Making India a Hindu state, a letter by Ram Gopal

Sacrificer           Ram Gopal
Sacrifice code       wfor0420
Sacrifice date       12th March 2009

Making India a Hindu state, a letter
Ram Gopal

12th March 2009

Dear learned friends,

Please refer to my mail of 5th March, pointing out a grave error in the observation of the special MCOCA judge (Y.D. Shinde), during hearing against Lt. Col. Purohit, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, and others, in the Malegaon blast case. The judge had said, "Forming a (Hindu) organization is fine, but wanting to create a Hindu 'Rajya' (State) is against the Constitution". In my rejoinder, I stated, "Before August 15, 1947, Government of India (1935) Act was India's Constitution and the British Crown was the ruler of India. Under that Constitution and the British rule, we fought for our freedom to make India an Independent State. Even undivided India, under the British rule, was a Hindu Rashtra, a Hindu nation, with 67 per cent Hindu population. Since the Muslims (under the leadership of the Muslim League) claimed that they were a separate nation and got their cherished homeland, Pakistan, to be an Islamic State, the remaining part of
India, with 84 per cent Hindus, had to be a Hindu State. It was a treacherous act of the then top Hindu leaders, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, to make India a 'composite State', scandalously retain greater number of Muslims in Hindu India, and to bestow on them special rights by way of 'minority rights' (Articles 29 & 30). The net result is that the fate of the Hindu majority hangs in balance at the mercy of minority rights.

There is, therefore, no sin in trying to or fighting for making this truncated India a Hindu State. Remember that Malaysia had less than 50 per cent Muslims in 1960s when it was made an Islamic State, by the Muslim majority in Malaysian parliament…"

1.1. In response, a good number of friends have shown agreement with my views. However, a few have expressed some doubt, raised Constitutional obstacles, or desired me to elaborate my theme. Hence, I am venturing to explain the matter in greater detail. Learned friends can add more and suggest better courses. But, more important is to work on the ideology of making India a Hindu State, without which there will be no India. It will be a greater Islamistan or some thing like that.

2. Background: In 1992, Indian government's year long Golden Jubilee celebrations of Mahatma Gandhi led "Quit India" movement of 1942, propelled me to make a detailed study of India's freedom struggle since 1857. Incidentally, I am an eye witness of the 1942 movement. After going through all the available material, including Gandhi ji's 'Hind Swasraj', History of Freedom Movement in India, by Dr. Tara Chand, (3 volumes), Maulana Azad's 'India Wins Freedom', and Gandhi's biography by DG Tendulkar (first 2 volumes), Pattabhi Seetharamayya's '60 years of Congress'. I found that 'Quit India' movement had very little effect in getting Independence to India. On the contrary, it had a disastrous effect that the British and the Americans became resolute that Hindus were their permanent enemies and the Muslims, (descendants of their own ancestor, Abraham), were their permanent allies. They are still working on the same anti-Hindu mindset. We must not forget that one of the guidelines of the British government to Moutbatten in 1947 was not to antagonize Muslims at any cost. My unique, though unpleasant, finding, (recorded on page 159 of my first book published in 1994, "Hindu Culture During & After Muslim rule, Survival & Subsequent Challenges"), was:

"It seems that there had been a tacit agreement between the modernist (secularist & Marxist) successors of the British Raj and the Pan-Islamic leaders of the Muslims to revert back to their position obtaining during the Mughal period. There is nothing else to explain Jawaharlal Nehru's fancy for emperor Akbar. But that would not satisfy the Muslim leaders whose ideal is Aurangzeb, not Akbar. They have, through their bargaining power, brought India nearer to the reign of Aurangzeb. It was not a slip of tongue of late Rajiv Gandhi when he said from the ramparts of the Red Fort of Delhi on the Independence Day, 15 August 1988, 'Our endeavour should be to take the country to heights to which it belonged about 250-300 years ago, before people from different corners of the world set out to discover India. We shall be able to achieve this only when we strengthen the unity and integrity of India and battle with all those who wish to weaken the
country'. The period 250-300 years ago, was that of Aurangzeb. Apparently, the 'unity' refers to that of the modernists and the Muslim clergy as against the force of Hindutva, referred to as 'those who wish to weaken the country'. As if to beat Rajiv Gandhi, V.P. Singh, another modernist, declared prophet Muhammed's birthday as a national holiday". [Rajiv Gandhi speech, published by DAVP, government of India, under No. T/24/88-PP.III, August 1988]

