A Global Fault Line: The retreat of Muslim Moderates.

By Lewis M. Simons NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 7, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Nov 16, 2009

When young Barack Hussein Obama lived with his American mother and Indonesian stepfather in Jakarta nearly 40 years ago, the Muslims of Southeast Asia were renowned for their moderation. Women may have covered their hair with a light scarf, but almost none veiled their faces. It was the rare Muslim man who grew a beard, and many drank with non-Muslim friends.

Today, as Obama prepares to meet with Southeast Asia's leaders in Singapore, all that, and more, is shifting. Moderation is suspect, as many of the region's quarter billion Muslims—more than in the Middle East—turn to the birthplace of Islam to reaffirm their religious identity. Though still a distinct minority, fundamentalists are demanding—and obtaining—a greater role for Sharia, or religious law, in family life and in the life of the nation.

In recent travel, I found signs of the drift throughout the region's five major Islamic centers: Indonesia, Malaysia, the southern -Phil- ippines, southern Thailand, and Singapore. Nowhere was it more jarring than Bulukumba, on the orchid-shaped Indonesian island of Sulawesi. With 350,000 people, mostly farmers whose holdings are shrinking as the population booms, Bulukumba is one of the poorest places on the island, and religious rule has supplanted the secular. In 2006 radical clergy, backed by sympathetic local politicians, military, and police officers, imposed Sharia over constitutional law. Today, Bulukumba is just one of more than two dozen such towns in the archipelago. Women are required to wear the jilbab, or headscarf. Wage earners are required to contribute 2.5 percent of their income as zakat, or alms. Children by the age of 7 must prove reading proficiency of the Quran in Arabic to qualify for elementary school. So must couples seeking approval to marry, and civil serv-ants applying for promotion.

Similar changes are happening in Malaysia. When I met with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, I related this little story: in 1970, during a dinner party, my wife found herself dancing a quadrille with his father, then–prime minister Tun Abdul Razak, and I with his mother. A cloud crossed Najib's face. He peered directly at me over his wire-rim glasses and said nothing. Such behavior, we both understood, would be out of the question in today's Malaysia, now a proudly Islamic fundamentalist state.

Along the border, Muslims and Buddhists in southern Thailand are slaughtering each other. Since 2004, some 3,500 have been killed. The government in Bangkok says the Muslim fighters are common criminals. But in the city of Hat Yai, Monsour Salleh, a counselor to the militant Muslim Youth Association of Thailand, praised them as religious warriors. "The young generation of Muslims believes in jihad," he said. "They are good boys, dignified and committed, who study the Quran. They learn that if they fight to right injustice, they will be rewarded in heaven."

In the small southern Philippines town of Pikit, on the terror-torn island of Basilan, a Roman Catholic priest told me that fundamentalist attitudes were hardening among the Moros, as Muslims in the area are known. "It's an identity crisis," said Father Bert Layson, who is openly sympathetic to the Moros. "And it's been infinitely heightened through globalism by the international Islamic revival. This is leading the Moros back to their old belief that they must live in an Islamic environment in order to truly practice Islam." An estimated 120,000 Muslims and Christians have killed each other in the southern Philippines since 1970.

Singaporeans—obedient, relentlessly middle-class, and overwhelmingly ethnic Chinese—were stunned when, in 2001, the government narrowly averted a sophisticated attack planned by homegrown members of the Jemaah Islamiah terror organization. As on any taut ship, Singapore's captain remains obsessed over a future threat. "We're sitting on a global fault line," Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told me.

Now, on Obama's first trip to Southeast Asia as president, the region's leaders are pressing him to reengage with a part of the world the U.S. has largely ignored. He would be wise to accede. For even as fundamentalism advances among them, the Muslims of Southeast Asia want Americans—in sandals and sneakers, not combat boots—to return and work with them as Peace Corps volunteers, teachers, agriculturalists, and entrepreneurs. This may be the best chance the United States will have to launch a "preemptive peace," a chance to set things right with Muslims everywhere.

Simons, a Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist, is coauthor with U.S. Sen. Christopher Bond of The Next Front: Southeast Asia and the Road to Global Peace With Islam.

HUBRIS OF DARUL ULOOM :Frightening Contours of a State Within State

By: Ram Kumar Ohri, IPS (Retd)

Darul Uloom has done it again. By issuing a Fatwa, loaded with fundamentalist frenzy, the seminary has reiterated its earlier stand that singing of the national song, Vande Matram, by Muslims is ‘haram’. Obviously the Deoband Ulema have openly expressed utter contempt for the majesty of India’s Constitution and delivered a body blow to the ideal of national integration. The timing of the ‘fatwa’ has surprised everyone, especially when the stand of the Ulema had been known now for several years. Apparently the provocation for spewing hatred against singing of ‘Vande Matram’ by Muslims, once again, was the visit of the Union Home Minister to Deoband and the presence of renowned Hindu Yoga Guru, Swami Ramdev, at the massive conclave of Muslim clerics. No wonder the air is thick once again with acrid smoke rising out of the communal cauldron lit by the Deoband clergy. The facile reasoning of the Ulema against singing of Vande Matram is that the national song means bowing before Mother India, and bowing before anyone except Allah militates against the tenets of Islam. Though the fanatic Ulema, Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e Hind and members of the Muslim Personal Law Board loudly proclaim that Muslim cannot bow before anyone except Allah, they conveniently forget that in the not too distant past, during Muslim rule, all Muslims, including the highest of the Ulema, had no hesitation in bowing before Muslim rulers like Akbar, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb and several cruel kings. And there is no dearth of Muslims in India who readily bow before their fathers and mothers. What could then be the motive of re- issuing the fatwa against Vande Matram? Well, the intention was to emphasise the separate identity of Muslims and keeping them away from the national mainstream.

Another fatwa issued by the Ulema of Darul Uloom was against acts of terrorism and suicide bombing being committed across the globe by Muslims. The ulema declared that these were against the basic tenets of Islam. But it came with a rider in the form of a caveat that concept of jihad is a constructive phenomenon - whatever that might mean.

Interestingly the website of Darul Uloom defines ‘terrorism’ as the “struggle of resistance of the weak for securing their legitimate rights against suppression.” Could there be a more brazen attempt to defend the jihadi terror stalking the civil society worldwide? Reiteration of Deoband’s earlier fatwa against Vande Matram issued in 2006 and the so-called fatwa against terrorism and suicide bombing are only one part of the sordid story. Darul Uloom issued another 23 fatwas out of which seven are listed below as examples of Deoband’s separatist agenda -

1. Muslims should not use ‘namaste’ as greetings and must always say ‘salam’ ;
2. Muslims should refrain from watching television and listen to radio music ;
3. Muslims should refuse to get inoculated for Aids or Polio ;
4. Muslims should oppose the proposed Women’s Reservation Bill ;
5. Girls who are ten years old and above must be educated only in madarasas ;
6. Muslims must always emphasise their religious identity; and
7. The Madarasa Board proposed by the government was unacceptable and will be opposed by the community.

These ‘fatwas’ unequivocally emphasise the separatist mindset being promoted among Muslims by the clerics of Deoband. Apparently, the Union Home Minister, P.C. Chidambram, and Baba Ramdev appear to be unaware of the communal agenda of Darul Uloom and the fact that it has played a major role in spawning terrorism both in India and Pakistan by incessantly preaching and promoting the fundamentalist version of Islam, i.e., the Wahabi Islam. Not only this, the Deoband Ulema have been openly preaching the use of violence to spread Islam, the so-called religion of peace. As candidly pointed out in an article by Arif Mohammed Khan, a former Union Minister, the syllabus of Darul Uloom states : “When the Muslims enter the enemy’s country and besiege the cities or strongholds of the infidels, it is necessary to invite them to embrace the faith, because Ibn Abbas relates of the Prophet that he never destroyed any without previously inviting them to embrace the faith. If therefore they embrace the faith, it is unnecessary to war with them, because that which was the design of the war is then obtained without war.1 The syllabus further elaborates that the Prophet has said that ‘we are directed to make war upon men only until such time as they shall confess, “There is no God, but one God”.2

Thus while comfortably enconsed in India and shouting from housetops that they are totally loyal to the country, the Deoband ulema have been openly preaching jihad against the infidels (read kaffir Hindus). Could there be any worse instance of doublespeak? For a while let us try to analyse and understand the implications of what Darul Uloom has been preaching, say in the context of the dastardly attack by Pakistan sponsored fidayeens on 26 /11 for murderous mayhem across Mumbai.

According to Darul Uloom’s interpretation of scriptural war against infidels what those ten fidayeens after entering Mumbai should have done was to serve a notice on the Hindus to embrace Islam, as commanded by the Prophet. And if the kaffirs did not agree to embrace Islam, the fidayeens would have been fully justified in killing them. That is what the syllabus of Deoband seminary appears to teach to Muslim students, and in the process revealing the true face of Darul Uloom !

The activities of Darul Uloom not only militate against national integration, but its teachings are totally anti-national. By telling Muslims not to use ‘namaste’ for the purpose of greeting each other, and aggressively opposing the national policy of eradication of Polio and Aids, the ulema are working overtime to create a separatist Muslim state within the Indian state. Time has to come for the government as well as the Indian people to confront them and tell them either to behave or to shut down their shop of separatism and fanaticism.

In our secularitis infected polity no one expected P. C. Chidambram to say good bye to the policy of minority appeasement. But Swami Ramdev ought to have known better. He should have realized long ago that there is a total disconnect between the ideals enshrined in the Indian Constitution and the preaching of violence by Darul Uloom. Nothing could be more distressing than the ugly spectacle of dhimmitude which Swami Ramdev presented while trying to appease the jihad preaching ulema of Deoband. Hellbent on insulting Swami Ramdev, after passing the controversial fatwa against Vande Matram on November 3, 2009, they decreed on November 7, 2009, that Muslims must not attend Swami Ramdev’s health camps because of the singing of Vande Matram.

