In his treatise, Hind Swaraj, written in 1908, Mahatma Gandhi, (then in South Africa), devoted a separate chapter on Hindu-Muslim question, titled, The Hindus and the Mahomedans. Therein, he stated: ?Each party, (Hindu and Muslim), recognised that mutual fight was suicidal and that neither party would abandon its religion by force of arms. Both parties, therefore, decided to live in peace. With the English advent, quarrels recommenced.?
On the contentious issue of banning cow-slaughter, Gandhiji wrote: ?I worship cow which means reverence. Cow is the protector of India because agriculture, India'slife-line, depends on cow-progeny?But, as I revere the cow I revere the human being. Just as cow is useful, so the man is also useful, whether he be a Muslim or Hindu. Should I, then, fight with a Muslim to save cow? Should I kill the Muslim? By doing so, I will be an enemy of both the Muslim and the cow. Therefore, I say, the best way to save cow is that I should, with folded hands, make an appeal to the Muslim brother to save the cow for the cause of the country. If he does not agree, I should let the cow be killed because it is not in my power to save her. If I feel too much for the cow, I should lay my own life but should not take the life of a Muslim, that is the law of (Hindu) religion, according to me?. (Original Hindi, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, September 2004 edition). He added further: ?There is mutual distrust between the two communities. The Mahomedans, therefore, ask for certain concessions from Lord Morley. Why should Hindus oppose it? If Hindus desisted the English would notice it, Mahomedans would gradually begin to trust the Hindus, and brotherliness would be the outcome?? Gandhiji followed above principles throughout his life. He conceded to every Muslim demands even at heavy costs to Hindu majority at times, who, having accepted him as their supreme leader, tolerated all his idiosyncrasies. But, what was the result? The Muslim appetite went on increasing. Starting from a minority, they claimed to be a separate nation and demanded Partition. For their own strategic interests, the British and the Americans supported Muslim demand. For the Muslims, a new Islamic State of Pakistan was carved out of Hindusthan.
Just 60 years after that dreadful event, history seems to be repeating itself. The same old Hindu-Muslim divide confronts us all. Overawed by their nuisance value and vote-bank potential, the successive governments of India have been doling out to Muslims concessions after concessions to placate their ever increasing appetite. Sachar Committee report is just a part of this process. But, the million dollar question is, will all these acts of appeasement finally satisfy the Muslims? Surely, not. Things are, however, worse than before. Pan-Islamism has grown into a multi-headed monster, engulfing the whole world. Britain and America, supporters of India'sPartition in favour of Muslims in 1947, are now enemies number one of the Muslim world. Israel is number two and India number three.
Following their Quran, Pan-Islamists, backed with terrorism, have divided humanity into two warring camps. The people believing in one God, Allah, and Mohammed as His prophet, form the party of Allah and those not so believing form the party of Devil or Shaitan. And, it is the pious duty of the party of Allah to conquer the other party, (Sura LXIII/19-22). And, these are the lessons taught to young students in Muslim madrasas.
Still, the Indian government believes that there is nothing wrong in madrasa education and is providing them State assistance. Truly speaking, Islam is a unique political thought, whose aim is to bring the entire mankind under Islamic flag. Consequently, the very existence of non-Muslim nations is under severe threat.
The tragedy is that Hindu leaders, especially the heads of social and religious institutions, are oblivious to this danger. Not only they have to wake up, they must awaken their followers and the western world too, because Islamic expansionism, imperialism and terrorism, need to be fought both nationally and internationally, physically and intellectually. With their one thousand-year experience of Islamic aggression, Hindu leaders are in the best position to teach the western nations the true nature of Islamism and convince them that Hinduism is the most liberal and most accommodative religious philosophy and that Hindus have no territorial or imperial ambition. Indeed, the Muslims have developed into a distinct species of human race and need an altogether different treatment, based on reciprocity. Muslim governments in about 50 countries don'tallow propagation of any non-Islamic religion, nor do they allow building of churches or temples. Moreover, non-Muslims are subjected to Quranic law of blasphemy, providing death penalty for writing or uttering anything about Islam or their prophet, which is not acceptable to their clergy. Secularism is anathema to them. Contrary to all this, non-Islamic secular countries provide Muslims all freedom to practice and propagate their religion, build mosques, raise madrasas and multiply. Paradoxically, liberalism of the non-Muslim secular and democratic nations itself has caused their nemesis. To combat this unconventional ongoing unilateral Islamic war, all non-Muslim democratic and secular nations must first unite and make a common cause.
The first step should be that each of them enact special laws in respect of its Muslim population to give them only that much which the Muslim States give their non?Muslim subjects. Simultaneously, they should put up a resolution in the Security Council to the effect that, within its territory, every member State should cause deletion of all passages from the Quran and the Hadith, which preach or sanctify religious animosity between Muslims and non-Muslims, inspire religious or racial war, called jehad, terrorist activities, including suicidal bombing, or justify killing of ?Kafirs?.
Though non-violent, the above steps will cause strong protests, even violence, at the beginning, from hard-core Islamists. But, if the secular nations hold their ground, the saner elements of the Muslims, so far kept muzzled, will come out in the open against Mullahdom, seeking reforms and adoption of modern thoughts of secularism, co-existence, racial and religious tolerance. In the ensuing conflict between the reformists and the traditionalists, large numbers of Muslims would like to embrace Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism. Proponents of these faiths should be ready to absorb such Muslims. Those who still carry jehadi mentality will have to be tackled with more forceful counter jehadi measures.
(The writer is a renowned scholar and can be contacted at [email protected])
Comments