But a careful examination of historical records, religious texts, and legal judgments reveals HAF’s article to be fraught with lies, inaccuracies, deliberate fabrications, and questionable historical narratives.

Lie: The HAF writes that the new Ram temple was “built on an ancient site of Hindu worship. The final Hindu temple on the site was destroyed in the early 16th century by the first Mughal emperor for the construction of a mosque known in modern times as the Babri Masjid. Archaeological evidence proves the mosque had no foundations of its own and was built upon a Hindu temple.”

Truth: This is a brazen lie propagated by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) with no historical or legal proof, nor any corroboration in the ‘Hindu’ narrative of history. There is no mention of the Ram Temple even in the writings of the most prominent Ram worshiper to date, Goswami Tulsidas (1511-1623), who penned the Epic Ramcharitmanas (Lake of the Deeds of Ram) in the Avadhi language in 1575-76. According to the Hindu nationalist (Hindutva) version, Ram’s birthplace temple was destroyed during 1528-1529. It would be surprising indeed if the Ramcharitmanas, written only 48 years after the so-called destruction of Ram’s birthplace temple, did not mention such a momentous event.

According to the RSS, Adi Shankaracharya, Aurobindo Ghosh, Swami Vivekananda, and Swami Dayanand Saraswati were the saints who contributed immensely to the cause of Vedic religion and the growth of the Hindu nation. None of these Vedic saints ever referred to this destruction of Ram Temple at Ayodhya by Mughal King Babar or his agent in any of their writings.

Today, Ayodhya is referred to as one of the oldest holiest places for Hindus. It would be interesting to know that Adi Shankaracharya (788-820), who toured India preaching Vedas for more than a decade, established 5 Peetams [main centers] at Badrinath in the North, Puri in the East, Dwarka in the West and Sringeri and Kanchi in the South for the revival of the Vedic religion but did not consider Ayodhya one.

Moreover, the Indian Supreme Court, in its 1,045-page Ayodhya Judgment (November 9, 2019), nowhere agrees with the claim that the Babri Mosque was constructed after destroying any temple.

Lie: HAF claimed that “As the traditional birthplace of Lord Ram, archeological and documentary evidence shows that the site has been recognized as a place of spiritual importance for Hindus since time immemorial.”

Truth: It is true that traditionally, Hindus believe that Ram was born in the city of Ayodhya, but the issue is whether he was born exactly under the central dome (approximately measuring 150 cm x 150 cm) of the Babri Mosque as is claimed now by Hindutva’s flag-bearers.

But here it is important to note that the Indian Supreme Court, in its 2019 judgment, made two observations on this point without mincing words.

Firstly, it stated: “The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship.” [Supreme Court Judgment dated November 9, 2019, pp. 921-22]

Secondly, on pages 913-14, it states that “On 6 December 1992, the structure of the mosque was brought down and the mosque was destroyed. The destruction of the mosque took place in breach of the order of status quo and an assurance given to this Court. The destruction of the mosque and the obliteration of the Islamic structure was an egregious violation of the rule of law.”

It is worth mentioning here that RSS —which initiated the bloody, violent campaign to build the Ram Temple at the end of the 1980s, never advanced this demand during the period of its founding in 1925, under British rule. Even after Independence, it was only in 1989 that the political appendage of the RSS, the BJP, began to focus on this issue.

The views of two RSS luminaries who initiated the Ram Temple movement reveal the preposterousness of the claim that Ram himself was born under the dome.

Rama Vilas Vedanti, a prominent Hindu clergyman of the Ram Birthplace Trust (an RSS front), stated, “We will build a temple at Ramjanam Bhoomi even if Lord Rama says he was not born there” [Outlook, Delhi, 7 July 2003). Similarly, L. K. Advani, who rode a chariot (Rath Yatra) as part of an aggressive Ram Temple campaign in 1990 said, “It did not matter whether the historical Rama was actually born at the spot in Ayodhya. What mattered was that Hindus believed that he was born there. Faith took precedence over history” [The Hindustan Times, Delhi, 20 July 2003.]

The votaries building the Ram Temple at the place of Babri Mosque must also respond to the query of why only one temple was targeted by Babar and not hundreds of other Hindu temples in Ayodhya.

Lie: According to HAF, the construction of the Ram Temple at the site of the Babri Mosque was essential to seek “restorative justice to re-establish a Hindu temple that had been destroyed as a result of iconoclasm a few hundred years ago.” They allege that the Ram Mandir “has great symbolic and emotional resonance for Hindus in contemporary times” and that “the trauma that this destruction brought has been passed down through generations and continues to impact the psyche of Hindus” and “contributed historically and continues to contribute to Hindu-Muslim tensions in India to this day.”

It is nobody’s argument that Aurangzeb or many other ‘Muslim’ rulers were not religious bigots or tolerant. Aurangzeb did not spare his father, brothers, and many smaller ‘Muslim’ kingdoms of his times. There are also contemporary records that prove that Aurangzeb donated lands, money, and resources to many temples throughout India.

Truth: According to this logic, the rule by rulers with Muslim names in India was the Islamic rule of idol-breakers. This narrative of Muslim history developed only at the beginning of the 19^th century is in absolute contradiction with historical facts and even common sense. To understand the lies behind this fabricated Medieval past, one needs to examine the nature of this ‘Muslim’ rule.

Despite the ‘Muslim’ rule of almost one thousand years, almost 75% of Indians did not convert to Islam, as was made clear by the first Census held by the British in 1871-72 when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. Hindus and Sikhs constituted 73.5 percent of the population, and Muslims numbered 21.5 percent only. Moreover, this rule was also the rule of the Hindu High Castes. According to contemporary ‘Hindu’ narratives, Aurangzeb never faced Shivaji in the battlefield; these were his two Rajput commanders, Jay Singh I and Jai Singh II, who fought against Shivaji on Aurangzeb’s behalf. Akbar personally never fought any battle against Rana Pratap of Mewar; Man Singh, brother-in-law of Akbar fought all battles against Rana. The Deewan Ala (prime minister) of both Shahjahan and Aurangzeb was Raghunath Bahadur, a Kayasth Hindu.

It is nobody’s argument that Aurangzeb or many other ‘Muslim’ rulers were not religious bigots or tolerant. Their religious bigotry was the outcome of their feeling of insecurity. Aurangzeb did not spare his father, brothers, and many smaller ‘Muslim’ kingdoms of his times. There are also contemporary records that prove that Aurangzeb donated lands, money, and resources to many temples throughout India. Anybody who has visited Delhi’s Red Fort must have seen two temples; Jain Lal Mandir [Red Temple] and Gauri Shanker Temple, just across the Fort towards Chandni Chowk side. These temples were built before the rule of Aurangzeb and continued to function during his time and later.

Lie: HAF, parroting the RSS claim, declared that the building of the Ram Temple was “an important event for Hindus of all traditions.”

Truth: HAF did not tell us why 4 Shankaracharyas of the Peetams (out of 5) established by Adi Shankaracharya boycotted the inauguration of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya. The article does not mention that the most revered Hindu saints of the Sanatan Dharm declared Ayodhya’s inauguration to be in contravention of Vedic scriptures, calling it Hinduism done for petty electoral gains.

It is sad to see the HAF run roughshod over the diversity of Hinduism. In its attempt to prove the homogenous character of Hindus, HAF turned a debate on the nature of the Ayodhya inauguration into Hindus versus others. The founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, is glorified by RSS as a pillar of the Hindu nation. But Swami was an ardent opponent of the Brahmanical ritual of Pran Pratishtha (putting life into a lifeless idol in Ayodhya case by Prime Minister Modi) and did not mince words in decrying this very ritual. He has stated (in Satyarth Prakash or Light of Truth, chapter 11), “The fact of the matter is that the All-pervading Spirit [God] can neither come into an idol, nor, leave it. If your mantras are efficacious that you can summon God, why can you not infuse life into your dead son by the force of the very same mantras? Again why can you not bide the soul depart from the body of your enemy? There is not a single verse in the Vedas to sanction the invocation of the Deity and vitalization of the idol, likewise, there is nothing to indicate that it is right to invoke idols, to bathe them, install them in temples, and apply sandal paste to them.”

HAF should enlighten us as to why a pious Hindu believing Ram to be God, Mahatma Gandhi, was assassinated by Hindutva cadres on January 30, 1948.

Lie: HAF also argued that, “Though sometimes presented as being a recent conflict, the fact is that this site has a long history of Hindus and Sikhs attempting to reclaim it, dating back to the early 19th century. Furthermore, the conflict has been ongoing regardless of the political party in power following India’s independence.”

Truth: Ayodhya being one of the holiest places, and the place under the central dome of the Babri Mosque, being the exact place where Ram was born, are modern ‘constructs’ as we will see in the following.

Ayodhya/Ram Temple never figured in the list of Char Dham, Puri, Rameshwaram, Dwarka, and Badrinath, the four holiest places that must be visited by a Hindu seeking moksha (final salvation).

HAF, despite admitting that reclaiming Babri Mosque as Ram Temple began in the early 19^th century, declared the site to have had a long history of conflict between Hindus and Muslims. If HAF had looked at the history of Ayodhya in the mid-19th century, they would have understood why it started in 1857.

Today, Ayodhya is being presented as a case of perpetual war of Hindus against Muslims. There cannot be a shoddier lie than this. During India’s War of Independence 1857, Ayodhya was the place where Maulvis and Mahants and ordinary Hindus and Muslims stood united in rebelling against the British rule and kissed the hangman’s noose together. Maulana Ameer Ali was a famous Maulvi of Ayodhya, and when Ayodhya’s well-known Hanuman Garhi’s (Hanuman Temple) priest, Baba Ramcharan Das, took the lead in organizing the armed resistance to the British rule. Both of them were captured and hanged together on the same tree. In another instance of the glorious unity of Hindus and Muslims against the colonial rule at Ayodhya, Acchhan Khan and Shambhu Prasad Shukla led the army of Raja Devibaksh Singh in the area. Due to the treachery of Hindu and Muslim lackeys of the British, they were captured and killed together. The British rulers hated this unity and created narratives of perennial Hindu-Muslim conflict not only in Ayodhya but the whole of India.

The flag-bearers of Hindutva working overtime to undo a composite and all-inclusive India are using the Sikh factor as a bluff to legitimize its illegal project. Sikhs who do not believe in idol worship of Ram or any other Hindu God/Goddesses; we are told that On 28 November 1858, a Nihang Sikh [armed Sikh] organized Pooja [worship] and havan [a Brahmanical ritual offering of grains, pure ghee and other such items to fire] in the Babri Mosque. It is unbelievable for a Sikh to perform Brahmanical rituals and would invite immediate ex-communication. Why Hindus at that time did not enter the Mosque is a mystery!

Lie: According to HAF, the mosque replacing the demolished Babri Mosque to be constructed at a distance of 22 km “will become the largest mosque in India. To be named the Masjid Muhammad Bin Abdullah, some 9,000 worshippers will be accommodated at one time”.

