Monthly Archives: May 2018

Honesty, Idealism, Magnanimity and Non-violence – Watch- words of Hindus

Sanatana Dharma encompasses ideals such as justice, honesty, altruism, chivalry and non-violence and since the dawn of civilization Sanatanis (Hindus) living in Bharath, upheld and practiced these ideals in their daily lives. Foreign travellers speak of the high integrity, magnanimity and compassion which the Hindus possessed.

Megesthenes the Greek ambassador lived in the court of Chandragupta Maurya, who ruled the kingdom of Magadha during 322-298 B.C. He observes that the average Hindu was law abiding, frugal in their habits and simple in manners. They never drink wine except at sacrifices. The simplicity of their laws and their contracts is proved by the fact that they seldom go to the court of law. They have no suits about pledges or deposits, nor do they require seals or witnesses but make their deposits and confide in each other. Their houses and property are generally unguarded. They hold truth and virtue in high esteem. Continuing, he says that Hindus neither ravaged an enemy’s land nor cut down its trees. Therefore, the cultivation was never interfered. It is said that famine never visited India nor scarcity for food felt as there was double rainfall each year. The Hindus treated diseases more by diet than by medicine through ointment and plasters were used. People practiced fortitude by undergoing toil and suffering pain.

Fa-Hien the Chinese traveller who visited India during 5th century A.D. says “Throughout the whole country the people do not kill any living creatures nor drink intoxicating drinks; they do eat onions or garlic and do not keep pigs and fowls or sell live cattle in the market”. He mentions houses of charity and dispensaries run by the people belonging to Vaisya caste, where maimed, diseased, crippled, orphans, widowers and childless were fed and treated. Fa-Hien also speaks about the existence of rest houses for travellers and free hospitals. “No passport system existed, those who want to go may go and those who want to stop may stop”, he adds.

Hindus known for their courage, honesty and learning

Another Chinese traveller Huien Tsang who visited India during 630 A.D. says that Hindus were remarkable for their courage, honesty and love for learning. They are not deceitful or treacherous in their conduct. They are faithful in their oaths and promises. He also speaks of their personal hygiene– “floors of the houses were purified with cow dung and strewn with season flowers. They bathed daily, smeared their bodies with sandal and washed hands before meals. I-Tsing who visited India around 671 A.D. also speaks of the high personal hygiene of the Hindus.

Regarding justice and honesty of the Hindus, Al Idrisi in his work, Nazhatu I Mushtak– writes “The Indians are naturally inclined to justice and never depart from it in their action. Their good faith, honesty and fidelity to their engagements are well known and they are so famous for these qualities that people flock to their country from every side; hence the country is flourishing and their condition prosperous. If a man met another to whom he had earlier lend something and if he wished to get it back, he used to draw a circular line upon the ground where his debtor was standing and the latter could not leave this circle without returning back his creditor what he owed or obtain remission from him.

Altruistism of high order

Not only the Hindus were known for their sense of justice but also altruism of high order. For instance, during 12th century there lived in Kalyan (Bidar district in Karnataka) an idealistic Veerashaiva couple, Aaidakki Marayya and his wife Lakkamma. Aaidakki Marayya’s profession was to gather rice grains scattered on the ground. (many rich people used to donate rice to the poor who used to collect it in their torn clothes, as a result there was seepage of rice which used to fall on the ground) Once Aaidakki Marayya engrossed in his thoughts brought more rice than the usual measure. His wife Lakkamma reminded him that greed for grains excess to their needs was against their dharma and insists upon his taking back the excess rice and scattering it where he had picked it from. This shows the high idealism of Lakkamma. Speaking of extravagance Gandhiji said- ‘nature has given enough for all of our wants but not for our greed. If everybody took enough for his wants then there would be no pauperism in this world.’

Display of Magnanimity against arch rivals

In 1519 A.D., Mahmud Khilji, the ruler of Malwa invaded the territory of Medini Rai, an ally of Rana Sangram Singh, the ruler of Mewar. For this audacity on the part of Mahmud, Rana decided to teach him a lesson and in the ensuing battle defeated Mahmud and took him as prisoner. As Mahmud was wounded and bleeding, Rana had him removed with care to his own camp, where his wounds were carefully dressed and properly treated. He was then removed to Chittoor, where he remained a prisoner for three months. The Maharana used to treat Mahmud with great courtesy and friendship, so far at times as to make him sit on a portion of own seat in the Durbar. One day while the Mahmud was so seated, an attendant brought some flowers and the Maharana taking up, a bunch was about to give it to Mahmud, when the latter said “there were two ways of giving a thing, you hold your hand up and bestow it on an inferior or keep your hand low and tender it to a superior”. “The latter course was out of question as I am your prisoner”, said Mahmud and added that he is not ready to extent his palm like a suppliant merely for a bunch of flowers. The Maharana was pleased to hear this from Mahmud and generously said that half the kingdom of Malwa went with the bunch of flowers. Mahmud was filled with joy and gladly extended his palm and took the flowers. The third day the Maharana bade farewell to Mahmud and sent him with an escort to Mandu and seated him on the throne.

