Author: Ashok Chowgule
Publication:
Date: October 6, 2010
Those who go under the rubric secularists
('eminent' historians, most mainstream jurnalists, 'liberals', etc.) have
been most upset that the High Court judgement on Ayodhya has accepted the
following:
1. The site where the prayers for Shri Ram
is presently being conducted is sacred for the Hindus;
2. That a large temple existed at the site;
3. That it was destroyed and the Babri structure built in its place.
This is what the Hindus have been saying all
these years, and it is exactly the opposite what the secularists have been
saying all these years. The secularists have been responded to a long time
ago - yet, they pretend that their position has not been contradicted in the
various discussions that have already been held. The Hindu side has been published
in journals that are easily accessible to these secularists. The source of
information that the Hindus have put their case forward is also easily available
to the secularists.
Yet, negation of the history of Islamic vandalism
is a feature of the discourse amongst the secularists. The judgement has challenged
the various postions (in the intellectual space) that they are presently occupying.
If the truth were to become the accepted paradigm, then they can no longer
be parasites in the society. They have been earning their living, often in
institutions financed by the people of India, in a lazy manner. They will
now have to justify their positions, if they wish to continue to occupy them.
So, the campaign of creating confusion is
being intensified. Solzhenitsyn, when he accepted he Nobel Prize for Literaturte,
said: "One word of truth is stronger than all the lies in the world."
Reproduced here is what Nirad Chaudhari said
to Dileep Padgaonkar (one of the arch secularists) seventeen years ago, during
an interview in The Times of India, August 8, 1993:
QUOTE
Padgaounkar: You have of course been following
whatever has been going on in India: the incident in Ayodhya, the communal
riots and so forth.
Chaudhary: There must be a complete recognition
of the historical responsibility on both sides. They must not try to avoid
it. All Hindu historians are liars. From 1907 onwards we became aware of the
Hindu-Muslim problem as regards the nationalist movement. From that date until
1946 every fellow Bengali I have asked and every other Indian too had only
one standard argument: The Hindu- Muslim problem does not exist. It has been
created by the British.
My point is that it is the very nature of
things. That what happened in Ayodhya should not have happened is another
matter. But I say that the Muslims do not have the slightest right to complain
about the desecration of one mosque. From 1000 A.D. every Hindu temple from
Kathiawar to Bihar, from the Himalayas to the Vindhyas has been sacked and
ruined. Not one temple was left standing all over northern India. At the beginning
of the 18th century the Jesuit priest and mathematician Tippenthaler noticed
in the evenings as he travelled from Malwa the flickering flames of tiny earthen
lamps placed by the villagers at some risk to themselves. Temples escaped
destruction only where Muslim power did not gain access to them for reasons
such as dense forests.
Otherwise it was a continuous spell of vendalism.
No nation with any self-respect will forgive this. They took over our women.
And they imposed the Zazia, the tax. Why should we forget and forgive all
that?
What happened in Ayodhya would not have happened had the Muslims acknowledged
this historical argument even once. Then we could have said: Alright. Let
the past remain in the past and let us see how best we can solve this problem.
From the 18th century onwards the Hindus took
the offensive. They would not allow the Muslims to lead their way of life.
In the 30's I wrote several articles on the subject. The last one was in 1939.
I have not
changed my views from the ones I expressed then. The gist of the argument
is that the Hindu view of life and the Muslim view of life are completely
oriented towards a clash. The Muslims were the first to
invent the thoery of permanent revolution. The communists took over from them.
No Muslims can live under the political domination of non-Muslims. Secondly,
Muslims divide the world into two: regions of peace and regions of conflict.
It is the duty of of every Muslim to bring the latter within the fold of Islam.
The Arab equivalent of the caliph is "Commander of the Faithful".
And his obligation is jihad (holy war).
Where do you think the word mujahedin comes from? Mu in Arabic means 'to be
with'. Mujahid is to be with the jihad and Mujahedin is its plural. Why, I
ask the English people, do you call them fundamentalists in Kabul and nowhere
in England? The reason is that the English people have become completely ignorant.
What is more, like us, they cannot face reality...
UNQUOTE