Truth: India already has five mosques, which are larger than the to-be-built mosque at Ayodhya. Jamia Masjid Srinagar can accommodate 33,000 worshippers, Jama Masjid Delhi can accommodate more than 25,000 worshippers, Taj-ul Masjid, Bhopal, Mecca Masjid, and Jama Masjid Agra, and all three can accommodate over 10,000 worshippers. Why is it that despite these facts being available in the public domain, the mosque at Ayodhya is being touted as the largest one? The only reason is that  Hindutva apologists, instead of showing any remorse or shame for the demolition of Babri Mosque at Ayodhya, want to be seen as large-hearted people who became instrumental in building ‘the largest mosque’ in India — a fact for which Muslims should apparently be grateful to the Hindutva demolition squad.

Conclusion

Hindu American Foundation (HAF) and its Hindutva tribe must understand that Ram was never the cause of perpetual conflict between Hindus and Muslims till RSS invented it as a convenient tool for religious polarization. Muslims of Ayodhya stopped going to Babri Mosque once the idol of the child Ram was smuggled into the Babri Mosque on the night of 22/23 December 1949. They did not try to break into the usurped Mosque, and there was no bloodshed engineered by Muslims of Ayodhya who were in substantial numbers in Faizabad, now rechristened as Ayodhya Dham despite the Indian Supreme Court declaring that “the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols.”

HAF confessed that on “December 6 [1992], a rally organized by the VHP and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) [both appendages of the RSS] at the site grew to more than 150,000 people. Police had cordoned off the Babri Masjid in an attempt to protect it. By noon, the police cordon was breached, police fled, and within a few hours, the mosque, unused for more than four decades, was demolished”. It happened because, since 1990, RSS and its appendages had organized an aggressive campaign for demolishing the Babri Mosque, targeting Indian Muslims as Baber-zade/Haram-zade (children of Babar/illegitimate children). For more than two years, Hindus in India and abroad were asked to come to Ayodhya to tear down the mosque as kar-sevaks.

Did Muslims call for counter-mobilization to save the mosque or reach the site on December 6 to confront the Hindutva goons? Never! In fact, they trusted the RSS to honor the commitment made to the then-Indian Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao and the Indian Supreme Court that its appendages and cadres would not harm the mosque. RSS reneged on all commitments shamelessly. Indian State and judiciary remained silent spectators. How brazenly Indian Muslims were cheated would be evident by the fact that Rao promised to rebuild Babri Mosque at its original place, which was reneged too!

The Ram Temple at Ayodhya is nothing but the culmination of an anti-Indian Muslim campaign launched by RSS since its inception in 1925.

Top photo, the demolition of Babri Masjid on Dec. 6, 1992, Photo by T. Narayan, courtesy The Wire)Top photo, the demolition of Babri Masjid on Dec. 6, 1992, Photo by T. Narayan, courtesy The Wire)

Shamsul Islam is a former associate professor of Political Science at Delhi University. He is known for his fundamental research work on the rise of nationalism and its development in India and around the world. He has authored multiple books on Hindu Nationalism, the RSS, and the erosion of secularism in India.

With thanks to American Kahani:

https://americankahani.com/perspectives/debunking-myths-a-critical-analysis-of-hindu-american-foundations-ram-temple-narrative/

The post Debunking Myths: A Critical Analysis of Hindu American Foundation’s Ram Temple Narrative appeared first on SabrangIndia.

March the 23rd (2016) is the 85th anniversary of the martyrdom of three of India’s great revolutionaries, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, who were hanged at Lahore for working to overthrow the colonial, ‘firangee’ government. The British government thought that with the physical elimination of these freedom fighters their ideas and dreams of a secular and egalitarian independent India would also dissipate and disappear. The rulers were patently wrong as these revolutionaries and heir ideals continue to be an integral part of the people’s memory, their exploits sung far and wide in people’s lore.

On this 85th anniversary of their martyrdom we should remember, and not overlook the fact, that though it was the British colonial powers who hanged them, there were at the time organisations like Hindu Mahasabha, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Muslim League in pre-1947 India which not only remained alien to the ideals of these revolutionaries but also maintained a criminal silence on their hanging.

It is both comic, ironical and shocking therefore that, of these three communal outfits, it is the RSS — which consciously kept itself completely aloof from the anti-colonial struggle –that has, of late, laid claim to the tradition and contributions of these great revolutionaries. Literature is being produced and the discourse too seeks to appropriate them with false a-historic linkages to Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev.

During the NDA I regime when its two senior swayamsewaks, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishan Advani ruled the country, they had made the astonishing claim that Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, founder of the RSS met Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev in 1925 and continued attending meetings with these revolutionaries and even provided shelter to Rajguru in 1927 when he was underground after killing Sanders.[i]

In 2007, for the first time in its history, the Hindi organ of the RSS, Panchjanya came out with a special issue on Bhagat Singh. In the whole body of pre-Partition literature of RSS we do not find even a single reference to these martyrs. In fact, RSS literature of the contemporaneous period, is full of anecdotes showing its indifference to revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

Madhukar Dattatreya Deoras, known as Balasahab Deoras, the third chief of the RSS, narrated an incident when Hedgewar saved him and others from following the path of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. Interestingly, this appeared in a publication of RSS itself:
“While studying in college (we) youth were generally attracted towards the ideals of revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh. Emulating Bhagat Singh we should do some or other act of bravery, this came to our mind often. We were less attracted towards Sangh (RSS) since current politics, revolution etc. that attracted the hearts of youth were generally less discussed in the Sangh. When Bhagat Singh and his companions were awarded death sentence, at that time our hearts were so excited that some friends together [we] vowed to do something directly and planned something terrible and in order to make it succeed decided to run away from homes. But to run away without informing our Doctorji [Hedgewar] will not be proper, considering it we decided to inform Doctorji about our decision. To inform this fact to Doctorji was assigned to me by the group of friends.

“We together went to Doctorji and with great courage I explained my feelings before him. After listening to our plan Doctorji took a meeting of ours for discarding this foolish plan and making us to realize the superiority of the work of Sangh. This meeting continued for seven days and in the night from ten to three. The brilliant ideas of Doctorji and his valuable leadership brought fundamental change in our ideas and ideals of life. Since that day we took leave of mindlessly made plans and our lives got new direction and our mind got stabilized in the work of Sangh.”[ii]

Moreover there is ample proof available in the documents of the RSS that establish that the RSS denounced movements led by revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekar Azad and their associates. There are passages in theBunch of Thoughts [collection of speeches and writings of Golwalkar treated as a holy book by the RSS cadres] decrying the whole tradition of martyrs:
“There is no doubt that such men who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them.”[iii]
Golwalkar goes on to tell the RSS cadres that only those people should be adored who have been successful in their lives:
“It is obvious that those who were failures in life must have had some serious drawback in them. How can one, who is defeated, give light and lead others to success?”[iv]

In the whole body of pre-Partition literature of RSS we do not find even a single reference to these martyrs. In fact, RSS literature of the contemporaneous period, is full of anecdotes showing its indifference to revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

In fact, Golwalkar’s book has a chapter titled ‘Worshippers of Victory’ in which he openly commits to the fact that he and RSS worship only those who are victorious.
“Let us now see what type of great lives have been worshipped in this land. Have we ever idealised those who were a failure in achieving life’s goal? No, never. Our tradition has taught us to adore and worship only those who have proved fully successful in their life-mission. A slave of circumstances has never been our ideal. The hero who becomes the master of the situation, changes it by sheer dint of his calibre[sic] and character and wholly succeeds in achieving his life’s aspirations, has been our ideal. It is such great souls, who by their self-effulgence, lit up the dismal darkness surrounding all round, inspired confidence in frustrated hearts, breathed life into the near-dead and held aloft the living vision of success and inspiration, that our culture commands us to worship.”[v]

Golwalkar did not name Bhagat Singh but according to his philosophy of life since Bhagat Singh and his companions did not succeed in achieving their goal they did not deserve any respect. According to his formula the British rulers would and should be the natural object of worship as they were able to kill revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

It is difficult to find a statement more insulting and denigrating to the martyrs of the Indian Freedom Movement than this.

It will be shocking for any Indian who loves and respects the martyrs of the Freedom Movement to know what Dr. Hedgewar and the RSS felt about the revolutionaries fighting against the British. According to his biography published by the RSS, “Patriotism is not only going to prison. It is not correct to be carried away by such superficial patriotism. He used to urge that while remaining prepared to die for the country when the time came, it is very necessary to have a desire to live while organizing for the freedom of the country.”[vi]

‘Shameful’ is too mild a word to describe the attitude of the RSS towards these young freedom fighters, who had sacrificed their all in the struggle against the British colonial powers. The last Mughal ruler of India, Bahadurshah Zafar, had emerged as the rallying point and symbol of the Great War of Independence of 1857. Golwalkar while making fun of him said:
“In 1857, the so-called last emperor of India had given the clarion call—Ghazio mein bu rahegi jub talak eeman ki/Takhte London tak chalegi tegh Hindustan ki (As long as there remains the least trace of love of faith in the hearts of our heroes, so long, the sword of Hindustan will reach the throne of London.) But ultimately what happened? Everybody knows that.”[vii]

What Golwalkar thought of the people sacrificing their lot for the country is obvious from the following statement as well. He had the temerity to ask the great revolutionaries who wished to lay down their lives for the freedom of the motherland the following question (as if he was representing the British masters):
“But one should think whether complete national interest is accomplished by that? Sacrifice does not lead to increase in the thinking of the society of giving all for the interest of the nation. It is borne by the experience up to now that this fire in the heart is unbearable to the common people.”[viii]

Perhaps this was the reason that RSS produced no freedom fighter, not to mention no martyr in the movement against the colonial rule. Unfortunately, there is not a single line challenging, exposing, criticising or confronting the inhuman rule of the British masters in the entire literature of the RSS from 1925 to 1947. Those who are familiar with the glorious Freedom Struggle of India and sacrifices of martyrs like Bhagat Singh must challenge this evil appropriation of our heroes by the Hindutva camp which betrayed the liberation struggle. We should not allow these communal stooges of the British rulers to kill Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev once again.

(The author taught political science at the University of Delhi. He is a well known writer and columnist)

The post Bhagat Singh, the Tradition of Martrydom and Hindutva appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols.”                       

Supreme Court of India (Ayodhya Judgment dated November 9, 2019) [pgs. 921-22]

The idol of Ram Lalla (Ram as child) which was placed under the central dome of in the Babri Mosque (claimed to be the exact spot where Bhagwan Ram took birth) was made of metal and was of nine inches tall. It was the idol which was worshipped that time onwards and continued to be worshipped after the demolition of the Babri Mosque on December 6, 1992 in the make-shift temple made by a section of Hindus.

However, on January 22, 2024 a 51-inch stone idol of Ram Lalla will now be consecrated through a Brahmanical  ritual called as ‘pran-pratishtha’ (putting soul into an idol) ceremony ) in the newly built Ram Temple at Ayodhya. 

“On January 22, 2024, PM Narendra Modi will perform the Pran Pratishtha ceremony under the guidance of Pandit [‘Ayodhya Ram Mandir: Know Pran Pratishtha Ceremony details here’, The Times of India, Delhi, January 05, 2024.]

Since it is the prime minister of a democratic-secular polity of India who is conducting this ritual, not only worshippers of Ram but common Indians too have every right to ask what will happen to the deity which from 1949 onwards worshipped as Bhagwan Ram.