It is a shame that even after being insulted repeatedly, many self-styled Hindu seers refuse to learn even elementary lessons in self respect. Barely four days after the Deoband conclave, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, another 5-star high flyer Hindu guru, rushed to Darul Uloom and tried to appease the fundamentalist clerics by pleading that the word ‘vande’ in the national song, Vande Matram, does not mean worship of Mother India. That marked a new low in abject appeasement by Sri Sri who seems to have acquired not an iota of Hindu pride even after reading Gita and other sacred sciptures !.

Interestingly the syllabus of Darul Uloom also constitutes the bedrock of Islamic teaching in tens of thousands of madrasas affiliated to Deoband spread out across the length and breadth of India and Pakistan. The truth is that Darul Uloom has been responsible for fanning the prairie fire of global jihad. A further confirmation about the fundamentalist role of Deoband seminary came from Sohail Abbas, a leading Pakistan-based psychologist, whose published study revealed that out of 517 jihadis arrested in Afghanistan and lodged in Pakistani jails the overwhelming majority belonged to Deoband school of thought.3 The ideology being preached by Darul Uloom is playing havoc with the security of Indian nation and our secular ideal.

Before concluding, it would be in order to warn our peace-preaching 5-star seers like Swami Ramdev and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar to take sometime off their busy schedule (read money-making business activity) to study the concept of jihad and understand what propels the ulemas, living in India, to openly preach war against the so-called ‘kaffirs’. For all practical purposes, these clerics appear to be part of the global Islamic design to establish a ‘seamless caliphate’ from Indonesia to the Balkans after overrunning India which is the only non-Muslim country in South Asia, and a bulwark of democracy and secularism in this part of the world.

And a word of caution to our 5-star lifestyle seers and gurus, merrily wearing dyed hair and beards to look younger than their age. It is time they watched their step, lest the future generations wrote their names in the book of Infamous Hindus who let down their besieged community in hour of crisis. A warning has already been administered by some sadhus of Ayodhya to Baba Ramdev for his failure to oppose the fatwa against Vande Matram. They minced no words when they proclaimed that Swami Ramdev has become a businessman. Mahant Narayan Giri went a step further and asked Swami Ramdev to seek forgiveness for not protesting at Deoband and thereby hurting the sentiments of crores of Indians.
**********

1. Arif Mohammed Khan, ‘Sending A Wrong Message’, Times of India, New Delhi,
September 30, 2008, p. 20 ;
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

Copyright @ Ram Kumar Ohri

A devious attempt to equate Gita with Quran by blatant recourse to taqiyah

By: Ram Ohri, IPS (Retd)

“I am with you: give Firmness to the Believers
I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.”

Quran 8.12
. . . . . . . .

Recently a very clumsy attempt was made to downgrade the Gita during an interactive discourse organized by Times of India on a quixotic topic, ‘Jihad in the Gita and the Quran’. The title of the debate implied that the doctrine of jihad has been preached both in the Gita and the Quran - something totally false and highly offensive to Hindu ethos. The participants were Maulana Wahiduddin and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, while the well known columnist, Narayani Ganesh, acted as moderator.

First things first. The scriptural soul of Hinduism, the Gita, does not preach, nor even remotely mentions., anything comparable to the Islamic doctrine of jihad which is a permanent holy war against all non-Muslims, as ordained in Islamic scriptures. It is difficult, nay impossible, to fathom the intent of Times of India group to select such a wonky theme suggesting that jihad has been sanctioned in Hindu scriptures, too !. There is no moral equivalence between what Gita preaches and what Quran ordains. The choice of the subject of the discourse shows total mental bankruptcy because it tries to equate the two incomparable scriptures. Apparently the leading lights of Times of India group as well as Narayani Ganesh have neither read the Gita, nor Quran. Otherwise they would not have ventured to wade into the minefield of jihad which has tormented innumerable civilisations and countless countries for centuries and taken toll of crores of innocent lives. The attempt to underline some kind of spiritual equivalence between the Gita and the Quran is nothing short of an affront to sacred Hindu beliefs, nay to the Gita, itself.

It is a pity that Sri Sri could not see through the clever game being played by the sham-secularist newspaper to bring down Gita to the level of jihadi orthopraxy, enshrined in the Quran. Nor could he rebut the inane profanity hidden in the theme. The Gita does not command Hindus to kill all non-Hindus, or for that matter, not even atheists. Sri Krishna advised a wavering Arjuna at Kurukshetra to wage war in the cause of righteousness and justice, and nothing more. Even after explaining the import of ‘dharma’ and righteousness, Sri Krishna left the final choice about taking up arms to Arjuna, saying that it was for him to make the correct decision, in according to ‘dharma’.

On the other hand, Jihad is not, repeat not, merely a struggle with one’s self, as claimed by Maulana Wahiduddin. It is Islam’s holy war against ‘kaffirs” (in Indian context read Hindus) as ordained in the Quran Importance of jihad has been highlighted by M.J. Akbar, in his tome, The Shade of Swords, where in the Introduction itself he has reiterated that “jihad is the signature tune of Islamic history”1. Elaborating the Islamic doctrine he says that though the Prophet did say that the ‘greater’ jihad (i.e., jihad-e-akbar) was the struggle to cleanse the impurity within, it was the lesser jihad (i.e., jihad-e-asghar) which had “powered the armies of Islam and made them all conquering”.2 For Muslims, M.J. Akbar, continues, jihad is not merely a question of cleansing the inner spirit; it is also a call for holy war regularly heard since the beginning of Islam. He has drawn pointed attention to the saying by the Prophet himself that “Paradise comes under the shade of swords”3. A similar message was conveyed to his jihadi hordes by Osama bin Laden during an interview on CNN news channel on May 10, 1997, when he proclaimed that the acme of this religion (i.e., Islam) was jihad. M.J. Akbar’s exposition of jihad is a clear rebuttal of the falsehood being preached by Maulana Wahiduddin and several others to hoodwink the gullible Hindus.

The claim of Maulana that jihad has nothing to do with the concept of holy war against infidels is again comprehensively rebutted by the well known exposition of jihad by Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid (a former Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia) in his commentary titled, ‘Jihad in the Quran and Sunnah’. The learned scholar, an acknowledged authority on Islam, emphasizes that Allah has ordained that Al-jihad (i.e., the holy fighting in Allah’s cause) should be carried out by the following three means :

( i ) with the heart (i.e., intentions or feelings) ;
(ii) with the hand (ie., with weapons, etc.) ; and
(iii) with the tongue (i.e., by speeches and preachings, in the cause of Allah).

Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid further elaborates that Allah will reward all those who participate in jihad with lofty dwellings in the Garden of Paradise.3 He clearly states that jihad, or fighting in the cause of Allah, is superior to non-obligatory prayers, fasting, Zakat, Umra and even Haj. As explained in Sahi Muslim No. 4696, Abu Huraira, an important companion of the Messenger of Allah, had emphasized that the Prophet had declared that a Muslim who died, but did not fight in the way of Allah, nor did express any desire or determination for jihad died the death of a hypocrite.4 A similar message for waging a holy war against infidels is contained in Verse 74 of Surah Nisi which says that whosoever fights in the way of Allah, be he slain or victorious, on him we shall bestow a vast reward. Logically a taqiyah practicing cleric like Maulana Wahiduddin should have been confronted with Verse 8.12 and Verse 74 which openly preach jihad through terrorizing the so-called infidels. But unfortunately Sri Sri failed to do so perhaps because of his lack of knowledge about the Quran and the doctrine of jihad. The conceptual framework of jihad has been lucidly enunciated in Surah Anfal, namely the eighth Sura (i.e., chapter 8) and 9th Surah titled ‘Taubah’ of the Quran, although this holy war has been enjoined on the faithful in many other chapters also. In fact, there are more than 200 verses in the Quran exhorting the Muslims to wage a holy war against the infidels.

More importantly the doctrine of jihad has at least four major components, e.g., forcible conversion of the so-called ‘kaffirs’ on pain of death, the scriptural sanction for ‘slaughter in the land’ in verse 8.67 after defeating the kaffirs and recourse to ghanima which means plunder and seizure of the property of the vanquished kaffirs, including carrying away of their women and children. A typical example of the ‘slaughter in the land’ was the beheading of nearly Jews, chained and menacled, under supervision of Prophet Muhammad, in the public square of Medina in the year 627 A.D., after the Battle of Ditch. Another example is from Indian history when after Muhammad bin Qasim’s victory over Raja Dahir of Sind, when Hajjaj reminded bin Qasim of the Prophet’s commandment :”Give no quarter to infidels but cut their throats. Then know that this is the command of the great God. You shall not be too ready to grant protection, because it will prolong your work”.5 The fourth important component of jihad is the imposition of ‘jiziya’ or poll tax on the so-called ‘dhimmies’, i.e., non-Muslims living under protection of the Muslim rulers. Originally meant for only Christians and Jews (the people of the Book) later on it was extended to ‘kaffir’ Hindus also. Otherwise the Quranic punishment for ‘kaffirs’ is death and destruction.

The scriptural sanction for enjoying the spoils of war, including carrying away of women and children of the vanquished ‘kaffirs’ is accorded in verse 8.69 of Surah Anfal which says “Eat ye the spoils of war. They are lawful and pure”. Thus the Quran proclaims that there is nothing improper about plunder and enjoying the spoils of war; it is a mujahid’s prerogative. The only condition imposed is that ‘holy’ one-fifth of the spoils of war (including the captive women) must be sent to the Prophet, and after him, to the Caliph as his share of the war booty. The command about treatment to be meted out to the plundered womenfolk is contained in verse 4.24 which asserts : “ All married women are forbidden (to you) save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses.”6 Obviously, they are to be used as concubines, as indeed they have been throughout history..