3. My further study, working of the Constitution, the pro-Muslim & anti-Hindu policies of the Indian government, (especially in matters concerning education, religion and culture), only confirmed my above finding. It also confirmed Hindu cowardice and political stupidity, because they always saw things from selfish or sectarian angle in terms of money or economic development, whereas Muslims always saw things from political angle- power and privileges for the 'Umma', (Muslim community). A question arose as to how could Gandhi and Nehru carry their anti-Hindu policies for such a long time, when 95 per cent of office bearers of the Congress were prominent Hindus? Answer is the same - cowardice, selfishness and political stupidity, which have continued till now. Afraid of their own future, they always yielded to the pressure and persuasion of Gandhi and Nehru. Those few who opposed were systematically eliminated.

4. (1) Hindu cowardice & stupidity - Due to cowardice and stupidity of the Hindu intelligentsia of the time, Gandhi and Nehru acquired the status of demi-gods or dictators. Since the visit of the (British) Cabinet Mission in 1946, the Hindu Mahasabha, the real exponent of Hindu sentiments, was placed in the margin. Congress alone was recognized as representing caste Hindus, Dr. Ambedkar as representing the Schedule Castes, Sardar Baldev Singh as representing the Sikhs, and Jinnah led Muslim League as the sole spokesman of the Muslims. The Christians and Anglo Indians had their own representatives. After Partition and India's Independence became a certainty in June 1947, voices were raised to make the truncated India a Hindu State. Gandhi and Nehru vehemently opposed it. A large number of Hindu leaders and individuals in their personal capacity petitioned to Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister designate and Dr. Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constitution Assembly, to at least ban cow slaughter as the first act of Independent India and start Independent India's Constituent Assembly proceedings with the singing of 'Vande Mataram'. Rajendra Prasad personally took up these issues with Nehru, but the latter rejected both the demands.

4 (2) In his four page long reply dated 7th August 1947, Nehru wrote, (para.7), "India, in spite of its over whelming Hindu population, is a composite country from the religious and other points of view. It is a vital problem for us to solve as to whether we are to function fundamentally in regard to our general policy as such a composite country, or to function as a Hindu country, rather ignoring the view points of other groups… It should be remembered that the stoppage of cow slaughter means stopping non-Hindus from doing something which they might do". Here, Nehru and all his Hindu colleagues, including Dr. Rajendra Prasad, conveniently forgot that the only bugbear of the Indian politics, the Muslim community, had already been granted a separate homeland in the shape of Pakistan to become an Islamic State according to their Quranic law.

4. (3) Nehru added, (paras. 8-9), "You know how strong an advocate of cow protection Bapu is. Nevertheless, so far as I am aware, he is opposed to any compulsory stoppage of cow slaughter. His chief reason, I believe, is that we must not function as a Hindu State, but as a Composite State… As you know there is a very strong Hindu revivalist feeling in the country at the present moment. I am greatly distressed by it because it represents narrowest communalism". (para.10), "… I find myself in total disagreement with this revivalist feeling, and in view of this difference of opinion, I am a poor representative of many of our people today. I felt honestly that it might be better for a truer representative to take my place. That would do away with the unnaturalness and artificiality of the present position".

5. This one letter, (pps. 189-192, Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, 2nd Series, Vol.III, published by Jawaharlal Memorial Fund, Teen Murti House, New Delhi-11), makes clear that (a) both Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru did not want India to be a Hindu State, even when they had agreed to Partitioning India to give Muslims their cherished homeland, Pakistan, an Islamic State in the making. Their out of the way attempts to retain larger number of Muslims in Hindu India was surely to keep Hindus at bay from getting sovereignty of Independent (Hindu) India, (as the Muslims were to have in Pakistan or the British had in UK), and to keep them subordinate to the whims and fancies of the Muslims and Christians on the pretext of 'minority protection'. They ignored the historical fact that the Hindu majority had already suffered 600 years of a minority Muslim rule, followed by 150 years of the British Raj. It also shows complete helplessness of the
Hindu element of the Congress, its abject surrender to the will of Gandhi and Nehru, and ignorance of the disastrous effect inherent in making India a 'Composite State', with a sizeable Muslim population, which had nothing in common with Hindus, except domicile.

