Gandhi brought Independence to India is
dangerously wrong. Gandhi only brought Partition for Hindus and
Pakistan for Muslims. The British left India for their own compulsions, not
because of Gandhi or the Congress. Its glaring proof is that they had
suo moto declared in February 1947 that they would leave India by June
1948. Mountbatten was sent to India in March that year to ensure
implementation of this decision. He saw the things, prepared the Partition
plan, pursuaded or forced the Congress and the Muslim League to accept
it. He preponed the British departure and unilaterally fixed 15th August
1947 as the date of transfer of power. Agreeing to Jinnah's proposition,
"First divide and then quit", Mountbatten created Pakistan on the
14th August, 19947. That is why Pakistan celebrates its Independence Day a day
earlier than ours. Gandhi had nothing to do with all these events. Mountbatten
met him only once in April 1947 and did'nt talk to him any more till the
Partition was completed, in spite of Gandhi's opposition.
By
retaining the larger part of the Muslim population in India, instead of letting
them go to their cherised homeland Pakistan, for which they had voted
overwhelmingly, Gandhi and Nehru retained the seeds of another partition or Islamisation
of Hindu India also. Such of the Hindus who believe that they are free or
Independent are living in a fool's paradise. They do not know the meaning of
Independence. We daily see a dog cosily sitting in a car, being patted or
kissed by a beautiful lady, eating sumptuous food. Will any of you wish to be a
dog like that? certainly not. Economically, Hindus were equally rich during the
Mughal period. There were no banks. Hindu Mahajans of the time did all the
banking. Even the Muslim kings and nawabs took loan from them. Then, why were
they crying? What did ail them? Why do we say and our forefathers
said that Hindus suffered slavery for one thousand years? The answer is
that the sovereignty of the State lay in Mohammedan rulers. They governed us
according to Shariat laws. The political and social position of
Hindus vis-a-vis Hindu converts to Islam was of second class
citizens.As compared to Muslims of foreign origin, like the Mughals, the Arabs,
the Iranians, etc., their position was third. They had to pay jazia. Their
object of worship, cow, was butchered before their eyes. It was this inferior
political and social position and religious persecution which caused
revolt and Shivaji fought for Hindavi Swaraj. Guru Gobind Singh in
Punjab, Chhatral in Bundelkhand and several others did the same.
So
the test of Freedom of a community or nation is, "Where does the
sovereignty lies? Surely, it does not lie with the Hindus, as it lies with the
Muslims in Pakistan or the British in the U.K. The answer is in the
Constitution. The Indian Constitution gives over-riding powers to the minority
communities, which practically means the Muslims. So they have the veto power.
They have chosen to be governed by their Shariat laws, (except in criminal
matters). In an affidavit to the Supreme Court, the Union government has
approved their Shariat courts. The result is that you could not have a
uniform civil code; could not get rid of the temporary provision of
Article 370 in relation to J & K; could not get cow-slaughter banned;
could not make Hindi the official language of the Indian Union as contemplated
by the Constitution framers. The list can be endless.
Hence, Hindus are yet to fight for a real freedom. If they don't understand
this obvious truth, they are bound to suffer another 1,000 years of slavery
under Talibani Muslims.
No comments:
Post a Comment