Interestingly, Islam has a doctrine of using deception and telling lies to further the cause of Islam. It is called “Taqiyah”, or recourse to deception, which is duly sanctioned in Verse 16.106, which approves that under certain circumstances and Muslim can tell a lie (in the cause of Islam) for which no action will lie against him. ‘Taqiyah’ is also approved in many more Verses , namely 16.106, 3.28, 2.225 and 66.2. Explaining the utility of taqiyah Sahi Bukhari recounts the assassination of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf under orders of the Prophet.7 The men who volunteered to murder Ka’b used deception to gain the poet’s trust by pretending that they had turned against Prophet Muhammad in order to draw the victim out of his fortress and then killed him. Sahi Bukhari 84:64-65 categorically affirms that Hazrat Ali had confirmed that lying is permissible in order to deceive the enemy.8 . No wonder Maulana Wahiduddin and many others like him keep on confounding gullible Hindus, even Hindu seers, through their lectures laced with taqiyah. Sadly the wayward discourse clearly highlighted that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar has not read the Quran at all. More importantly the discourse further showed his astonishing inability to comprehend what Sri Krishna had preached at Kurukshetra which was in no way comparable to the doctrine of jihad enunciated in the Quran. He failed to point out that Gita preaches the concept of righteousness while doing one’s ‘karmic’ duty, above everything else. But Gita does not sanction the senseless killings of the kind which are ordained in innumerable verses of the Quran. Nor does Gita sanction plunder after victory, nor the carrying away of the hapless women and children of those vanquished in war and sharing them as ‘war booty’.

Perhaps due to his inadequate knowledge of the Quran and the Hadith, or sheer timidity, Sri Sri could not rebut the bogus contention of Maulana Wahiduddin that jihad means nothing more than trying to control one’s desires and that some Muslims presently engaged in “violent activities which they claim to be jihad” should be ignored because “these people belong to non-governmental organizations”. How is it that all these non-State actors like Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Jasih-e-Muhammad, Taliban, Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islami, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, etc., responsible for killing thousands of innocents, are a speciality of Islamic States like Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Palestine, etc ? What is most important is that all these non-state actors are the creation of various Islamic governments who invariably support them in their nefarious activities.

Before closing this rejoinder it must be pointed out that the notorious July 2008 e-mail circulated by Indian Mujahideen had quoted verbatim three Ayats of Quran (in Arabic along with English translation) exhorting the faithful to kill the infidels. After pouring enormous ridicule on Hindu Gods and Goddesses, they had commanded the Hindus to convert to Islam failing which they shall be slaughtered as surely as their forbears had been by Muhammad bin Qasi, Mahmud Ghazanvi and Muhammad Ghauri in the past. And within four months Lashkar-e-Tayyeba’s ten fidayeens carried out the notorious Mumbai Massacre of 26 /11 in which nearly 180 innocents were slaughtered, a ghastly event about which a threat had been duly administered by Indian Mujahideen. That shows the ugly face of the Islamic doctrine of jihad. It is a shame that the preaching of righteous war by Sri Krishna at Kurukshetra is sought to be equated by Times of India group and Narayani Ganesh with what Indian Mujahideen had vowed to do the killings and which hey actually did, in accordance with the Quranic verses.

A much greater shame, however, is the gullibility of Hindu preachers like Sri Sri to acuisece in the falsehood being propagated to equate the Gita, both morally and spiritually, with the Quran. My humble advice to Sri Sri and other Hindu seers is that either they should read in great detail the Quran and the Hadith along with two authentic commentaries, Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslim, or they should scruplously refrain from participating in such weird discourses often organized by the sham-secularist groups and individuals to denigrate Hindu ethos and morally equate “adharma” with ‘dharma”.

*************
1. M. J. Akbar, The Shade of Swords, p. xvi
2. Ibid.
3. Jihad in Quran and Sunnah, published by Maktaba Dar-us-Salam, Riyadh.
4. Suhas Majumdar, Jihad – The Islamic Doctrine of Permanent War, p.20.
5. Dr. Titus, Indian Islam, p. 10.
6. Suhas Majumdar, Jihad – The Islamic Doctrine of Permanent War, p. 29.
7. Sahi Bukhari 52.271.
8. Sahi Bukhari 84:64-65
Copyright @ Ram Ohri

Jinnah to Hafiz Saeed

Similarities in their anti-India agenda
By: G. Parthasarathy

Addressing a gathering of tens of thousands of zealots at the headquarters of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (earlier calling itself the Lashkar-e-Toiba), on November 3, 2000, the Amir of the Lashkar, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, thundered: “Jihad is not about Kashmir only. About 15 years ago people might have found it ridiculous if someone had told them about the disintegration of the Soviet Union (Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics). Today, I announce the breakup of India, Inshallah. We will not rest till the whole of India is dissolved into Pakistan.”

Over the past two decades, Saeed has been publicly pronouncing a war that would encompass the whole of India. Till the terrorist outrage of 26/11 no one took him seriously. Shortly after his November 2000 speech, Saeed sent his “mujahideen” into the very heart of India’s national capital, New Delhi, to attack the historic Red Fort on December 22, 2000. Addressing a gathering of political leaders from Islamic parties shortly thereafter, Saeed proudly proclaimed that he had unfurled the green flag of Islam in the historic Red Fort.

Hafiz Saeed was and is no ordinary person. He enjoyed the patronage of former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who had sent Punjab Governor Shahid Hamid and his Information Minister Mushahid Hussein Syed to personally call on and pay their respects to Saeed in 1998. The Wahabi/Salafi school of Islam propagated by Saeed was patronised by Nawaz Sharif’s father, Mian Mohammed Sharif, through the Tablighi Jamaat. Moreover, at the grassroots level, the Lashkar is closely linked to the Pakistan Army and the ISI, which provide weapons, training and logistical support to the extremist group. But is Saeed’s talk of “disintegration” of India merely rhetoric of a demented mind, or does it reflect a wider strategic vision within Pakistan and particularly in its armed forces?

While the “idea” of Pakistan was first enunciated by Chaudhuri Rehmat Ali in 1933 and given shape in the Lahore Resolution of the Muslim League in 1940, the hope in Pakistan, ever since it was born, was that India would be a loose confederation, with units like the Nizam’s domain in Hyderabad and even a “Dravidistan” going their own separate ways. Jinnah often spoke contemptuously of upper caste Hindus while fostering separatism by emphasising on a separate linguistic and ethnic Dravidian identity, characterising the social ethos in South India.

While Mahatma Gandhi tried to address centuries of exploitation and alienation of Dalits in India together with leaders like Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Jinnah endeavoured to foment Dalit alienation. He also encouraged elements in princely states like Jodhpur and Travancore-Cochin to declare independence. His aim was to Balkanise India and ensure domination of the sub-continent by a minority of its population. Jinnah’s approach to the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 was motivated by the belief that after 10 years, a united Punjab and Sind in the west, together with Bengal and Assam in the east, would break away from a fragile and fragmented India.

Jinnah shared a common interest with the British in ensuring that there was a weak central government in India, incapable of firmly holding the country together. Jinnah’s aims regarding India were thus not very different from those of Hafiz Saeed, though he was a virtually agnostic Ismaili Muslim who, according to his biographer Stanley Wolpert, loved Scotch whisky and ham sandwiches! Saeed, however, espouses rabid Wahabi causes.

Saeed makes no secret of his contempt for parliamentary democracy based on the principle of “one man, one vote”. But was Jinnah’s demand for a disproportionate share of parliamentary seats for his community on the basis of their having been the “rulers” of India before the British arrived, also not a negation of the concept of “one man one vote,” which is the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy? It was Jinnah’s quest for “parity” for a minority that forms the basis of Pakistan’s unrealistic yearning for parity with India — a yearning that has led Pakistan to disaster.

Jinnah’s successors, from Liaquat Ali Khan to Gen Pervez Musharraf, have all conducted relations with India in the belief that India’s unity is fragile. Ayub Khan launched the 1965 conflict with India believing that Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri was a weak leader facing serious separatist problems, because of the Punjabi Suba movement in Punjab and anti-Hindu riots combined with the rise of Dravidian parties in the South, apart from continuing insurgencies in the Northeast.

Gen Zia-ul-Haq set up an elaborate network to encourage separatism within India and laid special stress on creating a Hindu-Sikh communal divide in Punjab, in much the same manner as Jinnah had sought to sow doubts in the mind of Master Tara Singh. Such efforts failed the primarily because Hindus and Sikhs alike saw through Pakistan’s game-plans. The ISI effort to “bleed” India in Jammu and Kashmir is a continuation of policies that Pakistan has followed since its birth. It is shocking when Indians, who should know better, extol Jinnah’s “virtues”. His culpability in the communal holocaust he unleashed by his call for “Direct Action” cannot be condoned.

In his book, “The Shadow of the Great Game — The Untold Story of Partition”, former diplomat Narendra Singh Sarila has revealed that well before the Cabinet Mission arrived in India in 1946 two successive British Viceroys, Lord Linlithgow and Lord Wavell, had decided to partition India by creating a Muslim-majority state in its northwest, bordering Iran, Afghanistan and Sinkiang, in order to protect British interests in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Mohammad Ali Jinnah was coopted to further this British objective around 1939.

Jinnah’s efforts to impose Urdu as Pakistan’s sole national language sowed the seeds of Bangladeshi separatism and of Pakistan’s disintegration in 1971. His assumption of office as an unelected Executive Head of State, who presided over the Cabinet, led to his successors arbitrarily dismissing Prime Ministers and staging a takeover of Pakistan by a military-dominated feudal elite — a malady the country suffers from even today.

The statesmanlike visit of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to the “Minar-e-Pakistan” in Lahore signalled that India had no intention of reversing Partition and that it wishes the people of Pakistan well. The challenges that Pakistan’s establishment poses will be overcome when the values of secularism, pluralism and inclusive democratic development are established as being more enduring than the fantasies of nationhood based exclusively on religion, which Jinnah propounded, or the hate and bigotry of Hafiz Mohammed Saeed. Banning books whose contents many may find objectionable is not the way to deal with such challenges.

