Author: Vinod Kumar
Publication: Kashmirherald.com
Date:
Recently there has been a flood
of articles demonizing Narendra Modi - the Chief Minister of Gujarat. The
main thrust of such articles is that the Chief Minister Modi and the Gujarat
government stood by when the Muslims were being killed in the aftermath
of Godhra train episode where 58 Hindu pilgrims were burnt to death. .
"A climate of hate prevails in Gujarat today" - many have written. But
hardly ever any mention is made of massacre at Godhra or at Akshardham
temple. Hate does no body good. If hate does prevail in Gujarat today,
it is indeed a serious social malady. This malady becomes even more serious
since Gujarat is just one limb of the body called India. If proper measures
are not taken it is quite likely that it might spread to other parts of
the nation too.
For an effective and permanent cure
of a disease we must also know how it came to be in the first place. In
the long run, it is better to cure the cause than just the symptoms.
There are two ways of contracting
a disease. It can either be hereditary from within or it can be inflicted
from without. Early history and philosophy of India gives no proof of any
genes of hate in its body politic or religion. When the first Muslims came
to India - that happened to be in Gujarat -- they were well received and
given land and grants to build their mosques and preach Islam. Muslims
were not the only ones to come to India. The same is true of everyone else
- the early Christians, the Jews, the Parsis (hounded by Muslims from their
ancestral homes in Iran) -- to name a few -- who came and found safe haven
in India and have lived peacefully to this day. Legend has it that the
followers of Caliph Ali had expressed desire to be given a safe passage
to India before they were massacred at Karbala. This has been the reputation
of India of the yore.
Then how this malady of hate crept
in Gujarat (or India)?
There is a well-known principle
"there is no effect without a cause."
The Islamic invasions of India "were
not undertaken merely out of lust for loot or conquest," Ambedkar
observed in his book Pakistan or Partition of India. Had they just
done that and went back, all would have been forgotten. The main
purpose of Islamic invasions was to "purge the land of Hind from the filth
of infidelity" and establish "the religion of Islam in the whole land."
For the sources of hate one should
look into not only the demolition of Somnath temple in Gujarat, but all
over India and the accompanying massacres and plunder. An estimate of the
number of Hindu temples demolished, the women raped, the wealth plundered,
the Hindus massacred can easily be made from the records left to posterity
by the Muslim invaders themselves. Hindus were in no position to record
their own massacres.
What was the cause of this?
This was explained to Muhammad bin
Kasim, commander of the Islamic army sent to conquer Sind and Hind by Hajjaj,
the governor of Iraq who had sponsored his expedition: "But the way of
granting pardon prescribed by law is different from the one adopted by
you. The Great God says in the Koran: 'O true believers, when you encounter
the unbelievers, strike off their heads.' The above command of the
Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed." The infidel
was not to be pardoned.
The rape of Hindu did not stop with
bin Kasim in 712 CE -- it continued for over a millennium. The Islamic
rape and plunder of India is unparalleled in the annals of world history.
"The Mohamedan Conquest of India,
is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale,
for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose
delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time
be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."
Will Durant went on to observe in his The Story of Civilization.
The argument is given - "these were
centuries ago, how can the Muslims of today be held responsible for the
acts of their ancestors?" The argument is both right and fallacious. It
is true that these acts were carried out centuries ago but it is fallacious
that they were ancestors of modern day Muslims of India. Muslims of India
regard these invaders and plunderers as their ancestors which they actually
are not. The Muslims of India today are culpable for these acts of Muslims
from without because they see no wrong in them and seek their glory in
such acts of vandalism. Otherwise what would prevent them from handing
over all the monuments built over or from demolition of Hindu monuments
and declare them villains of history, not heroes? Such acts should be an
object of shame, not pride of any civilization.
Not only that, the attitude still
prevails. Burning of Hindu pilgrims at Godhra and killing of Hindu devotees
at Akshardham Temple are its latest manifestation in Gujarat. Such acts
are not limited to India alone. Blasting away two millennia old irreplaceable
Buddhist statues, carved on the mountainside in Bamiyan, is another example.
What happened to almost entire non-Muslim population of Pakistan in 1947
and what is going on in Kashmir today and the fate of Hindus there is another
issue? Space prevents us from going into those details.
And what even erudite and politically
responsible Muslims think of Hindus as kafir was illustrated by Maulana
Mohammad Ali, Co-president of Khilafat Movement (with Gandhiji) when he
said that in "However pure Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to
me from the point of view of religion inferior to any Mussalman, even though
he be without character." It was not mere slip of the tongue. He repeated
it later also.
History testifies that under Muslim
rule Hindu was reduced to abject penury and destitution. For centuries,
Hindu was looked upon as an object of hate and derision. Sultan Alauddin
Khilji had issued orders that "the Hindus shall not be allowed to posses
more than what is required for a bare subsistence."
Let alone apologizing, Muslims of
India see all these demolitions, massacres and plunders as the glory of
Islam while proclaiming it to be a religion of peace. They see no contradiction
in this. This behavior is nothing than rubbing salt in festering
wound.
Unfortunately, civilizations have
long memory. No self-respecting individual, let alone civilization can
survive in ignominy of perpetual insult and humiliation, and as object
of hate.