Digvijaya Singh, former chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, a practising Hindus has raised the same issue by asking: “Where is the idol of Ram Lalla over which the conflict happened? Why has the old idol not been consecrated?” [‘Where is old idol of Ram Lala, asks Digvijaya, The Times of India, Delhi, December 04, 2024.]

PM Modi must take the nation in confidence about the status of the already consecrated idol of Ram. Will there be two consecrated idols in the Ram Temple or old idol will be deprived of ‘pran’ or its soul? Is there going to be a ‘pran a-paratishtha’ (depriving the idol of soul) ritual for the discarded idol?

Swami Dayanand Saraswati on idol consecration

Both the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and PM Modi glorify the founder of Arya Samaj, Swami Dayanand Saraswati as harbinger of the Hindu nation. It is interesting to know what Swami said about idol worship and the consecration of idols. All those interested must read chapter 11 of his masterpiece, Satyarth Prakash (Light of Truth).

In this book dealing with this issue he raised following issues which RSS and Modi must need respond:

“If as you say that the God comes into the image when invoked, why does not the idol show signs of consciousness and why does not the image also leave when the God is asked to depart? Whence does it come and here does it go? The fact of the matter is that the All-pervading Spirit can neither come into and idol, nor, leave it. If you mantras are efficacious that you can summon God, why can you not infuse life into your dead son by the force of the very same mantras? Again why can you not bide the soul depart from the body of your enemy?”

“The soul is possessed of consciousness, while idol is dead and inert. Do you mean to say that the soul should also lose its consciousness and become lifeless like the idol? Idol worship is a fraud.”

“Being All-pervading He cannot be imagined to exist in any particular object only. To hold to the contrary would be tantamount to believing that the sovereign Lord of the earth rules over a small cottage to the exclusion of His whole Empire and would be an insult to Him. In like manner, it is a blasphemy against God to imagine Him as existing in one particular object only… If as you say that the God comes into the image when invoked, why does not the idol show signs of consciousness and why does not the image also leave when the God is asked to depart? Whence does it come and here does it go? The fact of the matter is that the All-pervading Spirit can neither come into and idol, nor, leave it. If you mantras are efficacious that you can summon God, why can you not infuse life into your dead son by the force of the very same mantras? Again why can you not bide the soul depart from the body of your enemy?”

“There is not a single verse in the Vedas to sanction invocation of the Deity and vitalization of the idol, likewise there is nothing to indicate that it is right to invoke idols, to bathe them, to install them in temples and apply sandal paste to them.”

“The formless Supreme Spirit that pervades the universe can have no material representation, likeness or image.” YAJUR VEDA 32: 3.”

Destruction of Ram Temple by Muslims: A fact not known even to Goswami Tulsidas who lived at the time

It is no ordinary religious inauguration of a grand Ram Temple in Ayodhya that is slated for January 22, 2024. It has clear political and polarising agenda attached to it. Underling this character of the inauguration PM Modi declared that “Ram Bhakts have waited for 550 years” to see it happen.

‘Celebrate Diwali across country on January 22, on the day of Ram temple ceremony:

[PM Modi at Ayodhya’, The Indian Express, Delhi, December 31, 2023]

It is not only in India but almost 60 foreign countries where Hindutva organizations are active amongst Hindus; the January 22 is to be celebrated because “After 500 years of struggle by Hindus, Bhagwan Shri Ram Mandir is being inaugurated.” The thrust of the celebration programmes is that Ram Temple at Ayodhya is finally built after being destroyed by Muslims 500 hundred years back. It has been 500 year long struggle to see it happen, is their politicized belief.

[‘Hindu Americans organise car rally in Washington suburb to celebrate Ram Mandir inauguration’.]

Such claims by an Indian prime minister and his supremacist, Hindutva co-fellows in the world are only spreading hatred against Muslims with this act and thus contributing to the Islamophobic narrative in India and abroad. Sadly, such statements are not only are in contempt of the Supreme Court Judgment on Ayodhya but also contradict the ‘Hindu’ narrative of history.

It may be interesting to note that RSS archives have no document to show that since its inception in 1925, during British rule, has the organisation ever articulated the demand for building of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya.

The Indian Supreme Court — in its 1039 page long judgment — did not conclude that the Babri Mosque was built on the ruins of any Ram Temple. It is sad that while religious poison is being spread openly the Supreme Court remains a mute spectator while its findings are being mis-reported.

So far as the ‘Hindu’ narrative is concerned there is no mention of it in the writings of the most prominent worshipper of Ram to date, Goswami Tulsidas who lived between 1511-1623. He was the person who penned the Epic, Ramacharitmanas (Lake of the Deeds of Ram) in the Avadhi language which angered the local Brahmins as the story of Ram was not written in Sanskrit. It was this work which mesmerized Hindus from all over India and the story of Lord Ram travelled to every Hindu home becoming a household name, especially in northern India. He penned his above mentioned work during the period, 1575-76.

According to the 1980s’ recreated Hindutva version, Babur ‘destroyed the birthplace of Ram’ during this period, 1538-1539. Thus, Ramacharitmanas written almost 37 years after the so called destruction of Ram birth-place temple should have mentioned this destruction. But it has not.

Are Hindutva zealots trying to say that the greatest story-teller and worshipper of Ram and his Court (Darbar), Tulsidas did not speak all the truth in his historic work? Is this not an attempt to question the credibility of Goswami Tulsidas? Are Hindutva zealots trying to say that Goswami Tulsidas kept mum on the issue of the destruction of a temple at Ram’s birth-place due to some ulterior motives?

Ramzade v/s Babarzade

The inauguration of Ram Temple is blatantly being used to denigrate Indian Muslims. The building of the Temple is the defeat of ‘Babarzade’ (children of Babar) by ‘Ramzade’ (children of Ram).

Hence it becomes pertinent, and urgent, to re-visit the nature of ‘Muslim’ rule in India. Hindutva zealots demanding Muslim-free India must know that all ‘Muslim’ rulers survived only because of the alliance of the Hindu privileged caste elites joining hands with the ‘Muslim’ rulers in running their empires. How solid this unity was can be gauged by the fact that after Akbar no Mughal emperor was born of a Muslim mother! Alliances meant marriages of allegiance, across faiths.

Moreover, Hindu privileged castes provided brain and muscle to the ‘Muslim’ rulers faithfully. Likewise, Mughal rule established by Babar who was invited by a section of Hindu kings to seize India was the rule of both Babar and Hindu privileged castes, too.

Aurobindo Ghose who played prominent role in providing Hindu foundation to the Indian nationalism has confessed that Mughal rule continued for over a century due to the fact that Mughal rulers gave Hindus, “positions of power and responsibility, used their brain and arm to preserve” their kingdom.

[Cited in Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 3, Publication Division Government of India, Delhi, 1992, p. 162.]

Renowned historian Tara Chand relying on primary historical source material of the medieval period concluded that the from the end of 16^th century to the middle of 19^th century, “it may reasonably be concluded that in the whole of India, excepting the western Punjab, superior rights in land had come to vest in the hands of Hindus” most of whom happened to be Rajputs.

[Chand, Tara, History of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. 1, Publication Division  Government of India, Delhi, 1961, p. 124.]

Contemporary records prove that Aurangzeb rule was also the rule of Rajputs and Kshatriyas [members of the two of the four Hindu Castes in order of precedence after Brahmins]. Aurangzeb never faced Shivaji in the battle-field. It was his commander-in-chief, a Rajput ruler of Amer (Rajasthan), Jay Singh I (1611–1667) who was sent to subjugate Shivaji (1603-1680). Jay Singh II (1681-1743), (nephew of Jay Singh I) was other prominent Rajput commander of the Mughal forces who served Aurangzeb. He was conferred the title of ‘Sawai’ [one and a quarter times superior to his contemporaries] chief by Aurangzeb in 1699 and thus came to be known as Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh. Jai Singh I was also given the title of Mirza Raja [a Persian title for a royal prince] by Aurangzeb. The other titles bestowed on him by other Mughal rulers were ‘Sarmad-i-Rajaha-i-Hind’ [eternal ruler of India], ‘Raj Rajeshvar’ [lord of kings] and ‘Shri Shantanu ji’ [wholesome king]. These titles are displayed by his descendants even today. This Rajput chief also gave his daughter in marriage to the son of Aurangzeb who became Mughal emperor after Aurangzeb.

Rajput commanders fighting for Aurangzeb were no exception. Akbar’s battles against Rana Pratap were led by one of his brothers-in-law, Maan Singh. Maasir al-Umara a biographical dictionary of the officers in the Mughal Empire beginning from 1556 to 1780

[Akbar to Shah Alam is regarded as the most authentic record of the high rank officials employed by the Mughal kings].

According to it Mughal rulers during this period employed around 100 (out of 365) Hindu high-ranking officials most of them being “Rajputs from Rajputana, the midlands, Bundelkhand and Maharashtra”. Brahmins followed Rajputs in manning the Mughal administration so far as the number was concerned.

[Khan, Shah Nawaz, Abdul Hai, Maasir al-Umara [translated by H Beveridge as Mathir-ul-Umra], volumes 1& 2, Janaki Prakashan, Patna, 1979.] Interestingly, Kashi Nagri Pracharini Sabha [established in 1893] “committed to the cause of Hindi as official language” published Hindi translation of this book in 1931.

Another crucial fact which is consciously kept under wrap is that despite more than 500 hundreds of effective ‘Muslim’ rule which according to Hindutva historians was nothing but a project of annihilating Hindus or forcibly converting the latter to Islam, India remained a nation with an absolute Hindu majority.

The British colonial rulers held first census in 1871-72. It was the time when even ceremonial ‘Muslim’ rule was over. According to the Census report: “The population of British India is, in round numbers, divided into 140½ million [sic] of Hindoos (including Sikhs), or 73½ per cent., 40¾ millions of Mahomedans, or 21½ per cent.

[Memorandum on the Census Of British India of 1871-72: Presented to both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty London, George Edward Eyre and William Spottiswoode, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office 1875, p. 16.]

A poem by Iqbal, a Babarzada eulogizing Ram

The inauguration of Ram Temple at Ayodhya is being aggressively used to declare Muslims and enemy of Ram. This kind of pervert Hindutva mind-set has little knowledge of India’s past. Mohammad Iqbal penned one of the greatest poems in praise of Ram in Urdu which was titled “Imam-e-Hind” (spiritual leader of India).

Hai Raam ke wajood pe Hindustaan ko naaz
Ahl-e-Nazar samajhte hain us ko Imam-e-Hind
(India is proud of the existence of Ram
Spiritual people consider him prelate of India)

It is quite evident that he does not believe that Ram is leader of Hindus alone, otherwise he would have used the word Ahl-e-Hind (people of India) rather than Ahl-e-Nazar (people with vision). For him, the status of Lord Ram as a spiritual leader is not limited to the Vaishnavas or Hindus only. Lord Ram lives in the ethos of India and its people.

Talwar ka dhani tha, shujaat mai fard tha
Paakeegi mai, josh-e-muhabbat mai fard tha

(He was expert in sword craft, was unique in bravery
Was matchless in piety and in the enthusiasm of love)
Iqbal saw in Ram a perfect role model for the national movement. He is brave, and can fight wars against any wrong.