The Tribune, New Delhi
October 3, 3009

JINNAH VIRUS DISTRACTS AND DEBILITATES BJP

Wages of Poor Scholarship

- R.K. Ohri, IPS (Retd)

For a second time during the last four years Jinnah virus has struck the Bharatiya Janta Party. Greatly impressed by the success of Mohammed Ali Jinnah in carving out the Islamic State of Pakistan by ensuring division of India, almost single-handedly, some BJP leaders are bending backwards in praising Jinnah as a great ‘secular’ leader. Overwhelmed by ‘Jinnah virus’ and trying to outdo his senior colleague, L K Advani, in his latest book Jaswant Singh (a prominent BJP leader and former Foreign Affairs Minister in NDA government), has showered encomiums on Jinnah, while criticizing the murky role of Nehru and Gandhi in accepting partition of the country as a fait accompli. While this belated claim to wisdom by Jaswant Singh about greatness of the founder of Pakistan further bewildered the average middle class Hindu, the BJP was left with no option but to expel Jaswant Singh from the party due to his deliberate deviation from the ideology of BJP.

In June 2005 the then President of BJP, L.K. Advani, had praised Mohammed Ali Jinnah, as a secular leader during his visit to Pakistan, without verifying the facts. That controversial statement bestowing the halo of a “secular leader” on Jinnah was greatly resented by the Hindu masses. Ultimately it led to large scale criticism of Advani’s wrong perception and he had to step down from the office of BJP President.

Advani’s misadventure about Jinnah’s secular status was based on Pakistan’s Qaid-e Azam’s address to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, in which he had declared that “you are free to go to your mosques, or any other place of worship …… you may belong to any religion, caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state. You will find that in the course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense ….. but in the political sense as citizens of the State”. Apparently that statement was enough to make Advani conclude that Jinnah was indeed a secular democrat. The veteran leader did not care to check up the reasons which could have prompted Jinnah to make that most-unlike-Jinnah statement in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947. Perhaps he relied too much on the advice and assessment of his aide, Sudheendra Kulkarni, yet another admirer of Jinnah, who had accompanied him. Advani just could not figure out that what Jinnah had pronounced on August 11, 1947, was nothing but mere posturing done on the advice of Lord Ismay who was the Chief of Staff of the then Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten.

The inside story of Jinnah’s August 11, 1947, statement has been narrated by a distinguished Punjabi scholar, Dr. Kripal Singh, on page 740 of his book, Select Documents on Partition of India -1947 (India and Pakistan), published in 1990. As revealed by Dr. Kripal Singh, the advice to make such a statement was given by Lord Ismay to Jinnah, under specific instructions of Lord Mountbatten in order to douse the raging fire of communal violence across Pakistan at that time. It was a belated attempt to assure the Hindus and the Sikhs living in Pakistan about their safety, expressly made on the suggestion of Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India. The sole aim of the August 11, 1947, statement was to check the spiraling communal violence in Pakistan which had already generated a violent reaction in East Punjab (India).

The fact that Jinnah had been prevailed upon to make such a statement was told to Dr. Kripal Singh by Lord Ismay himself. His aforesaid book contains interviews with Lord Attlee, the Prime Minister of U.K. in 1947, Sir Francis Muddies, the then Governor of Punjab and Sir Cyril Radcliff, Chairman of the Boundary Commission who drew the final lines of the partitioned sub-continent. In an exclusive interview to TNS (Tribune News Service) Dr. Kripal Singh had disclosed that he had interviewed Lord Ismay on August 17, 1964, at his residence in U.K. Dr. Kripal Singh is a former Head of the Department of Historical Studies, Punjabi University, Patiala, and an erudite scholar and author of several books.

Every Indian, except perhaps Jaswant Singh, knows that Jinnah had repeatedly said that the Hindus and the Muslims cannot live together in India and had pompously declared in August 1946, “We shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed”. He was a fundamentalist who was squarely responsible for organizing the great Calcutta killings on August 16, 1947, by giving a call for Direct Action to achieve the goal of Pakistan. Apparently the fast ageing BJP leaders like Jaswant Singh and Advani have forgotten that on July 27, 1946, while giving a call to Muslims for observing August 16, 1946, as Direct Action Day for achieving the goal of Pakistan, Jinnah spoke thus:

“The Muslims of India would not rest contented with anything less than the immediate establishment of independent and fully sovereign State of Pakistan… Now the time has come for the Muslim Nation to resort to Direct Action. ….We have taken a most historic decision. Never before in the whole history of the Muslim League did we do anything except by constitutional methods. Today we have said good-bye to constitutional methods. Throughout the painful negotiations the two parties with whom we bargain held a pistol at us - one with power and machine-guns behind it and the other with non-cooperation and the threat to launch mass civil disobedience. The situation must be met. We also have a pistol”.

That open declaration to defy the law had prompted Muslim League’s Mayor of Calcutta, Mohammed Usman, to give a call for jihad on August 16, 1946, by issuing an inflammatory leaflet titled “Munajat for Jihad”. On the Direct Action Day the city of Calcutta (now Kolkata) went through a grisly bloodbath which continued for several days a brief account of which has been given by Justice G.D. Khosla in his famous narrative, ‘The Stern Reckoning’. The total number of innocent citizens killed during the jihad unleashed by Muslim League on the Direct Action Day was estimated to be between 5,000 and 10,000. Subsequently communal riots broke out in many parts of the country.

Thus Jinnah was never ’secular’ in his outlook, much less in deed. Both Advani and Jaswant Singh appear to be suffering from age-related amnesia. How else could they forget that barely 10 weeks after Jinnah’s statement of August 11, 1946, Pakistan had invaded Jammu & Kashmir and let loose a horrendous campaign of murder, rape and pillage against unsuspecting hapless people? At that time Jinnah was very much alive (he died only in September 1948) and no one can deny that the Kashmir invasion was launched with his approval as Governor General of Pakistan.

Apparently the two BJP leaders never ever cared to ascertain the truth behind Jinnah’s deceptive statement made in Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly on 11th August 1947. What made Jinnah issue the so-called “secular statement” on August 11, 1947, has been clarified by Dr. Kripal Singh, as stated above. In essence that statement of Jinnah was nothing but recourse to ‘Taqiyah’, a convenient Islamic tool for befooling the so-called ‘kaffirs’.

Going far beyond what Advani had stated in June 2005, in a TV interview Jaswant Singh claimed that the widespread opinion in India that Jinnah was anti-Hindu was mistaken, and that he was unfairly demonized. The tall leader failed to explain why Jinnah did not try to prevent the massive ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan, why did he not raise even a small finger to save the lives and properties of lakhs of Hindus trapped in Pakistan?

Giving further twist to his love for Jinnah, during a TV interview by Karan Thapar Jaswant Singh bemoaned, “Look into the eyes of the Muslims who live in India and if you truly see their pain with which they live, to which land do they belong? We treat them as aliens ….. Without doubt Muslims have paid the price of partition”. It is difficult, nay impossible, to comprehend why Jaswant Singh does not realize that the real price of partition was paid by Crores of Hindus and Sikhs who were killed, converted and driven out from Pakistan and Bangladesh (formerly known as East Pakistan). How can he be so insensitive to the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan, Bangladesh and even from Kashmir, an important part of our bogus secular political dispensation? Surely he cannot be oblivious of the fact Hindu population in Pakistan has come down from 23% in 1947 to less than 2% now, and in Bangladesh it has dwindled from 27% in 1947 to a meager 8%. And in Kashmir valley there are hardly any Hindus left now, except government servants! Yet Jaswant Singh’s heart bleeds only for Muslims - nary a tear did he shed for millions of ethnically Hindus and Sikhs. What hypocrisy, what poor scholarship?

It is extraordinary that Jaswant Singh does not know that in four globally recognized human development indices, namely, the Infant Mortality, Child Mortality, Degree of Urbanization and Life Expectancy at Birth the Muslims of India are better placed than the Hindus, and that according to a survey conducted in 2005 by the Centre for Studies of Developing Studies, New Delhi, at the all India level the proportion of “very poor” people is higher among Hindus than among Muslims.

The untruthful book of Jaswant Singh and his interviews to the media are indeed classic examples of poor scholarship. No wonder, Jaswant Singh has been expelled from the BJP. The lesson is that book writing is a serious academic pursuit. It should not be taken as a casual exercise, even by the tallest politicians.

**********

Copyright @ R.K. Ohri

Hindu Spiritualism: The Ancient Hindu Way

By: Om Prakash Sharma Former Governor Nagaland

It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in self-destruction of the human race. At this supremely dangerous moment in human history , the only way of salvation is the ancient Hindu way. Here we have the attitude and spirit that can make it possible for the human race to grow together into a single family.
-Dr. Arnold J. Toynbee British Historian

The Ancient Hindu Way, in the above-quoted perceptive observation, is the soul of the Indian Nation and Democracy. Toynbee could as well say: The chapter which had an Indian beginning in pre-historical times will have to have an Indian ending as well. The ancient Hindu way stands for liberal outlook, constructive attitude and an accommodating spirit. Pursuit of universal values made it possible for world’s greatest diversity that even now comprises more than two thousand ethnic groups, 652 languages & dialects and every major religion, to live in harmony. India continues to be a home to the third largest Muslim population, even after the birth of Pakistan as a separate homeland for them.

Unfortunately, the ancient liberal creed of India has been undermined in recent times. It is further mired in the turbid waters of narrow politics of pretentious secularism and intellectual dishonesty. There is an appalling disconnect from the Indian heritage of the large westernized segment of the society that tends to be more effete than elite in outlook. The object of this paper is to make a comparative study of the cardinal features of Hindu spiritualism that has shaped the Hindu Philosophy of life that went into making India a unique nation and a vibrant democracy. India is a dynamic democracy due to its liberal ethos and democratic traditions at grassroots level, nurtured over the millennia, and not because of the British legacy, as generally assumed. British parliamentary institutions succeeded in India because of the receptive environment. Will Durant rightly gives credit for this to the “democratic traditions of India through village communities of self-government." Indologists like T.W. Rhys Davids and R.C.Majumdar also endorse the view about the widespread political culture based on popular assemblies. Buddhism and Jainism contributed to the development of democratic institutions. The Buddhist Sangha was a democratic institution. The Buddhist canons were finalized during the three Synods of Buddhism, and of Jainsm at Vallabhi in 456 AD after 800 years of Vardhman.