Respect for women

Abdur Rahim Khan-i- Khan, the adopted son of Akbar was once sent to fight Rana Pratap, for his refusal to submit before the Mughals. Abdur Rahim with 20,000 soldiers went on a rampage in Mewar and thousands of Rajput men and women died fighting for their honour and liberty. Though Mewar bled it did not surrendered. One evening prince Amar Singh, son of Pratap, in a surprise raid carried away a part of the Khan’s harem. But Pratap reprimanded him and said- “The honour of women is dear to us and to lay hand on women is to denounce god and is against the Rajput code of conduct”. “Never again my son, should you be guilty of such a lapse”, Pratap advised his son. Pratap himself apologised to the ladies for the mistake made by his son. He extended to them honours customary to be shown to honoured guests in Rajput house and sent them back under heavy military escort to the Mughal camp. Abdur Rahim was overwhelmed by the Rana’s gesture.

Keeping one’s word

The Portuguese who came to India for trade were also involved in other criminal activities like taking Indians as captives for ransom or to use them labourers. Once Correa, as a leader of a trading party took among their captives an old Brahmin who did not had any capacity for work. The said old Brahmin offered Correa three pounds for his liberty and asked that as he had no friend he might be allowed to fetch the money himself. As Correa had no use of that old Brahmin he agreed after making the Brahmin swear by his sacred thread that he would not cheat Correa of the money he had promised. A few days later the old Brahmin to the amazement of Correa returned with half the money and eight fowls in lieu of the rest. It is said that Correa overwhelmed by the Brahmin’s honesty refused to take anything from him.

Compassion Unlimited

Non-violence is a character ingrained in Hindus. When the British East India Company was calling the shots, its servants who were ill paid used to shoot doves and pigeons for food. The Hindus would implore them not to do this and would as a last resort offer them money to spare the poor birds. This method of persuasion was so successful that it became a regular practice for insolvent young company servants who were in indebtedness and in order to supplement their meagre salary used to take out a gun near some rich Hindu’s house and talk loudly and ferociously about the number of pigeons they would massacre that afternoon till the Hindu ran out in tears in his eyes and money in his hands.

Probably the very idealism which Hindus possessed became a liability and the country had to face successive invasions, deaths, destruction, loot and rape of its citizen by waves of barbarians, jihadists and colonialists.

Perpetrators of India’s Partition

Today we find Muslim communalists in India posing as the protectors of Dalits and accusing the BJP as a communal party. Many Muslim leaders talk as though they (Muslims) did a great sacrifice by remaining in India and not going to Pakistan after partition. Many people in India especially the power-hungry politicians and majority of those in the media believe in this fabricated myth as in the history text books written by Marxist historians the blame for India’s partition is squarely put on the Hindu nationalists and the British and the Muslims are portrayed as the aggrieved and innocent. But a thorough examination of facts reveals that the very existence of anti-patriotism among the Indian Muslims was responsible for the partition of India. What the Britishers did was to exploit and aggravate the problem. But the problem was there even before the arrival of the Britishers.

The Genesis of Muslim Separatism

The separatist and intolerant tendencies of the Muslims in India were dormant even before the establishment of British rule in India. During the Medieval period, though the Hindu rulers and the people accorded a generous treatment to Muslims, they did not reciprocate the same. For example, the Zamorin of Calicut gave orders that in every family of fishermen in his dominion; one or more of the male members should be brought up as Mohammedans. The Hindu reformers and teachers emphasized that Hinduism and Islam were two different paths leading to the same goal. They preached that Ram and Rahim, Krishna and Karim, Ishwar and Allah, were different names of the same god. An earnest attempt was made to bring about unity between the two communities by deprecating priestly ritualism and formalities and emphasizing inner religious devotion. Not only were the foreign Muslims honoured and respected, but even Indian converts to Islam were shown regard and a treatment which was better than that meted out to lower castes among the Hindu themselves. The Muslims on the other hand, believed in their superiority and branded the Hindus as an inferior people, feeble and unprogressive. If a Hindu, who was converted to Islam, showed any inclination to revert to the religion of his forefathers, he was, according to the law of the Sultanate, put to death, and if any Hindu preached that Hinduism and Islam alike were true religions, he was liable to capital punishment. Moreover, according to the Quranic injunction it is not permissible for a Muslim male to marry a non-Muslim woman without first converting her to Islam; nor it was permissible for a Muslim woman to be given in marriage to a Hindu, unless he himself became a Muslim. Further, by the orders of the Quran, Muslims were prohibited from showing any respect or consideration for their non-Muslim ancestors. This Quranic injunction made it impossible for Indian Muslim, most of them who were converts from Hinduism, to have anything to do with their Hindu ancestors, or to have legitimate pride in the ancient history of this country.

