared with his mentor and god father, Mahatma Gandhi were the following : Both Gandhi and Nehru treated India as their personal fiefdom and Hindus as slaves. What is most important from the national point of view is that they refused to acknowledge that the All India Muslim League (1906-1947) represented the Muslims of India and Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah was their unquestioned leader; and lastly, both Gandhi and Nehru were crypto-Muslims.
This is what Nehru wrote in Autobiography in 1936 about the Muslim League: The Muslim nation in India-a nation within a nation and not even compact,but vague, spread out, indeterminate. Politically, the idea is absurd, Economically, it is fantastic; it is hardly worth considering. This idea of a Muslim nation is the figment of a few imagination only, and but for the publicity given by the press few people would have heard of it. And if many people believed in it, it would still vanish at the touch of reality
(Autobiography, London,1936). Another instance of the arrogance of Nehru is his remark he made after winning the provincial elections in United Provinces in 1937. He had said that there were only two parties in India-the Congress and the British. Jinnah was quick to retort that Muslim League was the third party in the triangle. Furthermore, Jinnah went on declare in 1940 that no power on earth could stop the creation of Pakistan. (And Pakistan did emerge in 1947.)
Gandhi had behaved in a similar fashion at the second session of the Round Table Conference held in London in 1931.On being asked by the journalists about the frequent occurance of Hindu- Muslim conflicts in India, he replied that these were coeval with the British rule in India and would disappear once the English leave India. (We are a free county for the last 70 years and yet communal riots are a frequent occurance is India, Why?)
GANDHIAN ERA BEGINS (1915) : M.K. Gandhi, came back to India from South Africa in 1915. Through his philosophy and method, he changed the face of Indian Politics. In the words of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: At the very commencement of his career as political leader of India, Mr. Gandhi startled the people of India by his promise to win Swaraj within six month. He could perform the miracle only if certain conditions were fulfilled. One of these conditions was the achievement of Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Gandhi issued a manifesto dated 2nd march 1919 declaring his intention to launch Satyagraha against the Rowlatt Act and asked people to sign the Satyagraha pledge. This campaign was suspended on 18th April 1919. However, there was nothing in the campaign of Satyagrah against Rowlatt Act that could have led to a clash between Hindus and Muslims and there was no need for a pledge.
GANDHI: FATHER OF MUSLIM APPEASEMENT : The Muslims started the Khilafat movement in 1919. The objective was to: preserve the Khilafat and to maintain the integrity of the Turkish Empire. Gandhi took up the movement. In Young India (2-6-1920), he wrote: In my opinion, the Turkish claim is not only not immoral, and unjust, but it is highly equitable…., Most people believed that Non-cooperation Movement was started by the Congress for winning Swaraj. The truth is that the non-cooperation movement has its origin in the Khilafat agitation and not in the Congress movement for Swaraj says Dr. Ambedkar. He goes on to add that Mr. Gandhi was the only Hindu who joined the Khilafat agitation.
With that objective in view, Mr. Gandhi toured the country between 1st August and 1st September 1920 in the company of the Ali Brothers impressing upon the people the necessity of non-cooperation. Mr. Gandhi was so attached to Hindu-Muslim unity that he did not stop to enquire what he was really doing in this mad endeavour. In Young India of 8 September1920. Gandhi wrote:… There should be therefore only three cries. Allho Akbar to be joyously sung out by Hindus and Muslims. The second should be Bande Mataram and third should be Hindu-Mussalman ki Jai. Ambedkar goes on to observe that these are the not only things Mr. Gandhi had done to build up Hindu-Muslim unity. He has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus be it the atrocities committed on Hindus by Moplas, in Malabar; (1920) be it the killing of Swami Shradhanand (1928) or the killing of Rajpal (1929) Writing from Sylhet in Assam (pre-partition) on 29 August for Young India of 8 September 1921, Gandhi opined that “it is clear that Moplahs have succeeded in taking half a dozen lives and have given already a few hundered. Malabar is under martial law”. In the same article, he praised the Moplahs for being “among the bravest in the land. They are God fearing.”