If the British influence was indeed a potent factor for the success of democracy in India, then many Afro-Asian countries that were part of the British Empire would have been practicing democratic values today. Nothing illustrates the fallacy of the assumption better than the failure of democratic experiments in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the successor state to East Pakistan, that were offshoots of India. Fired by fanaticism, they partitioned the assets without sharing the liberal Indian heritage. It is no coincidence that out of about 50 Muslim majority countries, very few have managed to establish genuinely democratic form of governments. A section of the Muslim clerics, in a recent statement to the effect that democracy is not compatible with Islam may have confirmed the views of many scholars. In fact, some of the leading Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, figure among the worst governed countries in the world.

A study in contrast is quite revealing. Christianity and Islam, two major religions of the world grew out of Judaism. In India, Buddhism and Jainism, two great ethical religions, emerged against the Hindu background. But, the similarity ends here. The two Judaism-based religions have a long history of violent confrontation with each other and with Judaism. One can see the depth of their historical aversion in Dante's Divine Comedy (Canto XXVIII), that puts Prophet Muhammad in Hell "among the sowers of discord and the schismatics, being lacerated by devils again and again." In contrast Gautam, the founder of Buddhism the rival religion to Hinduism, was merely brushed away as ‘nastika’- an atheist (Valmiki Ramayana); as per Manu’s definition, a non-believer of Vedas.

India has an ancient civilization, with the longest unbroken continuity. India had not witnessed religious violence until the Muslim invasions of India. "The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history", wrote Will Durant in ‘The Story of Civilization’. Koenraad Elst, the Belgian historian, estimates that between the year 1000 and 1525, eighty million Hindus died at the hands of Muslim invaders, “probably the biggest holocaust in the whole history of our planet. Likewise, historians write that Christianity as a group has murdered more people in the name of ‘their God’ and wiped out entire cultures, than probably any other group in history. Over the course of 200 years, some 2 to 5 million persons are estimated to have been killed during the crusades. Muslims still consider the Crusades to be a symbol of Western hostility toward Islam. Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), author of ‘Perennial Philosophy’, further writes of "Islam's black record of holy wars and persecution - a record comparable to that of later Christianity." Swami Vivekananda wrote: "Mohammedans talk of universal brotherhood, but what comes out of that in reality? Why, anybody who is not a Mohammedan will not be admitted into the brotherhood; he will more likely have his own throat cut. Christians talk of universal brotherhood; but anyone who is not a Christian must go to that place where he will be eternally barbecued."

A canard was spread by western historians that the Aryans had wiped out the native non-Aryan populations and that the Hindus had finished Buddhism. The first charge seeks to cover up the guilt of the imperial powers for having committed massive genocide of the indigenous people in the lands they had colonized. B.R. Ambedkar, a Buddhist himself, has replied to the second charge. According to him, “There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans." He mentions in his book, ‘Ends and Means’; "It is an extremely significant fact that, before the coming of the Mohammedans, there was virtually no persecution in India. The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang, who visited India in the first half of the seventh century and has left a circumstantial account of his 14 years in the country, makes it clear that Hindus and Buddhist lived side by side without any show of violence.”

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) German philosopher and writer, gives an account of fortitude shown by Hindus in the face of atrocities perpetrated by foreign invaders as follows:

“Hinduism remains a vibrant, cultural and religious force in the world today. To understand Hinduism, it is necessary that we examine its history and marvel at its sheer stamina to survive in spite of repeated attacks across India's borders, time and again, by Greeks, Shakas, Huns, Arabs, Pathans, Mongols, Portuguese, British etc. India gave shelter, acceptance, and freedom to all. But, in holy frenzy, millions of Hindus were slaughtered or proselytized. Their cities were pillaged and burnt, temples were destroyed and accumulated treasures of centuries carried off. Even under grievous persecutions from the ruling foreigners, the basics of its civilization remained undefiled and, as soon as the crises were over Hindus returned to the same old ways of searching for the perfection or the unknown”.

Islam and Christianity wiped out Pagans and maligned their intensely humanitarian religion. In a fit of extreme malice towards them the Bible created a Genocidal God that ordered the killing of every single man, woman and child during the conquest of Canaan by Moses and Joshua. It concludes that all the Canaanites and Amalekites were killed. The stated reason for the genocide was that God wanted to prevent the coexistence of His people with Pagans, which would result in religious syncretism and the restoration of polytheism. The burning of heretics by the Roman Church on stakes has its own chapter of ignominy. Lao Tse was closer to the Indian thought in saying in Tao The Ching: “The Way of Heaven is to help not harm.” The universal religion of Hinduism urges mankind to be the sarva-mitra- friend of every being. In the Yajur Veda, the devotee prays to look upon all created things as friends.

In a striking contrast, Hu Shih, a former Chinese ambassador to the United States, observed: “India conquered and dominated China culturally for twenty centuries without having to send a single soldier across her border.” It is worth recalling that two Chinese emperors had persecuted the Buddhist missionaries to China. When the succeeding emperor wanted to punish the persecutors, the Buddhist monks magnanimously dissuaded him from doing so. Religions of India reached other lands through enterprising traders and pacifist monks that promoted harmony instead of discord. The religions that entered India belligerently under the Imperial push could hardly be expected to be integrative. As a defense mechanism, Hinduism erected the walls of orthodoxy around it with ‘hundred exits and not one door for entrance’. This was to have a deleterious impact on the internal harmony of Hinduism.

The Hindus have welcomed and respected all religions with an open mind. St Thomas Church, the oldest Church at Palyar in Trichur, Kerala was established in 52 A.D. Christianity reached India three centuries before it reached Rome. Likewise, Cheraman Jama Masjid located at Kodungallur, about 37-km from Thrissur, built in 628 AD, 7 years after the Prophet's migration to Medina, is believed to be the second oldest mosque in the world after the Medina mosque. Hounded and persecuted in other countries, the Jews in India led a peaceful life in the coastal state of Kerala. The first Jewish migration was around 605 BC when they landed in the ancient port town of Cranganore (now called Kodungallore). After that there were waves of migration in 586 BC, 68 AD, 369 AD, 486 AD and 490AD. Nathan Katz, in his book titled: ‘Who are the Jews of India?’ writes that India is the only country where the Jews were not persecuted. Zoroastrians, fleeing from the persecution of Muslim rulers in Iran made India their home as early as the 10th century AD. A population of 70,000 out of about one lakh Parsees live in India. Some 2.2 Million Bahá'ís of India - members of the largest Bahá'í Community of the world, persecuted in Iran, live here in peace. In their sheer liberal exuberance the Hindus even wrote Allah-Opanishad, probably during Akbar’s reign.

Emperor Ashoka was the epitome of national integration. D.R. Bhandarkar commenting on Ashoka, observed that he perceived the fundamental unity of all religions as seen in his edicts. He summed it up in two words: self-restraint (sanyama) and purity of heart (bhavaa-shuddhi). He exhorted his people to cease praising one’s own sect and decrying other’s unnecessarily. On the contrary, they should show reverence to other sects for those aspects where they deserve it. His advice to mankind is: “Listen and desire to listen to one another’s dharma.” The consequence of all this would be that they would be bahushrut- more knowledgeable about dharama and they will also be kalyanagam- conducive to the welfare of the world.

In sharp contrast to the above, Christianity holds, that if a man does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, he shall be condemned to hell. Islam says the same about those who do not follow the teachings of Prophet Mohammed. Tagore had misgivings about the adverse impact of such religious views on the human psyche when he said: “It has become tragically evident during the course of human history that the religions that were to liberate soul have in some form or the other been instrumental in shackling freedom of mind and even moral rights. Much of the bigotry, fanaticism, and religious persecution, has risen in the world from our dogmatizing.” Thomas Jefferson, an American President, seemed to echo the attitude of a liberal Hindu. He wrote his own Gospel minus the miracles. It was published 75 years after his death. He retained the teachings of the Bible through parables. He thought all miracles were added through the stupidity or roguery of Jesus’ disciples. His Jesus was simply a praying man. In defense of religious freedom he wrote: “It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

For several centuries, the men concerned with religious organisations, especially in Europe, imprisoned, tortured and even put to death the seekers of truth. The revolutionary theory of Copernicus about the earth revolving around the sun was published on his deathbed, sparing him conflict with the Vatican church. Bruno, born seven years after the death of Copernicus, published a book ‘Infinity of universe and the Worlds.’ He was burnt alive at the stake in Italy. He was produced before the Roman governor in 1600 who sentenced him with the usual directives to treat him “with as great clemency as possible and without the effusion of blood.” He was burnt at the stake; there was no effusion of blood! Thousands of ‘heretics’ were done to death in Inquisitions by the Roman Catholic church in such a compassionate manner! Contemporary historians have given blood-curdling accounts of the Hindu killings during the Goa Inquisitions carried out by the Portuguese. Francis Xavier sent to Goa by Ignatius Loyola of Jesuit order under the direction of the King João III of Portugal in 1541, came to the conclusions: “Hindus are an unholy race that they are liars and cheats to the very backbone, that the Indians being black themselves, consider their own color the best and also that they believe that their gods are black. On this account the great majority of their idols are as black as black can be, and moreover are generally so rubbed over with oil as to smell detestably, and seem to be as dirty as they are ugly and horrible to look at." He wrote to Rome to install inquisition in Goa immediately. The Goan inquisition is regarded by all contemporary portrayals as the most violent inquisition ever executed by the Portuguese Catholic Church. It lasted from 1560 to 1812 though in Europe it ended by 1774, (briefly restarted in 1778).

After the perspective account based on the observations of scholars, statesmen and historians, the stage is set to examine the rationale behind the ‘The Ancient Hindu Way’- the amalgam that has galvanized India into a nation with its creed of tolerance. The Vedas, world’s most ancient library of scriptures, hold the key to a proper understanding of the phenomenon that India is. According to Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji, the Rig Veda is the first book of Hindus and also of mankind. Some observations that may appear in the nature of clichés need to be stated as a prologue to the narrative that follows. According to the Yajur Veda, the Vedas represented the first civilization in the entire world: prathama sanskritih vishvara (Ya. 7.14). The Yajur Veda further proclaims that the Vedic seers had the task of awakening mankind: vayam rastre jagrayama purohitah- with the purpose of ennobling the human race: kranvantu vishvam aryam-(Rig. 9.63.5); not through conquests but through the pursuit of truth. The Vedic Aryan had the vision of the world as one family: Vasudheva Kutumbakam or yatra vishvam bhavati ek nidam (YAJ. 3.8). In the bhumi sukta, he delighted in being the son, not merely of the Aryavrata, but of the Earth: putro ahm prithviyah. The Sukta further hails the earth for giving shelter to numerous faiths: nana dharmanam Prithvi yathanksam.