Iqbal, accords Ram not only the status of philosophical fountain head of India but of the world.
Sab falsafi hain khita-e-maghrib ke Ram-e-Hind
(All philosophers of the west would have acknowledged India and are fans of Ram).

Deepavali for Ram or PM Modi?

Deepavali (Festival of Lights) is the most popular Hindu festival in most parts of India. Deepavali is the celebration of Ram’s return to his kingdom with wife Sita and his brother Lakshman after defeating Ravan of Lanka. It is celebrated as victory of truth over evil.

Now Deepavali for Ram has a competitor which can be named as PM Modi’s Deepavali. Modi declared this plan during a roadshow in Ayodhya on December 31, 2023. According to him,

“The whole world is waiting for the historic moment. With folded hands, I am requesting 140 crore people of the country that on January 22, when the consecration of Ramlalla’s idol takes place, light the Ram Jyoti in your house and celebrate Deepawali. The entire country should sparkle with lights on the evening of January 22.”

[‘Celebrate Diwali across country on January 22, on the day of Ram temple ceremony: PM Modi at Ayodhya’, The Indian Express, Delhi, January 01, 2024]

Thus Deepavali for Ram is being substituted by Deepavali for PM Modi when he appears in the attire of a rishi or Brahmin saint to put soul into the life-less idol of Ram. Interestingly, the Hindutva zealots have taken this call very seriously by calling Hindus to celebrate January 22 as Maha-Deepavali (Great Deepavali); Deepavali for Ram and Maha-Deepavali  for PM Modi!

Who’s Ram? Ordinary Indians banned from participating in the consecration ceremony

Ram is known for protecting his people; upholding righteousness, compassion and kindness. Ram is equated with ordinary mortals, women/men. His rule is described as Ram Rajya or a rule for the benefit of all people. According to Gandhi it essentially meant, “The land of dharma and a realm of peace, harmony and happiness for young and old, high and low, all creatures and the earth itself, in recognition of a shared universal consciousness.”

However, these ordinary Hindus who will not be allowed to join the ceremony on January 22. This was made clear by none other than PM Modi who asked “common worshippers of Ram not to crowd Ayodhya on January 22”. He told them to come later at their convenience because “this time the navya, bhavya, divya (new, grand, divine) temple in Ayodhya is not going anywhere and ‘darshan’ will be available for centuries”.

Sadly, PM Modi did not ask the rich, film actors, industrialists, leading sports persons to postpone their date with Ayodhya. In fact, the January 22 celebratory participation has been restricted to a galaxy of Very-Very-Very Important Persons (VVIPs). PM Modi overlooked the fact that the first invites should have gone to those poor worshippers of Ram who despite a miserable life had contributed to the coffers of VHP for building Ram Temple. It may be relevant here to know that many of the invitees are not only meat-eaters but have been fond of beef.

Supreme Court Ayodhya judgment: Riddles with contradictions

After holding that the destruction of the Babri Masjid in full public view on December 6, 1992 was a “crime”, the Supreme Court of India recognized the “faith” behind this project with clear political overtones, and allowed a to be constructed Temple Trust to pave the way for this temple. Arguably, it was this judgement that has cleared the roadmap to January 2022.

1. “The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship.” [Supreme Court Judgment pp. 921-22]
2. “On December 6, 1992, the structure of the mosque was brought down and the mosque was destroyed. The destruction of the mosque took place in breach of the order of status quo and an assurance given to this The destruction of the mosque and the obliteration of the Islamic structure was an egregious violation of the rule of law.” [Supreme Court Judgment pp. 913-14]
3. The Judgment also nowhere mentioned that Babri Mosque was built after destroying a Ram Temple in the past. Despite these findings which talked of “[The] egregious violation of the rule of law” and done not by a “lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship”, Supreme Court proceeded to –rather inexplicably — handing over the site for Ram Temple building to the same group of Hindutva organisation who had committed the same egregious violation of the rule of law. To ensure that no other organisation is allowed participation in this Ram Temple project, the court disallowed the claim of Nirmohi Akhada, ironically the original claimants of the Ram Temple at the site! [Supreme Court Judgment p. 925].

This is how the current Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud (who was one of the Justices in the Bench which gave unanimous judgment for building Ram Temple) described the judgement, “”The case has a long history of conflict, of diverse viewpoints based on the history of the nation and all those who were part of the bench decided that this will be a judgment of the court.”

[‘A judgment of court’: CJI Chandrachud on why Ayodhya verdict was kept anonymous’ The Week, Delhi, January 1, 2024.

His statement in no way show cased what the judgement stated on the crime of demolition (Babri Masjid) nor what the court itself had stated on the Muslim claims to the site. Made three weeks before the much publicized consecration ceremony, it also in many ways legitimized the actions of both 1949 and 1992!

Conclusion

Today, Ayodhya – a site of rich myth, lore, faith and culture– is tragically being refashioned as a symbol of a perpetual war of (sections of) Hindus against Muslims. There cannot be a more pathetic lie than this.

During India’s War of Independence 1857 Ayodhya it was the same Ayodhya where Maulvis and Mahants and common Hindu-Muslims stood united in rebelling against the British rule and kissed the hangman’s noose together. Maulana Ameer Ali was a famous Maulvi of Ayodhya and when Ayodhya’s well-known Hanuman Garhi’s (Hanuman Temple) priest Baba Ramcharan Das, also took the lead in organizing the armed resistance to the British rule, Maulana also joined the revolutionary army. In one battle with the British and their stooges, both of them were captured and hanged together on a tamarind tree at the Kuber Teela (razed for the new temple) in Ayodhya.

This region also produced two other great friends and compatriots, belonging to different religions that made life hell for the British sponsored armies. Acchhan Khan and Shambhu Prasad Shukla were two such friends who lead the army of Raja Devibaksh Singh in the district of Faizabad. Both of them were able to defeat the Firangee (foreign) army in many battles, inflicting heavy losses on them. It was due to the treachery again that they were captured. In order to desist anyone from such companionships between Hindus and Muslims both these friends were publicly inflicted prolonged torture and their heads were cruelly filed off.

Supremacist Hindutva rulers of India led by PM Modi must understand that the essence and existence of Indian democratic-secular polity must not be sacrificed at the altar of a self-serving politics that seeks to garner votes for narrow gain.

Related:

Sanatan Shankryacharyas’ voice concerns over January 22 Ram Mandir event

Breaking: Religion a personal matter, BJP politicising Ram Temple: Congress declines invite to inauguration

Is the Congress anti-Hindu or anti Hindutva?

The post Riddles of Ayodhya Ram Temple: Consecration of Bhagwan Ram’s idol, but which one? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Namaskaar!

September 27, 2023

Respected Hindu VC of JNU,

I hope that the following report in one of the leading English dailies of India did not misreport you when it stated that “Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Vice-Chancellor (VC), Santishree Pandit while speaking at a book launch function on September 17, 2023 at Pune where RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat was present on the dais, said, ‘I am proud to be a Hindu and belong to the Sangh [RSS].’”

Since the above report has not been contradicted, I am not sorry to state that it was a disturbing e statement coming from an educationist who heads a university that has stood second best in the national rankings of 2022 and was named after the first prime minister of India, a democratic-egalitarian of Indian polity.

Some important questions that eagerly await your answers are:

1. Were you were appointed the VC of JNU because you were an educationist or a proud Hindu? If you were appointed as an Indian educationist (if it was otherwise, I seek no response) then why you need to identify your religious identity on a public platform in which you participated as the VC of JNU?
2. By declaring yourself as the “Hindu VC of JNU” have you not divided the all-inclusive JNU fraternity of being Indian into separate religious groupings? If you are the Hindu VC then what is the identity of Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains and Christians present as teachers, students and non-teaching employees of the University? Should they also be known as per their religious identities?

Is this not what just Mohammed Ali Jinnah believed and practiced, resulting in Partition?

Respected Madam,

You not only declared yourself to be a proud Hindu but also proud to be belonging to the Sangh. I am sure by Sangh you meant RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh). Do I need to remind you that RSS since its inception has hated everything which represented an all-inclusive democratic-egalitarian-secular united India/Bharat?

Let me take you on a tour of RSS archives so that there is no complaint of misrepresentation.

RSS denigrated the Tricolour

Respected VC,

As an Indian you must be familiar with the fact that the Tri-colour as the National Flag represents Indian nation. It was this flag carrying which thousands Indian patriots laid down their live as during the British rule it was crime to unfurl it in public. How much RSS hated it can be known by the following denigration of the Flag in its English organ, Organizer just on the eve of Independence (August 14, 1947):

“The people who have come to power by the kick of fate may give in our hands the Tricolour but it never [sic] be respected and owned by Hindus. The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country.”

RSS betrayed India’s Freedom Struggle

Respected Madam,

The non-cooperation Movement (1920-22) and the Quit India Movement (1942) were two great milestones in the history of the Indian Freedom Movement but RSS kept aloof not only from these but any other anti-colonial campaign. Guru Golwalkar, the most prominent ideologue of the RSS shamelessly denigrated these movements in the following words:

“Definitely there are bound to be bad results of struggle. The boys became unruly after the 1920-21 movement. It is not an attempt to throw mud at the leaders. But these are inevitable products after the struggle. The matter is that we could not properly control these results. After 1942, people often started thinking that there was no need to think of the law.”⁸

[Shri Guruji Samagr Darshan [Collected works of MS Golwalkar in Hindi in 7 volumes], vol. iv, BhartiyamVichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p. 41. Hereafter referred to as SGSD.]

Thus Guru Golwalkar wanted the Indians to respect the draconian and repressive laws of the inhuman British rulers! After the 1942 Movement he further admitted,

“In 1942 also there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time too the routine work of Sangh continued. Sangh vowed not to do anything directly. However, upheaval (uthal-puthal) in the minds of Sangh volunteers continued. Sangh is an organisation of inactive persons, their talks are useless, not only outsiders but also many of our volunteers did talk like this. They were greatly disgusted too.” [SGSD, p. 40.]

Guruji also tells us that RSS did nothing directly. However, there is not a single publication or document of the RSS which throws light on what the RSS did even indirectly for the Quit India Movement. During this period, in fact, its mentor, ‘Veer’ Savarkar, ran coalition governments with the Muslim League.

RSS denigrates martyrs of India’s Freedom Struggle

Respected Madam,

I would like to know your views on the statements of ‘Guruji’ decrying and denigrating the tradition of martyrdom following which Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekar Azad, Ashfaqullah Khan, Ram Prasad Bismil and countless other patriotic Indians laid down their lives for the independence our Motherland. Here is a passage from the chapter, ‘Martyr, great but not ideal’ from Bunch of Thoughts, a veritable Geeta for RSS cadres such as yourself.

“There is no doubt that such men who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them.”

[Golwalkar, MS., Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu Prakashana, Bangalore, 1996 edition, p. 283.]

Could there be a statement more insulting to the martyrs than this? The founder of the RSS, Dr. KB Hedgewar, went one step further: “Patriotism is not only going to prison. It is not correct to be carried away by such superficial patriotism.” [CP Bhishikar, CP., Sanghavariksh Ke Beej: Dr. Keshavrao Hedgewar, Suruchi, 1994, p. 21.]