Religious Fanaticism and Aggression

The Muslims of India though living in this country for centuries unmolested by the Hindus and having full religious freedom could not develop any friendly feeling with their Hindu counterpart or consider India as their motherland. The main reason for this was the religious fanaticism of the Muslims. The Muslims always insisted on their separate identity and never regarded themselves as Indians first. To them a Muslim foreigner was a nearer kith and kin than a Hindu neighbour. They were more sensitive to the misfortune of their Turkish co-religionists than to the murder of their Hindu brethren at Jallianwallabagh. The Indian Muslims searched for their national roots elsewhere and to some extent found them in the Afghan and Mughal periods of India. This search for their culture roots led the Indian Muslims to Islamic history and to the periods when Islam was a conquering and creative force in Baghdad, Spain, Constantinople, Central Asia and elsewhere. After the collapse of the Muslim power in India with the arrival of the British, the Indian Muslims began to derive their temporal and spiritual inspiration from the Turkish Empire and its Khalifa.

In contrast the Buddhist of China and South East Asia knew that their Lord (Buddha) was born in India, but never sought to glorify or emancipate India; they were exclusively concerned with national matters of the country in which they lived. Speaking on the Hindu-Muslim question, Nobel Laureate Rabindranth Tagore opined that it was almost impossible for Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact as the Muslims could not confine their patriotism to any one country. The poet said that he had very frankly asked many Muslims whether in the event of any Mohammadan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land; he could not be satisfied with the reply he got from them. (The Times of India, April 18, 1924)

Spewed Venom on Hindus

All prominent Muslim intellectuals were rabid communalists who had nothing but contempt towards India and Hindus. In a speech on 16th March 1888, Syed Ahmed Khan said that the Hindus and Muslims were not only two nations but as two warring nations who could never lead a common political life should ever the British quit India. Mohammad Iqbal said to be the originator of a separate Muslim State was inspired by the spirit of Pan Islamism. He proposed the formation of a Muslim State in the North-West part of India. Mohammad Ali Jinnah considered as the father of Pakistan at the Lahore session of the Muslim League in March 1940 said that the Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literatures and it is a dream that Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality.

During the Khilafat movement the Moplahs (Muslims of Kerala) committed terrible atrocities against their Hindu neighbours which included ripping open the stomach of pregnant Hindu women; this in spite of the Hindus giving support to their movement. None of the leaders of the Muslim community condemned this action of the Moplahs and instead denied the atrocities and even tried to shift the blame on Hindus. The Muslims animosity and hatred against Hindus was such that they even did not spare Gandhiji. One of the leading men of the Khilafat Movement, Mohammed Ali made a statement in 1924 at Aligarh where he said that however pure Gandhi’s character may be, from his (Mohammed Ali) point of view he (Gandhiji) is inferior to any Mussalman even though that Mussalman may be of bad character. Many dismissed this statement as press fabrication. Later when he was asked to clarify Mohammed Ali reaffirmed that statement he had made. Mohammed Ali’s contempt for India was such that he preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather in India.

The Muslim leaders were so intolerant that they found fault even with progressive leaders like Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Aurobindo, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Gandhiji just for being pious Hindus in their personal life, for taking pride in their historical and mythical heroes and for praising their motherland. Contrast this attitude of the Muslims with that of Hindu nationalists; who all believed in the concept of Akhand Bharat and proclaimed that all those who live in India were Hindus. It should be remembered that the formation of Hindu Mahasabha and R.S.S. took place only to counter the aggressive attitude of the fanatical Muslims who at the drop of a hat used to organise communal riots.