The Vedas were envisioned by the seers who had seen the Truth: Satya-Shrutah, Kavayah. They are also referred to as mantra- drasta, seers who had divined the hymns. More importantly, what the seers could perceive is not the whole Veda, but part of the Veda - 'anantah vai vedah'. There is no dogmatic finality about the Truth. The Upanishads also proclaimed the same, concluding that there is no end to it - 'neti neti '. This is typical of the India-born religions. The Buddha told Anand, his chief disciple, that he “had given him a handful of truths, but besides these there are many thousands more truths than can be enumerated.” The syadvaad of the Jains also deals with probability of the Truth, not the finality of it. Only Truth as per the Upanishads was that of the Self-existent- braham eva satyam. The second sutra of the Brahma-sutra defines braham as: janmadasya yatah- That who is the cause of creation etc. This observation is to be viewed in the light of a fierce debate that was going on between the Mimansakas who did not believe that God was the cause of creation and the Vedantists, who did.

The term for religion in the Rig Veda is ‘rit’, synonymous with Truth personified (ritam- to go the right way, be pious or virtuous: RV- Sanskrit English Dictionary by M. Monier- Williams). The religion of Hindus, a nomenclature tagged by Persians, had no founder. It sprang from the depths of surging spiritualism. The Nasadiya Sukta (RV X, 12 9), the poetic Hymn of Creation of the Rig Veda, is the core of monotheism of the Vedas. It states that in the beginning when nothing existed and it was like darkness wrapped in layers of darkness; only That One (Tad Ekam) breathed by itself: aanid vaatam swadhaya tad ekam. The Creator had no name, as Lao Tse said: You can not name the nameless. The Vedic Aryan was in close communion with the forces of Nature, which he deified as His divine aspects. The Veda, however, clarified unequivocally: One alone exists though the sages call It variously- ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti. (Rig. I. 164. 46). God is One without a parallel: ekameva-advityam or as interpreted by Sayana Acharya: There is only one supreme deity: 'Ekam eva Sat Tatva'. That only one supreme being created the earth and the heaven. (Rig. X. 8.3). That the Truth was called variously supplied the genes to the liberal Hindu psyche. Significantly, one name for war in the Rig Veda is ‘mam satyam’- my truth. History is a witness to religious wars to settle scores over the claims of Truth. India has a long history of resolving spiritual and religious differences through enlightened debates.

Internal reform has been a regular feature of Hinduism. There was an opposition to ritualism within Rig Veda itself. It not approve of ritualism: richa kim karishyati- what can the mere recitation of the hymns do? The Gita admonished the veda-vaada ratah- those who paid mere lip service to the Vedas. There is a celebrated legend about Ashtavakra, an eight-humped scholar, during king Janaka’s reign. While in his mother’s womb he had the audacity to tell his father who was reading Veda to her mother, to look within for enlightenment, instead of reading scriptures which were only a storehouse of verbiage. The Sama Veda takes a stand against sacrifices of the early Vedic age. It says of famous Horse Sacrifice (ashva-medha): “O! Ye gods! We use no sacrificial stake. We slay no victim. We worship entirely by the repetition of sacred mantras”. The Gita transformed the Vedic theory of sacrifices and reconciles it with true knowledge of the eternal as Manduka Upanishad observed: ‘braham vid braham eva bhavati- the knower of Braham is Braham Himself.
The freedom of thought is the hallmark of Hindu scriptures. The Mahabharata says: “There is no muni that has not an opinion of his own”. The differences of opinion between Rishi Vaishampayan and Rishi Yagvalkya led to the division of the Yajur Veda into two schools of thought: The Krishana Yajur Veda and the Sukla Yajurveda. The acceptance of the Atharva Veda as the fourth Veda was a momentous development. It illustrates the Hindu genius to resolve conflicts in religious matters with great sagacity. There were polemics between the followers of the three Vedas, called strotriya, and those of the Atharva Veda, derisively called mantrikam (believers in magic), as they believed in mantra vidya. In many early scriptures only three Vedas were mentioned. (R.V., x. 90. 9.;v. 7. 1; Tait Up., ii. 2-3.) The Gita, Valmiki Ramayan and the Maha Bharata mention only 'Veda Trai’. The canonical works of the Buddhists do not mention the Atharva Veda. Grammarian Panini who flourished in the 3rd century B.C mentioned only three Vedas and not the Atharva Veda. Brahadaryanak Upanishads also mentions three Vedas. Some Atharva-vedic Acharyas considered it as the first Veda or even as brahmveda. Jayant Bhatt wrote in Nyay Manjari: "tatra vedaschtvar prathmo Atharva Veda"- among the four Vedas, the Atharva Veda is the first.

Ved Vyas, the compiler of the Vedas, can be called the the first nation builder as he created the institution of teertha yatra- pilgrimages, for ‘chitta-shuddhi’ that prepared the ground for national unity. He was a great harmoniser. He could see the threat of schism among the Vedas to religious harmony. He regrouped the four Vedas by accommodating the Atharva Veda as the fourth Veda. Sumantu, son of Rishi Atharvan (of Atharva Veda), was one of his four shishyas, whose chain of disciples founded 1180 shakhas: Rig Veda 21, Yajurveda 101, Samaveda 1000 and Atharveda 58. Four disciples of Vyas, representing four Vedas were Pail, Jaimini, Vaishampayan and Sumantu. Dr P.V. Kane in the ‘History of Dharma Shastra,’ highlights how, in every age, the social thinkers tried to adjust Hindu institutions to the requirements of the time.
The Vedic system came to have two schools of thought: of the gyan-kand (Upanishadic path of knowledge) of the uttar-mimasa, and karma-kand (path of ritual) of the Poorva mimasa of Jamini. Differences at times were acute but never violent. They called karama-kandis as ‘devam priya' which according to Panini meant idiot. Upanishads and the Bhagwad Gita, were to draw the attention of the world to the greatness of the Hindu philosophy. The earliest translation of fifty Upanishads by Dara Shukoh attracted the attention of European scholars in the year 1775 when Anquetil Duperron received one MS of the Persian translation of Upanishads, sent by M.Gentil, the French resident at the court of Shuja ud Daula, and brought to France by M.Bernier. It was translated into Latin, published in 1801 and 1802, under the title of Oupnekhat. Schopenhauer proclaimed to the world ‘the vast treasures of thought which were lying buried beneath that fearful jargon’. His philosophy is powerfully impregnated with the doctrines of the Upanishads. He wrote: “Indian air surrounds us, and original thoughts of kindred spirits. And oh, how thoroughly is the mind here washed clean of all early engulfed Jewish superstitions, and of all philosophy that cringes before these superstitions! In the whole world there is no study, except that of the originals, so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Oupnekhat. It has been solace of my life, it will be solace of my death!” Max Muller fully agreed with him. Deusen, the German philosopher, explained the validity of the Vedantic message: ‘Because all other selves are your own selves’. He used to keep a copy of the Oupnekhat by his bed-side and read it before going to sleep. The German philosopher Nietze was very much influenced by the Upanishads which he learnt from Schopaneuher and Deusen.

The Upanishads proclaim that Brahman is the only God-head. In Kathopnisad, it is Vishnu; in Mandukyaopnisad it is called Shivam. Staunch advaita monotheist, Adi Shankaracharya with his concern for unity, instituted six religious systems or sanmata: which included the prevailing worship of Shiva, Vishnu, Sakti, Ganapati, Kumar and Surya. Shankaracharya, a seer and a great nation builder, set four coordinates of the Indian nation by establishing four mathas at four geographical extremities at Puri, Sringeri, Dwarka and Badrinath, in 8th century when communications should have been extremely difficult. It is for every Indian to remember with pride that India owes its status as a nation to the harmonizing influence of Hindu spiritualism and the great vision of Hindu seers.

The role of Bhagwad Gita , as an interpreter of the Upanishadic thought and a synthesiser of Hindu systems, deserves attention. Gita has been translated 1412 times in Indian languages and 191 times in other languages. Abul Fazal a scribe in Akbar’s court translated it in Persian. Dara Shukoh translated Gita in 1656. Its first English translation was done by Charles Wilkins, the first librarian of the East India Company. Warren Hastings, a soldier and a statesman observed: “Gita and the Indian scriptures will survive when the British dominion in India shall have long ceased to exist.” Thoreau observed about Gita that ‘in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial.’ Oppenheimer, father of the atom bomb, who knew the Gita, on seeing the first atomic explosions in 1945, spontaneously quoted the Gita and described the spectacle as: divi surya sahasraya – brilliance of thousand suns.

The Gita had a role in nation building. It democratized the spiritual pursuit by opening the doors to all by taking to the devotional path. Besides, Shri Krishna gave freedom of pursuit of any faith, saying that ‘what ever paths men have taken any where, all paths lead to Me’: mam vartma ‘nuvartante manusyah partha sarvasah-Gita.4.11.. The Hindu God does not emerge as ‘a jealous God’ or a sectarian like a ‘Hebrew God’ or a God with a regional bias. The Gita is a synthesis of prevalent thoughts. The Sankhya, an atheistic school of philosophy in the beginning was given an equal status by Shri Krishan in the Gita: (III.iv, V.iv and V.v)- ekam sankhyam cha yogam cha yah pashyati sa pashayati- he who sees that both the Sankhya and the Yoga, both paths, are the same, he truly sees (the truth).