The question, however, is: is the Congress way the right way? It seems to me that the Congress has failed to realize two things. The first thing which the Congress has failed to realize is that there is no difference between appeasement and settlement, buying off the aggressor by conniving at his acts of murder, rape, arson and loot against innocent persons who happen for the moment to be the victims of his displeasure. On the other hand, settlement means laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress. Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor. Settlement does. The second thing the Congress has failed to realize is that the policy of concession has increased Muslim aggressiveness, and what is worse, Muslims interpret these concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and the absence of the will to resist. This policy of appeasement will involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the Allies found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler. This is another malaise, no less acute than the malaise of social stagnation. Appeasement will surely aggravate it. The only remedy for it is a settlement. If Pakistan is a settlement, it is a proposition worth consideration. As a settlement it will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed by all those who prefer the peace and tranquility of a settlement to the insecurity due to the growing political appetite shown by the Muslims in their dealings with the Hindus.
Dr. BR Ambedkar was constrained to remark in 1940 the following: It would not be much exaggeration to say that it is a record of twenty years of civil war (1920-1940 between the Hindus and Muslims in India, interrupted by brief intervals of armed peace. Earlier, Gandhi had written in Young India (20-10-1921): I claim that with us both (Gandhi and Maulana Mohamad Ali) the Khilafat is the central fact, with Maulana Mohamad Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure safety of the Cow, that is my religion, from the Musalman's knife. Gandhi went on to observe: Here it is, that for me the solution of the Khilafat question is attainment of Swaraj and Vice Versa.
In this context, the legendry V.P. Menon, one of the architects of the scheme of Pakistan has written the following:
Gandhiji particularly emphasized that the minorities were a sacred trust in the hands of the majority. It was a cause most dear to his heart. He lived for it-indeed he eventually died for it!
Gandhi Misunderstood Islam: Sardar K.M. Panikkar was an eminent historian, statesman and a diplomat. His book A Survey of Indian History was published on 15 August, 1947. He attributes the emergence of Pakistan to the complete integration of Islam and its complete separation from Indian nationalism. In his words: In 1907, when the question of political reforms became urgent in India, and the Minto-Morley scheme was on the anvil, the Government of India took the decision, at the request of Muslim delegation led by the Aga Khan, to introduce separate electorates for the Muslims. The two-nation theory which Sir Syed Ahmed had tentatively advocated when he declared that Hindus and Muslims were the two eyes of India had found its consummation. Islamic integration in India was complete, for everywhere in India the citadel of nationalism was permanently breached and the separation of Islam from the body politic of India proclaimed in words which could not be misunderstood. From 1907, there could be a Hindu Muslim alliance, but no united national movement. From separate electorates to Pakistan was but an easy and natural evolution.
Another wellknown expert on Indian affairs, Richard Symonds whose book, The Making of Pakistan came out in 1949 has observed the following: From the first introduction of representative institutions, most Muslim leaders insisted firmly on separate electorates, and as steps were granted towards self government they (Muslims) were equally emphatic that the Provincial Governments must be strong enough to withstand any coercion from the Federal Government. Both conceptions, though from time to time accepted, were fundamentally repugnant to the Congress, which favoured a strong Central Government based on absolute democracy. The Partition of India took place because the Indian Muslim felt themselves to be Muslims before they were Indians.
Was Gandhi a Dictator?: Between 1920 and until his death in 1948 Gandhi was the unquestioned leader of the Congress. His word for the Indian National Congress was law. A famous British journalist, Beverley Nichols calls him a dictator. Nichols had visited India during the closing years of the English rule in India and met practically everyone who mattered in Indian politics. In his words: Hiltler commands the same respect and allegiance in Germany as Mr. Gandhi in India. He is more than a hero, a national savior, even a God to the Germans. The same is the case with Mr. Gandhi. He is both a spiritual and political leader of the Hindus and pretends to speak with divine authority. Nobody can dare to criticize him and yet remain a member of the Congress. A host of prominent Congress leaders had to leave the Congress as they had incurred the displeasure of the Mahatma. Mr. Nariman, Dr. Khare, Mr. Subhas Chander Bose, Mr. Roy and Mr. Rajagopalachari, all at one time held position of immense influence in the Congress, but the difference of opinion with one man alone in the Congress, Mr. Gandhi led to their permanent expulsion.