Appeasement Policy of the Congressmen

The Congress leaders from Gokhale to Gandhi presumed that by a policy of generosity they could win over the Muslims; but the Muslims demands was insatiable. The Muslim demanded certain rights which they were not prepared to concede to others. They wanted the right to convert Hindus to Islam but objected to the Shuddi movement of Arya Samaj (a movement to bring back converted Muslims to their ancestor’s faith). The Muslims demanded the right to self-determination but tried to deny the same right to minorities in Muslim majority provinces. The Muslims were against parliamentary system because they wanted to dominate the political life of the country and reimpose their rule in India. Deep inside their hearts the Congressmen knew the real character of the Muslims but acted as liberals in public as they wanted their support to fight against the Britishers. According to Gandhiji it was Hindu’s cowardice that had made the Mussalman a ‘bully’ leading to Hindu Muslim riots and the parents of middle class Hindus, themselves timid, continue to transmit their timidity to their children. (Harijan, January 6th, 1940) The Congressmen knew that it was impossible to live with Muslims peacefully in united India and hence agreed to partition. Sardar Patel’s argument was that if two brothers cannot stay together, they better divide. If they are forced to stay together, they tend to fight every day. It is better to have one clean fight and then separate than have bickering’s every day. C Rajagopalachari also supported partition and so also Ambedkar. But Ambedkar was of the view that there should be mutual transfer of population, Muslims living in India to migrate to Pakistan and Hindus living in Pakistan migrating to India so that Hindus could live in peace and free from Muslim aggression. But the Congress party under the leadership of Gandhiji and Nehru allowed the Muslims to stay behind in India to showcase their secular credentials thought they did not have such credentials. For instance, when Moti Lal Nehru’s daughter wished to marry Syed Hussain, the editor of a newspaper Independent, Moti Lal Nehru threatened that he would commit suicide. Gandhiji later persuaded Syed Hussain to forget about his marriage and to leave the country. Similarly, when Gandhiji’s son embraced Islam Gandhiji ostracized him and was reconciled to him only when he was brought back to the Hindu fold under Birla’s influence.

Reasons behind Muslims remaining in India

In the elections of 1945-46 the Muslim League captured an over whelming majority of Muslim seats in all the provinces which shows that Muslim living all over India supported Pakistan. For most of the gullible Muslims who supported partition of India, Pakistan meant the very place they lived. Only later they realised that they have to leave their home, job and start a new life if they had to go to their dream land Pakistan. Hence except the rich and powerful most of the Muslims stayed back. Moreover, the Muslims living in India were never threatened by the Hindus to convert nor their women’s honour outraged. Moreover, the mullahs had other sinister designs. The Jamait-ul-ulema was opposed to Pakistan, as it would affect its propagation of Islam. Maulana Madani delivering a speech on 19th September 1945 in Delhi on the occasion of the formation of the Azad Muslim Parliamentary Board to fight the last constitutional battle against the demand of Pakistan said that at the termination of the Muslim rule, there were about 25 million Muslims in India. Within a period of less than a century their number increased up to 100 million. The missionary work of the Jamait has a great share in this increase. The great object of an overall spread of Islam in the whole of India cannot be realized by appealing to passion of hatred and antagonism. It is the non-Muslims who are the field of action for the tabligh (spread of Islam) and form the raw material for this splendid activity.

Muslims are not friends of Dalits

With regards to the Muslim pretension of being friends of Dalits, way back in 1947 Ambedkar had cautioned Dalits to be vary of Muslims intentions. On November 27th 1947 in a press release Ambedkar said that it would be a fatal for the Scheduled Castes, whether in Pakistan or in Hyderabad to put their faith in the Muslims or the Muslim League. It has become a habit with the Scheduled Castes to look upon the Muslims as their friends simply because they dislike the Hindus. This is a mistaken view. The Muslim wanted the support of the Scheduled Castes but they never gave their support to the Scheduled Castes. Jinnah was all the time playing a double game. He was very insistent that the Scheduled Castes were a separate entity when it suited him but when it did not suit him he insisted with equal emphasis that they (Scheduled Castes) were Hindus. After the formation of Pakistan Ambedkar invited the Scheduled Castes to come to India as they were subjected to forcible religious conversion.

It is high time that Hindus become aware of the real facts that had taken place in our history, especially our younger generations and very importantly those working in the media and public life.

References

  1. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol 8 and Vol 17- part I, Publishers- Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, Ministry of Social, Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi

  1. P.D.Kaushik- The Congress Ideology and Programmes- 1920-1947, Allied Publishers Pvt Ltd, 1964

  1. Ram Gopal- Indian Muslims: A Political History (1858-1947), Asia Publishing House, 1964

  1. Ziya ul Hasan Faruqi, The Deoband School and the demand of Pakistan, Asia Publishing House, 1963.

  1. Gauba K.L., The Consequences of Pakistan, Lion Press, Lahore. 1946

  1. Srivastava A.L,Medieval Indian Culture, Shiva Lal Agarwala & Company, Agra

  1. B.L.Grover, S.Grover- A New Look at Modern Indian History, S.Chand & Company Ltd, New Delhi, 1993