How Jainism and Buddhism two great non-theistic faiths found a common meeting ground with theistic Hindu religion makes an intersting study. The Jain view is called Syadvada since it holds that all knowledge is only probable. It is a common feature of the Indian philosophies. As in the case of Buddhism, the founder of Jainism was a Kshatriya. Spiritualism was not a monopoly of Brahmins. Brahmanism was, however, too strong to be resisted. When the followers of the Krishna cult came into the fold of Jainism, a relationship was established between the 22nd Tirthankar (Aristanemi) and Krishna. Many Hindu gods crept in, so that there were divisions among Jains as Vaishnavas and non-Vaishnavas.

Hinyana Buddhism is a colourless religion denying God in doctrine. A religion more catholic and less skeptic was required. A readjustment to the emerging situation also became imperative. At the formative stage of Mahayana, there was an influx of nomadic tribes from outside the country. It imitated the success of Hinduism and imbibed the theism of the Yoga of the later Upanishads and of the Bhagvad Gita. Mahayan believes in a saviour God. Emancipation could be delayed for the good of humanity. Life of the people was dominated by Brahamanism. It came to dominate Buddhism as well. Buddhism included Indra, Brahma and other Hindu divinities in its pantheon. While the Brahamins accepted Buddha as incarnation of Vishnu, the Buddhists identified Vishnu with Boddhisatva. Buddha represented the world as soulless. The religious instinct of man requires a God, so Buddha himself was deified.

The six Brahmanical schools of Philosophy, or darshanas, make the liberal Hindu approach to spiritual matters clearer. These are: Gautama’s Nyaya, Kanada’s Vaishesik, Kapila’s Sakhya, Patanjali’s Yoga, Jaimini’s Purva Mimasa, and Badrayana’s Uttara Mimasa or the Vedanta. First five of these do not regard God as the creator of matter. Early Nyaya was not theistic. Vaishesika does not openly refer to God. It traced the primeval activities of the atoms and souls to the principle of adarshta. Kanad held that the Vedas were the act of seers and not of God. For Sankhya, the world is not a creation of God. Theism is not part of Patanjali’s creed. A personal god serves the practical purpose as an aid to Yoga. The central theme of Purva Mimasa is ritual; of the Uttara Mimasa, it is knowledge or Truth. Jamini doe not as much deny God as much he ignores Him. Later writers slowly smuggled God into it.

The Epic period, which falls prior to the sixth century BC, was the era of Charvaka as well as of the Buddha. Acharya Brahaspati, the founder of the Charvaks, did not believe in God or religion. The Buddha and the Charvaks strongly denied the authority of the Vedas. The Charvakas denounced the scriptures, priests and the rituals. The worshippers would merely laugh at their diatribes and move ahead. There was no head-hunting, no bloodshed, not even bad feelings. This is the greatness of Hinduism. The epicurean thought finds a mention in other religious books as well. In a famous argument in the Hindu epic of Ramayana, Javali, a minister told Rama ; “O Sagacious Prince, there is no world but this; let this thought be absorbed by thee. Concern yourself with what is evident and turn thy back on what is beyond our knowledge. Take the crown”.

During the epic period Brahamanism adjusted to the revolt against it in the east, and to fresh changes in the west in view of the influx of communities with their new beliefs. The Aryan culture met the new entrants half way ‘to build a new Aryan culture based on non-Aryan symbolism’, as observed by Dr. Radhakrishan. The concept of Trimurti was evolved in the Mahabharata, when the Greeks (Yavanas), Parthians (Shakas) and the Parthians (Pahlavas) entered the country. The Mahabharata apart from becoming a Brahamanical theistic poem, was a multi-disciplinary encyclopedia. It earned the title of the Fifth Veda as all classes could have access to it. Sister Nivedita observed that there were two distinct features quite discernible in the Mahabharata: “One of Unity in complexity and second constant impression upon its hearers of the single centralised idea of One India, with heroic tradition of its own”.

Durga Puja figures in Mahabharata. Durga soon became the consort of Shiva. The merger of three philosophic and historical streams in present day Hinduism, one of Vedic through Upnishads and Vaishavism, the second of Shaivism from the South, with Agams (108) being the basic scriptures, and the third of the Shakta religion emanating from eastern India, was a vital homogenizing process that integrated Hindus.


The Bhakti movement that democratized the spiritual pursuit served as a strong stabilizing force through the length and the breadth of the country. The medieval saints of north India inherited the traditions set by Alavar saints of the south. Their compositions were in the local language instead of Sanskrit. Their faith was accessible to all without distinctions of caste and status. The Tamil Alavars were twelve in all and belonged to the Pallava and Chola times from the fifth to ninth centuries AD. They came from different backgrounds. They believed in monotheism. Alavar means one who is "immersed" in the experience of God, the omnipresent mysterious One. The Alavars composed approximately 4000 Tamil verses. In the 9th-10th century, the philosopher-saint Nathamuni arranged them as the Divya Prabandham, or Divine Collection, popularly called the Tamil Veda.
Hindu saints endeavoured to bring a social revolution through the medium of religion. Sri Basava of Karnataka, and Ramanujacharya in Tamilnadu in the 11th century took up the cause of the oppressed. Basava founded a sect in 1160. This sect led to social reforms, such as the elevation of the status of women, abolition of caste distinction, removal of untouchablity, and inculcating the dignity of manual labour and simplicity of life in the community. These preachers, in many cases, came from the submerged classes of Hindu society. This trend was earlier set in motion by the parivrajikas, the itinerant religious teachers in Buddha’s time, who often belonged to non-Brahmanic castes. In medieval times, the followers of Ramanand came from the lowest classes and even from outside the fold of Hinduism. This was the period when Muslim invaders were drenching the Indian soils with the blood of Hindu ‘Kafirs’. According to the estimates of historians, nearly seventy Muslim invasions had taken place before Guru Nanak. He had witnessed the atrocities perpetrated by Babar, whom he called as ‘yam’, the god of death. These saints were the consolidators of the Indian nation in the true tradition of Rishi Vyas and Adi Shankaracharya.
After an overview of the Ancient Hindu Way spread over several millennia it is time to address the present-day reality. The Hindu society is experiencing a state of siege. The nation is facing two types of aggressions; one demographic, inundating the country with millions of illegal immigrants altering the demographic map of India, and second of Christianization by missionaries, of vulnerable chunks of the Hindu society. In both cases they get impetus from the vote-bank politics. If the Hindu society shows concern about infiltration and conversions they are dubbed as Hindu chauvinists. Even if they talks about reconverting the converts they earn the odium of being communal and divisive. Two different norms are applied to the same problem.

It is hard to ignore the subversive impact of missionary activities backed by powerful foreign churches. The nation is still feeling the subversive impact of Baptist missionaries in the northeast. Baptist Mission entered Naga Hills in 1872, when the Hills came under the British administration. The Baptist Missionaries in Nagaland infused secessionism, when Independent India was in an embryonic state. A senior British ICS officer who served in Nagaland had forewarned that the activities of the Baptists who were a source of inspiration for the terrorist outfit of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in America, did not augur well as they would be a source of trouble in times to come. He proved right. Under the permissive political climate, the missionaries have further spread their tentacles in the north-east region, in recent times.
There is a clear ruling on conversions. In the Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1977 SC 908), the Supreme Court has held that Article 25 (1) of the Indian Constitution does not grant any right to convert any person to one’s own religion. However, there is no halt to aggressive evangelization. While addressing missionaries in New Delhi on 7th November, 1999, late Pope John Paul II gave a call to convert Asia to Christianity as follows:- “Just as the first millennium saw the Cross firmly planted in the soil of Europe, and the second in that of America and Africa, so may the Third Christian Millennium witness a great harvest of faith on this vast and vital continent”. His successor and present Pope Benedict XVI reiterated this agenda of conversion with the words: “The Church is by its very nature missionary; its first task is evangelization. Hindus in India and Nepal are prime targets for this harvest of faith”. It was expected from a self-respecting nation to strongly rebuff such moves and additionally insist on getting an apology from the Pope for the Hindu holocaust in Goa Inquisitions, instead of listening to papal harangue about the aggressive evangelisation in the sub-continent.
Hindus had promoted secular environments and social harmony in ancient India. The present-day unprincipled politics, has regrettably replaced the British policy of ‘Divide and rule’ with the more sinister political tactics of ‘Fragment and Rule’. Fragmentation of the Indian society on communal, regional and caste lines has been the most dubious contribution of politics of opportunism. The Indian society was never so fragmented with each group confronting the other as it is now. The word “Hindu” has become synonymous with ‘communal’; Hindu bashing is considered secular. The process of social integration has given way to social engineering to meet demands of political expediency. The state has become a partisan by catering to the sectarian needs of certain religious groups with special dispensation. This is nothing short of state- promoted communalism. Under true secularism the state should stay neutral.
The nation is facing a new threat from modern day generation of iconoclasts from ‘eminent historians’ to pseudo intellectuals. Their efforts to deny and denigrate India’s rich and liberal heritage is diabolic. Hindus that were burnt on the stakes are martyrs of their faith and of the nation. Millions of Hindus put to the sword by fanatic invaders are martyrs of the motherland. They deserve a memorial in the hearts of all true Indians if not in monuments. Not to recall their sacrifices for their faith and the motherland is an act of disrespect towards them. Vidiadhar Naipaul summed up the situation well: "In art and history books, people write of the Muslims "arriving" in India as though they came on a tourist bus and went away again. The Muslim view of their conquest is a truer one. They speak of the triumph of faith, the destruction of idols and temples, the loot, the casting away of locals as slaves."
Yet India is a nation, despite incongruities, fractious politics, and massive backlog of unfulfilled missions. It is on account of the indestructible, all-sustaining and ever rejuvenating soul- ‘The Ancient Hindu Way’. India is a land of many creeds, customs and mores, and peoples savouring the munificence of mother India. It is the bounden dharma of all Indians to contribute to an atmosphere of peace and harmony under which every one develops according to one’s own peculiar genius, respecting the sensibilities of fellow citizens. It is befitting to conclude the exposition of the ‘Ancient Hindu Way’, by quoting the lines from the last Sukta of the Rig Veda, which is in the nature of an international anthem for its message of harmony to the entire humanity. Such sublime sentiments can be expressed only by a spiritually alive civilization. The thrust of the message in the Sukta is Sahchittamesam- to be of one mind, as a key to the harmonious living.