Don’t you feel, Madam, that if martyrs like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev, Ashfaqullah, Chandrashekhar Azad had come in contact with the then RSS leadership, they could have been saved from giving their lives for ‘superficial patriotism’? This also must be the reason why RSS leaders or cadres did not face repression during British rule and the RSS did not produce not a single martyr during the Freedom Movement.

RSS’ hatred for democracy

VC Madam,

You will agree with me that it is due to our democratic and egalitarian polity that you have become the administrator of the 2^nd best University of India. But if Guru Golwalkar had his say it would not have been possible. Guruji hated democracy as per his following decree which he presented before a group of 1,350 top level cadres of the RSS in 1940 at the RSS Headquarters: “RSS inspired by one flag, one leader and one ideology is lighting the flame of Hindutva in each and every corner of this great land” [SGSD, vol. I, p. 11.]

As a leading intellectual you must be familiar with the fact that decree of rule under ‘one flag, one leader and one ideology’ was also the battle cry of the Fascist and Nazi parties of Europe in the first half of 20th century. What they did to democracy is well-known to this world!

For RSS Hinduism and Casteism are synonymous

Respected Madam, allow me to ask whether you like RSS believe that Hinduism and Casteism are one and same. The most prominent ideologue of RSS, Guru Golwalkar stated:

“The Virat Purusha, the Almighty manifesting himself…[according to Purusha Sukta] sun and moon are his eyes, the stars and the skies are created from his nabhi [navel] and Brahmin is the head, Kshatriya the hands, Vaishya the thighs and Shudra the feet. This means that the people who have this fourfold arrangement, i.e., the Hindu People, is [sic] our God. This supreme vision of Godhead is the very core of our concept of ‘nation’ and has permeated our thinking and given rise to various unique concepts of our cultural heritage.” [Golwalkar, MS., Bunch of Thoughts, Sahitya Sindhu Prakashana, Bangalore, 1996 edition, pp. 36-37.]

For this infallible belief in Casteism RSS strongly demanded that Manusmriti should replace the Indian Constitution. When the Constituent Assembly of India finalized the Constitution of India under the guidance of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on November 26, 1949, RSS was not happy. Its organ, Organiser, in an editorial four days later complained:

“But in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.” [Organizer, Delhi, November 30, 1949.]

Respected VC Madam,

I am reproducing a selection from Manusmriti for your kind reference and would like to know whether you also believe in these decrees of the Manu Code. These dehumanizing and degenerate laws, which are presented here, are self-explanatory.

Laws of Manu Concerning Sudras

1.  For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds (the divine one) caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thighs and his feet.
2.  One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudras, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes.
3.  Once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.
4.  If he mentions the names and castes (jati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.
5.  If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears.
6.  With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu.
7.  He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off.
8.  A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed.
9.  Let him never slay a Brahmana, though he have committed all (possible) crimes; let him banish such an (offender), leaving all his property (to him) and (his body) unhurt.

Laws of Manu Concerning Women

1.  Day and night, the woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control.
2.  Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.
3.  Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations, however trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families.
4.  Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives.
5.  No man can completely guard women by force; but they can be guarded by the employment of the (following) expedients:
6.  Let the (husband) employ his (wife) in the collection and expenditure of his wealth, in keeping (everything) clean, in (the fulfillment of) religious duties, in the preparation of his food, and in looking after the household utensils.
7.  Women, confined in the house under trustworthy and obedient servants, are not (well) guarded; but those who of their own accord keep guard over themselves, are well guarded.
8.  Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly.
9.  Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world).
10.  (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct.
11.  For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule.

Do I need to remind you that these laws are for Hindus? I would like to remind you that a copy of Manusmriti was burnt as a protest in the presence of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during historic Mahad agitation on December 25, 1927.

RSS celebrated assassination of Gandhiji

Respected Madam,

I hope you know that Nathuram Godse and others who conspired to kill Gandhiji, claimed to be ‘Hindu Nationalists’. They described killing as something ordained by God. RSS celebrated his killing by distributing sweets was the finding of none other than the first home minister of India, Sardar Patel. In a letter written to Golwalkar on September 11, 1948, Sardar stated:

“Organising the Hindus and helping them is one thing but going in for revenge for its sufferings on innocent and helpless men, women and children is quite another thing…Apart from this, their opposition to the Congress, that too of such virulence, disregarding all considerations of personality, decency or decorum, created a kind of unrest among the people. All their speeches were full of communal poison. It was not necessary to spread poison in order to enthuse the Hindus and organize for their protection. As a final result of the poison, the country had to suffer the sacrifice of the invaluable life of Gandhiji. Even an iota of the sympathy of the Government, or of the people, no more remained for the RSS. In fact opposition grew. Opposition turned more severe, when the RSS men expressed joy and distributed sweets after Gandhiji’s death.”

[Justice on Trial, RSS, Bangalore, 1962, pp. 26-28.]

Respected VC Madam, since you claim to be a proud member of the RSS, the Indian academic fraternity specially the JNU one would like to know if you are ashamed of this criminal role of RSS in the assassination of Gandhiji. You cannot be neutral on this issue.

RSS believes that south Indian Hindus belong to an inferior race

VC Madam,

You claim to be a proud Hindu and a proud member of the Sangh. You also happen to be from South India. Do you know that RSS believes that the Race Hindus of South India needed to be improved? I am reproducing a speech of Guru Golwalkar on this issue in context of Kerala Hindus. He was invited to address the students of the School of Social Science of Gujarat University on December 17, 1960. In this address, while underlying his firm belief in the Race Theory, he touched upon the issue of cross-breeding of human beings in the Indian society in history. He shamelessly stated:

“Today experiments in cross-breeding are made only on animals. But the courage to make such experiments on human beings is not shown even by the so-called modern scientist of today. If some human cross-breeding is seen today it is the result not of scientific experiments but of carnal lust. Now let us see the experiments our ancestors made in this sphere. In an effort to better the human species through cross-breeding the Namboodri Brahamanas of the North were settled in Kerala and a rule was laid down that the eldest son of a Namboodri family could marry only the daughter of Vaishya, Kashtriya or Shudra communities of Kerala. Another still more courageous rule was that the first off-spring of a married woman of any class must be fathered by a Namboodri Brahman and then she could beget children by her husband. Today this experiment will be called adultery but it was not so, as it was limited to the first child.” [M. S. Golwalkar cited in Organizer, January 2, 1961.]

Through this brazen Racist statement made not in the presence of some lumpen elements but an august gathering of leading Gujarat academics Guruji argued that Brahmans of the North (India) and specially Namboodri Brahamans, belonged to a superior race. Due to this quality, Namboodri Brahamanas were sent from the North to Kerala to improve the breed of inferior Hindus there. Interestingly, this was being argued by a person who claimed to uphold the unity of Hindus world over. Thirdly, Golwalkar as a male chauvinist believed that a Namboodri Brahman male belonging to a superior Race from the North only could improve the inferior human Race from South. For him wombs of Kerala’s Hindu women enjoyed no sanctity and were simply objects of improving breed through intercourse with Namboodri Brahamanas who in no way were related to them.

Please respond to it, Madam VC! Do you uphold such supremacist views of Golwalkar, the most prominent ideologue of RSS?

Within the RSS male cadres are swayamsevaks (volunteers) but female cadres are sevikas (servants/maids) **

Respected Santishree Pandit Madam,

When you declare that you are proud member of the Sangh, you must be familiar with the organisational structure of RSS (the English equivalent being national volunteer association) is an exclusive male organization. The female organization was created in 1936 with the name, Rashtr Sevika Samiti (the English equivalent being society of female servants/maids for the nation). Thus male members are all India volunteers whereas female members are female servants. It is not the only difference. The Sevikas take oath to remain faithful, modest, guard virginity and honour but no such oath is prescribed for RSS cadres.

Madam, please enlighten us about your take on this naked male chauvinistic attitude of the Sangh. You owe this explanation to the nation as a woman too! Is not it a fact that Sangh and Islamic chauvinists are two sides of the same coin so far as denigration of women is concerned?

I would end by requesting your kind self to respond to the above issues as fate of one of the best Universities and future of Indian higher education is at stake. I have relied solely on RSS archives for bringing to your kind notice the anti-humanism, anti-colonial struggle and anti- Indian democracy beliefs and actions of the Sangh. I am ready to face defamation proceedings if you find I have misquoted or reported fake RSS documents.

With regards,

Shamsul Islam

** Seva means service also and hence sevika could also be seen as meaning service in a good sense — Editors

Related:

Busted: Assam chief minister’s claim that Bajrang Dal has no links with RSS

RSS ideologues ‘wrong’; Sati wasn’t product of ‘Muslim’ rule, it existed in ancient India too

Kerala High Court bans RSS arms training in temple premises

The post An open letter to the JNU VC: Your association with RSS defies humanism, anti-colonial struggle for Indian democracy! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There could not be a more blatant lie than this one as Vedic scriptures are full of references of large scale cow-slaughter while throwing grand feast for Brahmanical gods and sages.
Swami Vivekananda, regarded as a philosopher of Hindutva by the RSS, while addressing a meeting at the Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, USA (February 2, 1900) declared: “You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it.” [Vivekananda, “The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda”, vol. 3, Advaita Ashram, Calcutta, 1997, p. 536.]

While addressing a gathering of Brahmins at Madura (now in Tamil Nadu), he stated: “There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin; you read in the Vedas how, when a Sannyasin, a king, or a great man came into a house, the best bullock was killed…” [Ibid., p. 174.]

The latest addition in this criminal trait of RSS functioning was witnessed at the University of Delhi on September 3, 2023. Krishna Gopal, Sah Sarkaryawah (general secretary), RSS addressed a gathering on women’s empowerment under the aegis of Naari Shakti Sangam.

While referring to the disempowerment of women [he meant Hindu women] in Indian history, he stated that prior to the 12th century, women were reasonably free to a great extent but with the ushering of the middle ages [medieval period]. It was a very difficult time… the entire country is struggling with subjugation.

“Temples were broken, universities destroyed and women were in danger. Lakhs of women were kidnapped and sold in international markets. (Ahmed Shah) Abdali, (Mohammed) Ghouri and (Mahmood of) Ghazni had all taken women from here and sold them…. It was an era of great humiliation. So, to protect our women, our own society put multiple restrictions on them.”

He continued to enlighten the women’s gathering that “to ensure that our girl children were safe, child marriages started. Our country had no ‘Satipratha’. There may have been a couple of examples… but (after the advent of Islamic invaders), a large number of women started committing ‘jauhar’, ‘sati’…there was no restriction on widow remarriage either”.

It is interesting to note that no female ideologue of the RSS came to deliver main address in this women’s conference. Apart from holding ‘Islamic invaders’ for evils like Sati, child marriages and opposition to widow remarriage, he warned Hindu women present at the University of Delhi conclave not to ape the Western culture, stating “kitchen was as important as becoming a scientist”. Of course, no such advisory issued to Hindu men by any of the RSS ideologues.

