Rule of Razakar’s successors
in Hyderabad?
By TH Chowdary
On January 5, Mohammed Majid Hussain of Majlis Ittehadul Muslameen (MIM) took over as Mayor of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), courtesy, the Sonia-led Congress in Andhra Pradesh. He has nine criminal cases pending against him in various courts.
Majid Hussain started his journey to Mayor’s office from Darussalam, the headquarters of MIM in Hyderabad. MIM is the successor to the notorious Islamist, violent, murderous, Nizam’s times Razakars whose headquarters was also in Darussalam.
The first thing that the MIM Mayor did after assuming the office was to remove the portraits of President and Prime Minister of India and the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh from his chamber and instead, put the photos of MIM founder Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi and his sons, MP Asaduddin Owaisi and MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi. Of course, since dynastic rule and glorification of a dynasty has come to be accepted at all India level, the local leaders are following the precedent and practice of those in Delhi.
The Mayor’s office is not a private one, it is part of the democratic governing institutions of India. Is it permissible for any party to remove the photographs of the President of India from the office? In fact, there is a circular from Government of India that all government offices must prominently display the photograph of President of India. I am not aware whether there are circulars about the photo of Prime Minister and Chief Minister of the state should also be displayed. It is obvious that the MIM does not woe any allegiance to the President of India nor would it show any respect to that high office. If this is not subversion, what else is subversion?
Newspapers have not failed to headline the event. They called it MIM’s rule in Hyderabad. It is not a coincidence that on that very day, Ghulam Nabi Azad, who is Chairman of the Coordination Committee (for the Chief Minister, the president of the Pradesh Congress and some legislators) had in a public speech said that historians are distorting the contribution of Muslims to the freedom struggle in India and that is why Muslims are being discriminated in the country. He seems to want Indians to forget that there was a Muslim League (ML) which asserted that Muslims are not part of the Indian nation but that they are a different nation; that the ML said there was nothing in common between Hindus and Muslims; that 98.5 per cent of the separate Muslim electorate rejected the Indian National Congress including the nationalist Abul Kalam Azad and voted for Muslim League demanding the Partition of India and creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan and that; to achieve their demand Muslims resorted to Direct Action on the August 16, 1946 against those who opposed Partition; that is, Hindus and Congressmen and had, on one single day, in Calcutta ruled by the Muslim League 10,000 Hindus were slaughtered!
Ghulam Nabi Azad says that there were two factions in Congress and that is why India was divided. If this is not brazen falsehood what else is called falsehood? What is the history that he wants to be taught in India that Aurangzeb did not impose zazia, that tens of thousands of temples were not razed to ground, that a few million Hindu soldiers defeated in battles were not slaughtered and their women and children were not taken into harems and sold in the slave markets of Bagdad.
It is obvious that Hindus, the victims of aggression and plunder by and servitude to Muslim invaders and rulers, are now sought to be portrayed as falsifiers of history and perpetrators of injustice and oppression against residues of the Islamic invaders and the converts here in this country. How disgraceful it is that Hindu Congressmen have abdicated their self-respect, sense of truth, honour and integrity and are being lectured and instructed by Resident Non-Indians (RNI) given to alien faiths and ideologies!
?