Sangacchadhvam samvadadhvam
Samvo manamsi janatam
Samano mantrah samiti samani
Samanam manah Sahchittamesam.

"Let all men meet and think as one mind,
Let all hearts unite in Love,
Let the goal be common,
May all live in happiness with a common purpose".

Letter to Dr. Karan Singh

June 22, 2009

Dear Sir,

Sub: US President Obama’s 4th June Address.

We take the liberty of intruding into your valuable time for a cause that, we feel, your goodself will appreciate.

US President Barak Obama’s speech at the Al Azhar University, Cairo, on 4th June 2009, has been held as historic. A copy of this speech, as available publicly, is attached for ready reference. While the primary objective of this speech looking for bringing in all round peace is appreciated, we failed to persuade ourselves to accept his extremely bipartisan effort to please the Muslim world and in the process totally ignoring India’s contribution and role if world peace is to be ensured. Even if this is a diplomatic move, one cannot, and we strongly feel, one must not, evade or ignore the truth. We, from the platform of the Patriots’ Forum (www.patriotsforum.org), have therefore, lodged a protest of sorts. A copy of our “Open letter by an Indian to US President” is attached.

The Forum strongly feels you as the proud inheritor and flag-bearer of the Indian (read Hindu) civilization, could also consider taking up the issue formally from your esteemed organization (Indian Council for Cultural Relations - ICCR) in the manner thought fit.

Sir, we should be grateful to know that the matter has been taken up by you appropriately.

Kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

(D.C. Nath)
President, Patriots' Forum

To,
Dr. Karan Singh
President,
Indian Council for Cultural Relations
Azad Bhavan Indraprastha Estate,
New Delhi- 110002, India
Phones:23378616 23370698
president@iccrindia.org

OPEN LETTER BY AN INDIAN TO US PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

Dear Mr. President,

First and foremost, I take this opportunity to compliment you for initiating a dialogue with the “Muslim World” in a bid to restore peace across the world. But after reading the text of your speech at the Al Azhar University, Cairo, on 4th June 2009, I was greatly disappointed because it contained no reference, absolutely none, to the rampant discrimination practiced in Islamic countries and Muslim societies against non-Muslims, especially the one billion strong Hindu community and millions of Buddhists – the so-called “kaffirs”, uniformly considered as children of a lesser God by Islamic societies. In every Muslim country, they are denied the freedom to practice and preach their religious beliefs. There is no tolerance for the religious beliefs and sacred shrines of Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia and most other Muslim countries. In sharp contrast, the Muslims have always enjoyed complete religious freedom in India and most Buddhist countries, nay, in almost all non-Muslim countries. Mr. President, during the last 50 years, there has been a systematic ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Buddhists from two Islamic countries, namely, Pakistan and Bangladesh. While the international community slumbered, Islamists continued to kill, convert and drive out millions of hapless Hindus. Their share in the population has come down to barely 2 percent in Pakistan from 23 percent in 1947, while in Bangladesh their proportion is now down to 8 percent from nearly 27 percent in 1947. This ethnic cleansing of millions of innocent Hindus and Buddhists is far worse than the suffering of the people of Darfur! Unfortunately, the world leaders took no notice of it ! On top of it, in most Muslim countries no temple or place of worship for Hindus and Buddhists is allowed. One is left wondering how such diabolical discrimination has been ignored in your Cairo speech?

May I remind you, Mr. President, that it was in the same historic city of Cairo, where you decided to launch your overture to woo the Muslim world , that the Organization of Islamic Countries unveiled in the year 1990 their version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, known as the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, categorically stipulating in Article 24 that in Islamic countries, “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration” will be subject to the Islamic Shari’ah. Article 25 of that Declaration further asserted that “The Islamic Shariah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration”. The Preamble of that Declaration stated that its objective was to reaffirm “the civilizing and historical role of Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation” for guiding the humanity.

Mr. President, you cannot be unaware of the fact that Islam has very little tolerance even for the Christians and the Jews with the result that their proportion in population is dwindling fast across the Middle East and most other Muslim countries, a fact to which the present Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger, drew pointed attention during his recent visit to the Middle East. It would have surely enhanced your prestige if you had called upon the Islamic world to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims and grant equal rights to them in the same measure and on the same scale in which Muslims have been enjoying civil rights in secular societies like India and other non-Muslim countries.

One is left wondering at your polemical pronouncement that America is not at war with Islam. The ongoing war against civil society was declared first by the Islamists on February 23, 1998, by making a declaration in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi calling upon all Muslims worldwide to kill the Americans and the Jews. That historic call for global jihad against the crusaders and the Jews was signed among others by the Al Qaeda ideologue Ayman al-Zawahiri, Sheikh Amir Hamza, Secretary of Jamiat-ul-Ulema, Pakistan, and Fazlur Rehman of the Jihad Movement of Bangladesh. It was followed by the 9 /11 carnage which gave a rude shock to the Americans and compelled George Bush to join the war against radical Islam. Soon thereafter in October, 2001, Al Qaeda added the name of “Hindu India” to the list of enemies of Islam. In a video-taped message released through Al Jazeera television channel in October 2001, an Al Qaeda spokesman blamed the Hindu India for oppressing the Muslims of Kashmir with the help of the USA. Fairly soon, the two Pakistan sponsored jihadi outfits, Lashkar-e- Tayyeba and Jaish-e Muhammad, brazenly attacked the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001. And since then innumerable jihadi attacks on India have continued with impunity. Please understand that the global jihad today is being waged against three important civilizations, namely, the Christians, the Jews and the Hindus. Kashmir is only an excuse. Pakistan sponsored Islamists have made that clear more than once.

While seeking peace with radical Islam, you should not forget that peace is not, repeat not, a one-way street. The USA must avoid following the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberlain (the then Prime Minister of U.K), who signed the Munich agreement in 1938 with Germany in the vain hope of securing peace. That notorious treaty further whetted the ambitions of Hitler and ultimately led to the second World War. No wonder, Chamberlain was forced to resign after Germany invaded the Netherlands, France and Belgium on May 10, 1940.

Mr. President, your speech has completely ignored the aspirations and geopolitical concerns of the one billion strong peace-loving Hindus - an iconic civilization, perhaps the oldest one in the world. As a statesman, you cannot be ignorant of the fact that the Islamists operating through Pakistan have a global design of establishing a ‘seamless caliphate’ from Indonesia to the Balkans by overrunning and subjugating India, which is the only bulwark of democracy and secularism in this part of the world. Pakistan has been waging a gory jihad against India now for more than 50 long years the most morbid instance of which was the notorious Mumbai Massacre of November 26, 2008. Unfortunately, the USA and international community have singularly failed to take cognizance of Pakistan’s perfidy by failing to force Pakistan to punish the perpetrators of Mumbai 26/11. You are aware that the mastermind of Mumbai carnage, Pakistan-based Hafeez Saeed has been let off by Pakistan. The release of Saeed will surely lead to many more dastardly attacks on India, which threat perception is shared by more than one strategic thinktank and security analyst! Meanwhile, after being let off by the Pakistani establishment, Hafeezz Saeed made an inflammatory speech at Lahore in a compound owned by Jamaat-ul-Dawa calling upon the USA to withdraw from Afghanistan and stop drone attacks on jihadis. He had the gall to advise you and the American people to embrace Islam!

And to rub salt into India’s wounds, your government appears to be trying to pressurize India for starting peace talks with Pakistan. William Burns, the visiting U S Under Secretary of State and Hillary Clinton are actively working towards that goal, just to placate the Pakistani establishment. It is a classic instance of rewarding the criminal at the cost of the victim!

We Indians are truly amazed that while Americans have not forgotten the bloodbath of 9/11, you want Indians to forget Mumbai 26/11 as if it was some sort of a petty picnic organized by the ISI of Pakistan? On behalf of all right thinking Indians, I implore you to stop pampering Pakistan at the cost of India. Prima facie, Hillary Clinton’s message conveyed through William Burns that “India was a priority nation” sounds hollow and unconvincing!

Mr. President, I must remind you of the glorious tribute paid by the celebrated American thinker and historian, Will Durant, to the Indian civilization (read Hindus). He candidly admitted that “India was the mother of our race and Sanskrit the mother of Europe’s languages. She was the mother of our philosophy, through Arabs much of our mathematics, through Buddha, of the ideals embodied in Christianity, mother through village communities of self-government and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all.” You may also recall what another American historian hailed as the greatest historian of the twentieth century Arnold Toynbee has said, “It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in the self– destruction of the human race.... At this supremely dangerous moment in human history, the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way – Emperor Ashoka's and Mahatma Gandhi's principle of non–violence and Sri Ramakrishna's testimony to the harmony of religions. Here we have an attitude and spirit that can make it possible for the human race to grow together into a single family - and, in the Atomic Age, this is the only alternative to destroying ourselves.”

It is indeed extraordinary that while trying to please the ‘Muslim world”, you have completely ignored the Hindus.

Please don’t forget that the Hindus of India can and will surely play a pivotal role in the maintenance of peace in South Asia. In this part of the world, they are a force to reckon with. Here is a community whose members possess a high Intelligence Quotient, a very high Knowledge Quotient and whose civilizational ethos are guided by their superb Spiritual Quotient. Additionally, Hindus hold a centuries old world record of tolerance and multiculturalism despite India’s blood-soaked history of fighting against the jihadi onslaught for nearly one thousand years. Mr. President, the voice of Hindus needs to be heard more attentively by you and the American people for addressing their geopolitical concerns, if peace is to be restored in this part of the world.

Thanking you for your attention and with regards,

Yours sincerely,

(R.K. Ohri)
Secretary General , Patriots' Forum
New Delhi; June 20, 2009

Copy to:

Mr. Timothy J. Roemer,

U.S. Ambassador to India, U.S. EmbassyShantipath, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi – 110021, Tel: 011-2419-8000, Fax: +91-11-2419-0017