Krishna Gopal hid the reality that hundreds of years after the ‘Muslim’ rule, the organizations associated and affiliated with the RSS have been preaching Sati, opposing widow remarriage and human rights for Hindu women. The epic “Mahabharata” records incidents of Sati: when Pandu, a patriarch, died, his wife Madri mounted her husband’s pyre and performed Sati. And when Vasudev (father of Lord Krishna) died, his four wives immolated themselves with him.

Geeta Press, recently awarded Gandhi Peace Award by the BJP-led government has published in millions books like, “Nari Shiksha” (Education of Women) by Hanuman Prasad Poddar, “Grahsth Mein Kaise Rahen” [How to Lead a Household Life] by Swami Ramsukhdas, “Striyon ke Liye Kartawya Shiksha” (Education of Duties for Women) and “Nari Dharm” (Religion of Woman) by Jai Dayal Goindka and a special issue of magazine “Kalyan” on women. Many of these are available in English and other Indian languages.
The authors extensively quote from ancient texts like Shiva Purana and Manusmriti.

They borrow heavily from these and other ‘holy’ texts, upholding a subservient woman/wife as the ideal Hindu woman. For instance in the book titled How to Lead a Household Life which is in question-answer format, when a question is posed, ‘What should the wife do if her husband beats her and troubles her?” Swami Ramsukhdas offers the following sagely advice to the battered wife and her parents: 

“The wife should think that she is paying her debt of her previous life and thus her sins are being destroyed and she is becoming pure. When her parents come to know this, they can take her to their own house because they have not given their daughter to face this sort of bad behaviour.”

RSS leader told women’s gathering, to ensure that our girl children were safe, child marriages were started

The post RSS ideologues ‘wrong’; Sati wasn’t product of ‘Muslim’ rule, it existed in ancient India too appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Citing “government orders”, the Jal auditorium in Indore, Madhya Pradesh cancelled around March 22, 2022 an event where retired author and professor Shamsul Islam was to speak. Although Islam visited various places in Bhopal in the last two days, he said it is the first time that the government has tried to obstruct his talk.

The auditorium run by the Textile Development Trust was to speak about constitutional expectations and challenges. Islam intended to talk about freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh and Ashfaqulla Khan. However, a day before the event, the Trust sent a letter to the organisers cancelling the event.

According to NDTV, the organisers attempted one more time to avail permission for a Friday event but the owner claimed that the same cannot be done due to “unavoidable reasons”. Textile Development Trust Secretary MC Rawat told the TV news channel, in a reported fit of rage ,that it cannot go against the government and “will give his desk if asked to”.

Meanwhile, Islam told SabrangIndia that Congress leader Digvijaya Singh, who was to attend the event spoke to the administration which allegedly demanded that organisers exclude Islam from the event. Islam recently attended a press conference on March 26 to condemn the whole affair.

“What crime have I done? That I oppose the two-nation theory? And even if I am guilty of a crime, how can they suddenly cancel the event, that too on Bhagat Singh’s death anniversary? [March 23] I carry his Urdu documents to show the youth about his work,” said Islam.

The former Delhi University Political Science professor is an author, columnist, dramatist and has been writing against religious bigotry, dehumanisation, totalitarianism, and the persecution of women, Dalits and minorities. Internationally known for his fundamental research work on the rise of nationalism and its development in India and elsewhere, the ex-professor is used to mild forms of aggressions, such as a scuffle at his event where he sang Maulana Hasrat Mohani’s song about Lord Krishna.

Regarding the whole affair, Islam said, “Putting aside the Constitution, these people have even flaunted the principles of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru.”

The news has sparked anger on social media as well.

After professor Filippo Osella’s deportation from Thiruvananthapuram airport two days ago, an Indore auditorium cancels an event by Prof Shamsul Islam, citing government orders. He was travelling across the country to talk about religious harmony. https://t.co/e4sAQPjlmm

— Neyaz Farooquee (@nafsmanzer) March 26, 2022

Academic Freedom in India:

Filippo Osella deported.

DU’s Faculty of Law cancels Prashant Bhushan’s talk.

An event in Indore where Shamsul Islam was scheduled to speak is cancelled citing “govt orders”. pic.twitter.com/Z6U2u5asiY

— Charmy Harikrishnan ചാമി ഹരികൃഷ്ണൻ (@charmyh) March 26, 2022

Related:

Saffronisation of education is okay, but hijabs are out?
Is Bennett University violating students’ right to protest?
Karnataka: Two Private Pre-University colleges allow students to wear Hijab
Centre excludes overseas humanities and social science courses from SC/ST scholarship

The post MP: Scholar Shamsul Islam’s event cancelled on “gov’t orders” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 It is interesting that no such promise which has national ramifications was made in  Haryana which also goes to the polls with Maharashtra.

This promise made by the Maharashtra state BJP is shocking for two major reasons. Firstly, Savarkar cannot be honoured as a national hero given the legacy he finally leaves behind. He did start as a fighter for an all inclusive India but ended as a British stooge both ideologically and action wise. He propounded the concept of Hindutva which was synonymous with Casteism, subjugation to the British and Hindu separatism. Secondly, to tag Phules with Savarkar is a huge insult to the former who lived and died for a Caste-free and egalitarian society.  

Bharat Ratna to Savarkar amounts to denigration of Indian Matryrs of the Freedom Struggle

(1) This  ‘Veer’ (brave) icon wrote not one or two mercy petitions but six mercy petitions (1911, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1918 and 1920) to the British masters begging forgiveness for his revolutionary past.

A perusal of parts of the two mercy petitions will prove to what lower depths this ‘Veer’ consigned himself before the British rulers. 
The 1913 petition ended with the following words:

“I am ready to serve the Government in any capacity they like, for as my conversion is conscientious so I hope my future conduct would be. By keeping me in jail nothing can be got in comparison to what would be otherwise. The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and therefore where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the Government? Hoping your Honour will kindly take into notion these points.”

His mercy petition of 1920 was also a comprehensive one which offered total surrender. It submitted:

“Whether you believe it or not, I am sincere in expressing my earnest intention of treading the constitutional path and trying my humble best to render the hands of the British dominion a bond of love and respect and of mutual help. Such an Empire, as is foreshadowed in the Proclamation, wins my hearty adherence. For verily I hate no race or creed or people simply because they are not Indians!”

He went on to promise that 

“if the Government wants a further security from me then I and my brother are perfectly willing to give a pledge of not participating in politics for a definite and reasonable period that the Government would indicate…of remaining in a particular province or reporting our movements to the police for a definite period after our release – any such reasonable conditions meant genuinely to ensure the safety of the State would be gladly accepted by me and my brother… The brilliant prospects of my early life all but too soon blighted, have constituted so painful a source of regret to me that a release would be a new birth and would touch my heart, sensitive and submissive, to kindness so deeply as to render me personally attached and politically useful in future. For often magnanimity wins even where might fails. 

 
Nothing Wrong in a writing mercy petitions

It is true that there was nothing wrong on part of the Cellular Jail detainees in writing petitions to the British officials. It was, in fact, an important legal right available to the prisoners. There were other revolutionaries in the Cellular Jail who, too, wrote petitions to the British Government.  Apart from Savarkar, Hrishi Kesh Kanjilal, Barindra Kumar Ghose and Nand Gopal also wrote petitions. However, these were only Savarkar and Barindra Ghose (Aurobindo Ghose’s brother) who pleaded to renounce their revolutionary past in order to secure personal freedom. 

Tilak who was serving a six year term (1908-1914) at Mandalay Jail (then in Burma) also wrote two mercy petitions (February 12, 1912 and August 5, 1912) but instead of seeking forgiveness for his seditious acts simply made the following identical request: 

“That as a matter of grace the petitioner now seeks to obtain HisMajesty’s merciful consideration of his case. He has undergone 2/3rds, or four out of six years’ term of his sentence, is now 56 years old, and is suffering for a long time from chronic diabetes; while his family affairs have been brought to a sad crisis by a heavy bereavement which he has recently suffered…The petitioner, therefore, humbly and loyally prays that His Majesty may be graciously pleased to grant…the unexpired portion of the petitioner’s sentence may be remitted by pardon or a remission…”

 
The total surrender to the British masters bore results. The two life time sentences of 50 years at the Cellular Jail accorded to asavarkar, were reduced to less than 13 years. He  spent less than 10 years at the Cellular Jail. Moreover, despite a ban on his political activities he was allowed to organize the Hindu Mahasabha, developments which succeeded in fracturing the more inclusive freedom struggle. He was the only beneficiary of such large-heartedness of the British masters in the history of the Cellular Jail! 
 
( The views of the author are personal)

The post How and Why Savarkar filed Mercy Petition to the British appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Credit: Sondeep Shankar

 
“Insan abhi tak zinda hai,
 
zinda hone per sharminda hai!”
 
“Human beings are still alive,
 
they are ashamed to be alive!”
 
-Shahid Nadeem’s couplet on the silence of civil society against communal violence.
 
For the last 30 years, on the occasion of every anniversary of 1984 massacre of Sikhs, this author has been reminding the nation how the Indian State and judiciary did not bother to punish the perpetrators of this horrendous genocide of the innocent people. The people which form the second largest religious minority in our country. Every anniversary, the author hoped that by next year, justice would be served and he would not have to write the painful story once again as a reminder. It has not happened in last one year either and the saga of the criminal betrayal by the Indian Republic has no end. The author continues to cry before a deaf and dumb Indian State.
 
Betrayal of governments till 2014.
After giving a free run to the killer gangs, the government appointed a one-man Marwah Commission to find out the perpetrators of the 1984 ‘riots’. As this exercise was proving inconvenient, it was asked to disband itself within a short period of its existence and a sitting Supreme Court Judge Ranga Nath Mishra was asked to conduct an inquiry into 1984 ‘riots’. He submitted his report in 1987. Shockingly, this fact-finding (or fact-hiding) commission headed by Misra observed that “The riots which had a spontaneous origin later attained a channelized method at the hands of gangsters”.
 
The ‘apostle of justice’ and champion of spontaneity, Mishra, was not unable to find out where these gangsters came from. According to Jarnail Singh, author of the book I Accuse: The Anti-Sikh Violence of 1984, Mishra was awarded a berth in Rajya Sabha for this service to the State.
 
In the next two decades, not less than nine commissions of inquiry were instituted. For the Indian State, it became a routine to announce the formations of some new commissions or some more compensation to the families of victims in order to deflect the mounting anger during elections. Highlighting the anti-minority bias of such commissions, H. S. Phoolka, a renowned lawyer, commented that instead of getting convicted, many of the political perpetrators get promoted as rulers.
 
In the latest development, on August 16, 2017, Supreme Court of India ordered the constitution of a panel comprising two of its former judges to examine the justification for closing 241 anti-Sikh riot cases and ordered a probe by the SIT to be completed in the next three months. It is November 2018 (15 months since the order was passed) and these three months are yet to be completed!
 
Betrayal by the present RSS, BJP rulers
RSS claims to have always stood for Hindu-Sikh unity. It occasionally expresses its gratitude to Sikhism for saving Hinduism from Muslim aggression. It may not be irrelevant to note here that RSS does not treat Sikhism as an independent religion which discarded Casteism and the Brahmanical hegemony, but a part of Hinduism. The RSS/BJP leaders blamed Congress for anti-Sikh violence. Modi while addressing a public rally during last parliamentary elections at Jhansi, UP (October 25, 2013) asked Congress leaders to explain who “killed thousands of Sikhs in 1984” and “has anyone been convicted for the Sikh genocide so far?” Modi, during Punjab elections and 2014 general elections, kept referring to ‘qatl-e-aam’ or genocide of Sikhs.
 