(Verdict on India, London)
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU : FOUNDER OF HALF SOVERIGN STATE
Nehru's Constitutional Sin
Jawaharlal Nehru was a favourite of Gandhi and grew up politically as a sympathizer of this bordello of anti-nationalism. In 1946, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was persuaded to give up the presidentship of the Congress party which he had held continuously for several years. Whoever was now president would head the interim Government of India preparatory to the departure of the British. The 1946 selection was therefore all important. Fifteen out of the 16 provincial committees opted for Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, whereas one supported Acharya J.B. Kripalani. None voted for Nehru. Nevertheless, due to Gandhi's desire, the Sardar withdrew and Jawaharlal was nominated. He was therefore again confirmed as Gandhi's favourite whom the nationalists, with Patel as their leader, would not spontaneously support. Nehru had to willy nilly look elsewhere to establish his political base. As he looked around for allies, he found a ready constituency in the Muslims who had not migrated to Pakistan. He took them under his wings and became their secular hero.
It is not widely known that Articles 29 and 30 owe their origin to communalism. The Constituent Assembly was elected in January 1946. On 13 December of the same year, Jawaharlal Nehru, as head of the interim government, moved, what was called, an Objective Resolution, whose aim was to appease the Muslim League in the hope that it would not press for partition. Remember, that no final decision had been taken on the grant of independence to India till 20 February 1947.
As it happened, the endeavour to appease the League failed, the country was divided and a Muslim homeland came into being. It is useful to recall that the Constituent Assembly had been elected on the basis of separate Muslim constituencies, then called separate electorates, and 85 percent of the voters had voted for the League, whose single point manifesto then was partition.
What is extraordinary is that the Objective Resolution and the resulting articles continued to be debated, as if nothing had happened on 15 August 1947. In other words, what was proposed to placate the League and thereby avert partition was enshrined in the Constitution despite the creation of Pakistan. Articles 29 and 30 were described in the Resolution as safeguards provided for minorities; that they were conceived to protect communalism was never mentioned.
The post-partition government of Nehru turned a blind eye to the fact that the League had demanded an exchange of population as an integral part of the country's vivisection. All the Muslims of Hindustan were to emigrate to Pakistan and all non-Muslims were to come over to Hindustan. No less than eight leaders of the Muslim League, namely, Jinnah, Feroze Khan Noon, Nawab of Mamdot, Pir Ilahi Bux, Mohammad Ismail, I.I.Chundrigar, Shaukat Hayat Khan and Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, had demanded an exchange of population.
Prof. K.T. Shah, tried to insist that no expenditure on any private institution should be defrayed from the public purse. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was equally categorical that no such burden should be cast upon the state. He further clarified that religious instruction is to be distinguished from research or study. For instance : So far as the Islam religion is concerned, it means that you believe in one God, that you believe that Pagambar the Prophet is the last Prophet and so on, in other words, what we call “dogma”. A dogma is quite different from study observed Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
Yet, Jawaharlal Nehru and his government ignored the exhortations, went on to enshrine in the Constitution, financial burdens which most states are now finding difficult to bear, for the simple reason that the combination of subsidy and freedom of management has led to the proliferation of madrassas/Colleges.
A.B. VAJPAYEE'S ACHIEVEMENT: The Bhisham Pitamah of the BJP, Sri A.B. Vajpayee was a minister in Morarji Desai's Cabinet who is reported to have suggested the setting up of National Minorities Commission, an euphemism for Muslims. By his own admissions, he is an admirer of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. What was the justification for such a Commission when Muslims had already been given a separate homeland is not clear to most Indians.
Dr. MANMOHAN SINGH's RAJ: Mahatma Gandhi started the policy of Muslim appeasement; Jawaharlal Nehru resurrected the concept of Minority which the Muslim League had buried itself in 1940 by declaring Muslims as a Nation. He provided statutory recognition to minorities. Dr. Manmohan Singh out did Jinnah. Students of history are aware that in 1920's and 1930's Jinnah had come out with his 14 -Points demands by the Muslim League and for years these demands were contested by the Congress leadership. Dr. Manmohan Singh's government declared the Policy of MUSLIMS FIRST. Therefore Whatever was demand by the Muslims was agreed to. Major initiatives taken in this direction included: a) establishment of Ministry of Minority Affairs b) Sachar Commission c) Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities d) Educational Commission for Minorities e) Statutory status for National Commission for Minorities. f) Setting up of AMU sub-centers in different states. Had the Congress not been defeated in 2014 election, there would have been today a fullfledged Islamic State within India.