After becoming the PM, Modi in a message (dated October 31, 2014) said that anti-Sikh riots in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination were like a “Dagger that pierced through India’s chest…Our own people were murdered, the attack was not on a particular community but on the entire nation.”
 
Hindutva icon, RSS full-timer and PM, Modi lamented the fact that culprits were yet to be booked and tried for this massacre. However, Modi did not tell the nation what the NDA governments, which ruled this country from 1998 to 2004, did to persecute the culprits. Modi also forgot to share the fact that as per the autobiography of LK Advani (page 430); it was his party which forced Indira Gandhi to take an army action infamously named as Operation Blue Star which killed a large number of Sikh pilgrims.
 
Renowned journalist Manoj Mitta, author of the book ‘When a Tree Shook in Delhi: The 1984 Carnage and Its Aftermath’ straightforwardly tells that “Despite the BJP rule, there has hardly been any will to enforce accountability for the massacres that took place under the Congress. It’s as if there is a tacit deal between the sponsors of 1984 and 2002”.
 
This is not what outsiders or critics of the RSS have been telling. The perusal of the contemporary RSS documents shows that the major focus was on condemning the Sikh extremism, eulogizing Indira Gandhi and welcoming the coronation of Rajiv Gandhi as the new prime minister.
 
RSS ideologue Nana Deshmukh’s dehumanised attitude towards the Sikh massacre
The most important proof of such a dehumanized attitude towards the massacre of Sikhs is a document circulated by Late. Nana Deshmukh, a prominent RSS ideologue. This document, titled a ‘Moments of Soul Searching’ circulated by Deshmukh on November 8, 1984, may help in unmasking the criminals involved in the massacre of innocent Sikhs who had nothing to do with the assassination of Indira Gandhi. This document may also throw light on where the cadres came from, who meticulously organized the killing of Sikhs. Nana Deshmukh in this document is seen outlining the justification of the massacre of the Sikh community in 1984.
 
This document also shows the true degenerated and fascist attitude of the RSS towards all the minorities of India. The RSS has been arguing that they are against Muslims and Christians because they are the followers of foreign religions. Here we find them justifying the butchering of Sikhs who according to their own categorization, happened to be the followers of an indigenous religion. In this document, we will hear from the horse’s mouth that the RSS like the then Congress leadership, believed that the massacre of the innocent Sikhs was unavoidable.
 
This document was published in the Hindi Weekly Pratipaksh edited by George Fernandes, who later became the Defence Minister of India in the NDA regime, in its edition of November 25, 1984, titled ‘Indira Congress-RSS collusion’ with the following editorial comment:
 
“The author of the following document is known as an ideologue and policy formulator of the RSS. After the killing of Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) he distributed this document among prominent politicians. It has a historical significance that is why we have decided to publish it, violating the policy of our Weekly. This document highlights the new affinities developing between the Indira Congress and the RSS. We produce here the Hindi translation of the document.”
 
Deshmukh in his document ‘Moments of Soul Searching’ is seen outlining the justification of the massacre of the Sikh community in 1984. His defence of the carnage can be summed up in the following:
 
1. The massacre of Sikhs was not the handiwork of any group or anti-social elements but the result of a genuine feeling of anger.
 
2. Deshmukh did not distinguish the action of the two security personnel of Indira Gandhi, who happened to be Sikhs, from that of the whole Sikh community. According to his document, the killers of Indira Gandhi were working under some kind of mandate from their community.
 
3. Sikhs themselves invited these attacks, thus advancing the Congress theory of justifying the massacre of the Sikhs.
 
4. He glorified the Operation Blue Star and described any opposition to it as anti-national. When Sikhs were being killed in thousands, he was warning the country of Sikh extremism, thus offering an ideological defence of those killings.
 
5. Sikh community as a whole was responsible for violence in Punjab.
 
6. Sikhs should have done nothing in self-defence but showed patience and tolerance against the killer mobs.
 
7. Sikh intellectuals and not killer mobs were responsible for the massacre. They had turned Sikhs into a militant community, cutting them off from their Hindu roots, thus inviting attacks from the nationalist Indians. Moreover, he treated all Sikhs as part of the same gang and described attacks on them as a reaction of the nationalist Hindus.
 
8. He described Indira Gandhi as the only leader who could keep the country united and after the assassination of such a great leader, such killings could not be avoided.
 
9. Rajiv Gandhi who succeeded Mrs. Gandhi as the PM justified the nation-wide killings of Sikhs by saying, “When a big tree falls the earth shakes.” He was lauded and blessed by Nana Deshmukh at the end of the document.
 
10. Shockingly, the massacre of Sikhs was being equated with the attacks on the RSS cadres after the killing of Gandhiji and we find Deshmukh advising Sikhs to suffer silently. Everybody knows that the killing of Gandhiji was inspired by the RSS and the Hindutva ideology whereas the common innocent Sikhs had nothing to do with the murder of Indira Gandhi.
 
11. There was not a single sentence in the Deshmukh document demanding, from the then Congress Government at the Centre or the then home minister Narasimha Rao (a Congress leader dear to the RSS, who later silently watched demolition of Babri Masjid by Hindutva goons as the PM of India in 1992) remedial measures for controlling the violence against the minority community. Mind it, that Deshmukh circulated this document on November 8, 1984, and from October 31 to this date, Sikhs were left alone to face the killing gangs. In fact, November 5-10 was the period when the maximum killings of Sikhs took place. Deshmukh was just not bothered about any of this.
 
12. It is generally believed that the Congress cadres were behind this genocide. This may be true but there were other forces too which actively participated in this massacre and whose role has never been investigated. It could be one of the reasons that the actual perpetrators remain unknown. Those who witnessed the genocide were stunned by the swiftness and military precision of the killer/marauding gangs (later on witnessed during the Babri mosque demolition, burning alive of Dr. Graham Steins with his two sons, 2002 pogrom of the Muslims in Gujarat and cleansing of Christians in parts of Orissa) which went on a killing spree killing scores of innocent Sikhs. This, surely, was beyond the capacity of the thugs led by many Congress leaders.
 
The Deshmukh document did not happen in isolation. It represented the real RSS attitude towards the Sikh genocide of 1984. It may be relevant to know here that the RSS cadres did not come forward in defence of the Sikhs. The RSS is very fond of circulating publicity material, especially photographs of its khaki shorts-clad cadres doing social work. For the 1984 violence, they have none. In fact, Deshmukh’s article also made no mention of the RSS cadres going to the rescue of Sikhs under siege. This shows the real intentions of the RSS during the genocide.
 
The RSS English organ, Organizer, in its combined issue dated November 11 and 18, 1984, carried an editorial titled ‘Stunning Loss’ which praised Indira Gandhi in the following words: “It will always be difficult to believe that Indira Gandhi is no more. One had got so used to hearing her myriad voices for so long, that everything looks so blank without her. The violent manner of her death is the most shocking horror story, giving the nation the creeps…It is a case of treacherous fanatics stigmatizing the whole nation by butchering a remarkable specimen of Indian womanhood…She literally served India to the last drop of her blood according to her own lights.” The same editorial ended with the words supporting the newly installed PM, Rajiv Gandhi who “deserves sympathy and consideration”.
 
Organizer also carried a statement of RSS Supremo, Bala Deoras titled ‘Balasaheb condemns assassination, Delhi carnage’ in a single column. He mourned and condemned the carnage but not even once referred to the fact that Sikhs were under attack. For him, it was “infighting in the Hindu Samaj”. He also overlooked the fact that it was not only Delhi where Sikhs were butchered/burnt but in many other parts of India. According to this statement “Swayamsevaks have been instructed to form or help in forming Mohalla Suraksha Samitis,” for restoring peace and victim rehabilitation. However, there are no documents available in the contemporary RSS archives to show how these Samitis functioned. It is a fact that RSS, which is fond of displaying photographs of its cadres doing social work, did not publish any visual of the activity of these Samitis.
 
In the same statement, Deoras, reacting to the assassination of Indira Gandhi, stated, “It is shocking beyond words to express the feelings on the murder of PM Mrs. Indira Gandhi by some fanatic elements. She had been carrying on almost the entire burden of the country since 1966. She was loved and respected not only in this country but all over the world. Her passing away at this critical juncture will create a void in India and also in the world.”
 
According to the above-mentioned Organizer “RSS Sarkyavah, Rajender Singh issued instructions to all the branches in the country to hold a special meeting in their Shakha’s condemning the dastardly murder of the PM and paying homage to the departed soul. He also issued instructions to cancel all public functions to be held by RSS during the period of mourning”. Of course, RSS archives do not contain any instructions from RSS top brass ordering to mourn the Sikh martyrs.
 
RSS against former PM Manmohan Singh’s apology for 1984 Massacre
The RSS continuous downplaying of 1984 Sikh massacre will be clear by the perusal of their charter of demands submitted to the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) last July. The senior RSS ideologue, Dina Nath Batra, on behalf of RSS-affiliated Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas submitted five pages containing the list of items to be removed from school textbooks. Batra demanded that any reference to violence against minorities in the textbooks should be removed which included references to a simple apology tendered by the former PM Manmohan Singh over 1984 violence. It is to be noted that in an apology in Parliament on August 12, 2005, Manmohan Singh, the then PM of India stated:
 
“I have no hesitation in apologizing to the Sikh community. I apologize not only to the Sikh community but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution.”
 
Thus, the search for finding the perpetrators of the Sikh massacre of 1984 continues endlessly. The present RSS/BJP rulers who claim to be co-religionists of Sikhs prove no different from Congress. The only hope is that Indians, who have stakes in continuation of democratic-secular Indian polity, will come forward to force the Indian State to identify and punish the killers.

The post 34 years and counting: No justice for victims of 1984 Sikh genocide appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Interestingly, when I write against the persecution of women and minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, dictatorships in tribal Islamic kingdoms, triple-talaq, polygamy and use of Shariat as a convenient tool to suppress Muslim women I am declared to be ‘anti-Muslim’, ‘Zionist agent’, ‘RSS collaborator’ and what not. I am even asked to change my name from Shamsul Islam (sun of Islam) to ‘dushman-e-Islam (enemy of Islam)’.

This kind of denigration is painful but gives me satisfaction that if both the Hindu-Muslim religious bigots are attacking me, I am on the right path. The trollers are cowards who abuse and threaten with fake identities and part of mobs which  have been swayed by the polarizing politics of the rulers.  

The Indian media, specially the electronic one was being swayed by Hindutva national discourse has been evident for quite some time. I was often victim of the transgression when a producer of a story on Hindutva organizations would edit/ alter your byte in such a manner that opposite to what your take was would be aired. To cite an example, a prominent TV channel did a story on the murder of Gandhi. In my byte I talked of Sardar Patel’s view on the organizational linkages of the killers. Immediately after Gandhi’s murder as home minister he was not clear about the identity of killers (though by November 1948 Sardar had found RSS and Hindu Mahasabha responsible for this murder) so in a February 27, 1948 letter Sardar told Nehru that RSS was not involved. But he also shared a crucial fact with the then PM that “In the case of secret organization like the RSS which has no records, registers, etc. securing of authentic information whether a particular individual is active worker or not is rendered a very difficult task.”

Sreenivasan Jain, the producer/anchor of the story used the part of the letter which read that RSS was not involved in the murder but dropped the above take of Sardar that it was difficult task to know about a member of “secret organization like RSS”. It was done to substantiate Jain’s own conclusion that there was no hard proof to prove that Hindutva organization was involved in the murder.

Unfortunately, the situation in the Indian TV studios has worsened beyond ones worst fears. The lynch mentality on roads has reached the TV studios in full steam, with one or two exceptions, of the so called ‘free press’. Whoever opposes the Hindutva narrative on live discussions is branded anti-national, anti-Hindu and a Pakistani. If you happen to be there with a Muslim name, opposing the Hindu nationalist narrative you are showered with abuses and threatened on mike and off the mike.

It was at the end of the second week of July (2018) that I was invited for a 45 minute long live TV debate on the theme whether India required a Hindu nation or secular India. This debate was taking place in the aftermath of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s comment that if Modi came to power in 2019, India would turn into a Hindu Pakistan. The other panellists were  Sambit Patra, spokperson BJP, one professor Kapil Kumar, who was supposed to be an independent expert and Congress representative, Premchand Mishra.

Even before debate on the Hindu nation was started, professor declared that  instead we should discuss Muslims who wanted triple-talaq, halala and 5 marriages to continue. Sambit joined the chorus, declared that Hindu and Hindustan were synonymous and main danger was Congress which was doing Muslim politics. He talked about persecution of Hindus by Muslims in the past. I asked the anchor what we were discussing but there was no stopping Sambit and the professor. I asked why he chose only Muslim period for narrating persecution out of 5 thousand years of Indian civilization and if for the crimes of Muslim rulers all Indian Muslims were responsible then who should be held responsible for kidnapping of mother Sita and disrobing of Darupadi, both Sambit  and professor shouted that I was insulting Hinduism and mother Sita. In fact, the learned anchor asked me not to go to that old history! So only the crimes of the Muslim rulers were under scrutiny.  

In this debate I was described as rapist, Islamic State agent and Pakistan supporter. In order to emphasize the pro-Muslim character of Congress, Sambit produced a press clipping of 2014 in which it was written that Election Commission of India received a complaint that Rahul had declared that thousands of Muslims would be butchered if Modi came to power in 2014 elections. The clipping was presented as if Election Commission had censured Rahul on this. The Congress representative should have objected to this manufactured fact. He kept on smiling and I had to intervene, asking Sambit to share the fact whether Election Commission took cognizance of the allegation.

Instead of sharing the reality he declared that I was being paid money through cheques by Congress for defending Rahul. He in his clowning style repeated this allegation 5 times but Congress representative did not intervene and kept smiling. The anchor was also in a forgetful mode.
In the meantime professor after calling me names walked out of the programme (but remained in the studio) demanding that instead of my talking on Hindu nation, I should be asked about triple-talaq, halala and permission of marrying 5 times (how number increased from 4 to 5 nobody knows). During the break sitting in the studio there he abused me as ‘bastard’ and ‘behenchod (fucker of the sister)’. The anchor, who was supposed to guide the meaningful debate, the defender of the Hindu nation, Sambit and representative of Congress kept quiet, this professor was not asked to leave even at this stage.

The worst was yet to follow. The anchor instead of concluding discussion on Hindu nation suddenly announced that “Shamsul Islam I had promised professor Kapil Kumar to seek your answer on the issue why Muslims do not give equal rights to Muslim women”, he continued, that Muslims do not want one nation one law and wanted to practice triple-talaq, halala and polygamy. I tried to tell him that Muslims are not a homogenous lot but would follow the judgment of the Supreme Court. But anchor insisting that I was one of those who believed in all these anti-woman practices, wanted my personal view. I told him that I did not believe in all such things. The debated ended with the following words of the anchor addressed to the abuser professor Kapil Kumar, “Kapil sir you must be a bit happy that I got reply (from Shamsul Islam) to your question”. Thus ended debate on RSS agenda of converting India into a Hindu nation!

THE LINK OF THIS TERRIBLE EPISODE IS PASTED BELOW SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW MOB LYNCHING HAS REACHED TV STUDIOS.

The post Hazards of Joining a TV Debate on the Hindu Nation with a Muslim Name appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
It is heartening to note that you, as PM of our democratic-secular state, have underlined the great diversities in the Indian nation which needed to be celebrated. While addressing a conference on ‘Islamic Heritage: Promoting Understanding and Moderation’ in the presence of the King of Jordan, Abdullah II in Delhi on March 1, 2018 you were kind enough to declare that India’s democracy was “a celebration of our age-old plurality” recalling that “religions and beliefs from all over the world” flourished in the country. It was great to hear you to commit that “We Indians are proud of our diversity.” While specially addressing the Muslim youth of India, you were kind enough to advise them to hold Quran in one hand and computer in the other for an all-inclusive progress and welfare. However, I would beg to say that this call for Quran or any other scripture in one hand is a risky proposition. The US taught Afghan youth Quran in one hand and AK47 in other hand and what price Afghan Muslims paid for it is well known.
 
Sir,
You also showed deep concern about radicalization of Muslim youth and appreciated the king’s work toward de-radicalisation. Your tweet addressing youth (Muslim though not referred as such) in Hindi read:
 
PMO India‏Verified account @PMOIndia
मज़हब का मर्म अमानवीय हो ही नहीं सकता। हर पन्थ, हर संप्रदाय, हर परंपरा मानवीय मूल्यों को बढ़ावा देने के लिए ही है। इसलिए, आज सबसे ज्यादा ज़रूरत ये है कि हमारे युवा एक तरफ मानवीय इस्लाम से जुड़े हों और दूसरी तरफ आधुनिक विज्ञान और तरक्की के साधनों का इस्तेमाल भी कर सकें: PM 9:54 PM – 28 Feb 2018
 
These words of yours were, in fact, reaffirmation of your commitment towards an all-inclusive India thus assuring the minorities that they were equal partners in the polity. It was not first time that you called upon to celebrate the diversity of a nation. While visiting Sri Lanka in May 2017 too you had declared that in Sri Lanka “diversity calls for celebration, not confrontation” and offered to assist the Sri Lankan government in improving living conditions of minority Tamils there.
 
Respected Sir,
I am grateful to you for publicly expressing love for diversity in the presence of foreign heads of the states not once but twice. However, I would like to draw your attention to the shocking ideas against our all-inclusive India which were expressed by the RSS sarsanghchalak, Mohan Bhagwat ji on February 25, exactly four days before your heartening expression of belief in diversity. If you are not aware of it allow me to refresh your memory.
 
He was speaking on the occasion of 25th Swayamsevak Samagam, called Rashtryoday touted as the biggest gathering of RSS workers in recent years at Meerut. According to the Times of India Bhagwat ji told the gathering, “Say with pride that you are a Hindu. As Hindus, we have to unite because the responsibility of this country is upon us. From ancient time it is our home. We have nowhere else to go in this world. If anything, wrong happens with this country, we will be responsible”.
 
While underlining an exclusive Hindu identity of India, he called upon Hindus to adopt hard-line, staunch or orthodox Hindutva. Surprisingly, according to him, “when we become [Hindutva] hardliners we will celebrate diversity more” and as a worshipper of power he said the world, “has a rule that it listens to good things only when there is a power standing behind them.” It was news to Indians that so far known as Hindutva was now hard-line Hindutva; more aggressive Hindutva.
 
He denigrated other world civilizations and religions when he declared that “we are Hindus and our ancestors attained the Truth which no one else did”. He also expressed the old Hindutva vision to lead the world. Intelligence agencies must have shared with you the fact that around one lakh RSS cadres, most of them young men had gathered for this meeting and one of the slogans raised constantly was “khoon se tilak ker, golion se aartee/pukarta hae Kashmir, pukartee maa Bharti” thus giving open call for violence.
 
Sir,
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that since RSS will be organizing Hindus, naturally, there will be Muslim/Sikh/Christian/Buddhist/Jain organizations organizing their respective followers of religions. The first casualty will be Indian nationalism. If RSS declares that responsibility of saving India of Hindus then they are surely pushing out all those who are not Hindus from being Indians.
 
The call for India for Hindus is tantamount to de-nationalize followers of other religions residing in India, as citizens so far. According to RSS India, a land of Hindus can survive only under the hegemony of hard-line Hindutva and not under a democratic-secular polity established by the Constituent Assembly of India. This call of RSS will surely lead to Balkanization of India; an evil project in which Muslim League succeeded once. Moreover, while taking steps against radicalization of Muslim youth you as PM of India should not overlook constant and open radicalization of the Hindu youth by RSS.   
 
PM Sir,
Since you have long association with the RSS, being one of its ideologues who identifies himself as Hindu nationalist and credits RSS for grooming yourself into a political leader (your interview to the Reuters journalists, Ross Colvin and Sruthi Gottipati, on July 12, 2013 at Gandhinagar) I will beg you to ask RSS to desist from its agenda aiming at destruction of our dear democratic-secular India. It is really unfortunate that even 71 years of India’s Independence RSS has not got rid of its hatred for an all-inclusive India. You must be familiar with the fact that the RSS English organ, Organizer in its issue on the very eve of Independence, dated 14 August, 1947, rejected the whole concept of a composite nation (under the editorial title ‘Whither’):
 
“Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. Much of the mental confusion and the present and future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of the simple fact that in Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must be built on that safe and sound foundation…the nation itself must be built up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations”.
 
Thus, all non-Hindus were not to be treated as part of the Indian nation. One had hoped that RSS would change itself and stop denigrating Indian democratic-secular polity like an enemy. On the contrary, attacks on Indian polity have immensely increased and even date set (2022) when India would be cleansed of Muslims and Christians. The holy book for RSS cadres Bunch of Thoughts, collection of Guruji Golwalkar’s views openly denigrates Indian Constitution, Tricolour, even has a chapter (16) in which Indian Muslims and Christians without any exception are declared to be internal threats number one and two respectively. This book also declares Casteism, Hinduism and Hindu nationalism synonymous.
 
Respected Sir,
While being rightly concerned about Muslim extremism, please, take note of Hindutva extremism also which has more potential to undo our constitutional polity as it is being allowed a free run. I wish you give a call to the RSS leaders and cadres to discard anti-national ideas. For the sake of our country, please, ask them to carry a copy of the Indian Constitution in one hand which may check their other hand doing any nasty thing against all-inclusive India.     
 
Sir,
Since you believe in celebrating the diversity of the Indian nation, lastly, I would request that when you visit foreign countries next time apart from gifting Bhagvad Gita (which you gifted to the British PM David Cameron, US President Obama, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe) please also present to host dignitaries, Pali Canon of Buddhism, Guru Granth Saheb of Sikhism and Agams of Jainism as these three great religions also originated in India.
 
Wishing you a Happy Holi,
Shamsul Islam

The post Open Letter to PM Modi: Sir, You respect Diversity, but RSS mourns it, whom do we believe? appeared first on SabrangIndia.