6. Pitfalls of Composite State - Its first disastrous effect was that the overwhelming majority of the Muslims in (Hindu) India stayed back although 97 per cent of them had voted for Pakistan and their legitimate share lay in Pakistan. The second evil effect was that, complying with their Islamic tradition, the Muslims and Muslim government of West Pakistan hounded out 99 per cent of Hindus to India side, confiscated their property. India had to accommodate them at the cost of Hindus. Since Islamic traditions took time to take roots in East Pakistan, (Bangladesh), Hindus from that part were pushed to Indian side in phases. About 8 per cent of Hindus are still in Bangladesh. Sooner or later they and one percent of Hindus in Pakistan will be killed, converted to Islam or pushed to Hindu India. The darker side of India being a 'Composite State' is that the Indian government never took up the question of Hindu genocide either with Pakistan, Bangladesh
or the international forum (UNO). Pakistan, being an Islamic State, on the other hand has been constantly raising loud cries of imaginary or concocted stories of oppression of Indian Muslims, even when Muslims here enjoy greater security, rights and facilities than in Pakistan. It is quite significant that a large number of Paksitani Muslims who came to India on tourist visas in past years did not go back and got mingled with the Muslim population of India. The number of Bangladeshi Muslims infiltrating and settling in India is estimated to be 200 million. On the other hand, no Muslim from India going on tourist visa to Pakistan or Bangladesh is known to have slipped and settled there. Also, whereas Hindu population in Pakistan and Bangladesh is rapidly vanishing, the Muslim population in India is multiplying at an alarming rate. During his recent visit to India, the former President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, had the temerity to say at the
'India Today' conclave in Delhi, on the night of 7th March 2009 that the Muslims in India were alienated and that was the cause of (Islamic) terrorism. He even threatened of more Kargil like wars if Kashmir dispute was not resolved to the liking of the Muslims. Thankfully, Musharraf got a befitting retort from an Indian Muslim, an office bearer of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Hind: "Indian Muslims have the capability of solving their problems. We don't need your advice. Don't try to alienate Indian Muslims by your remarks, here or in Pakistan", (Pioneer, English daily, March 9, 2009). The Indian government simply kept quite. Ironically, the same day, five Hindu families of Peshawar in Pakistan, comprising 16 men, 16 women and 3 children, under threat of Talibans, fled Pakistan to reach Amritsar (India). One of them, Vijay Kumar, said, "Our forefathers had committed a mistake by staying back during Partition. We are correcting that mistake now",
(Hindustan Times, New Delhi, March 9, front page news, "Taliban terror forces Hindus to flee Pak").

7. Hindu persecution - During the past 60 years, Hindus were persecuted and made to flee in Yuganda, Fizi, Indonesia and may other countries. Indian government has always maintained an attitude of indifference. Contrary to it, this very government has been very vocal in any event of attack on Muslims, any where in the world. In India itself, persecution of Hindus has been going on unabated in Muslim majority State of J&K, Christian majority States of North-East and Communist ruled States of Kerala and West Bengal. But, these are non-events for the secular Indian government. The prevalent view of Indian secularism is that it is an euphemism for being anti-Hindu.

8. Effect of Hindu State - (1) On India becoming a Hindu State, Hindus will get their due place of dignity as an Independent nation, not only in India but also in the international field - the UNO and the Security Council. The Hindu government of India will then be able to take up any matter of Hindu concern at international forum. At the moment, Status of Hindus is one of Stateless multitude, like that of the Jews before world war II or Romas even now. The State will be guided by high ideals of Hindu traditions, Hindu moral values of serving the humanity as a whole and not for a particular community or group: "Sarve bhavantu sukhinah, sarve santu niramayah", (May every one be happy and every one be without disease or suffering). Hindus will be able to promulgate ban on cow slaughter, common law for all, (in place of different laws for different religious communities), remove Article 370 in the matter of J&K and other anti-Hindu provisions in the
Constitution, which militate against merit and promote birth based casteism, religious or ethnic discrimination. They can get back their prominent places of worship, like the Ramjanmabhoomi at Ayodhya, Krishnajanmabhoomi in Mathur, Gyanvapi temple in Varanasi, Raja Bhaj temple in Madhya Pradesh and the like in other States, which had been vandalized by foreign invaders or their Indian stooges, during the medieval period. The NCERT and other text books will be revised to include also the Hindu view points. Portions maliciously denigrating Hindus, Hindu Dharma, Hindu icons, shall be deleted.

8(2). The governing mantra of India will include modern concepts of secularism, non-interference of State in matters celestial (matters between God and man or his/her deity) and regulate only matters profane - concerning individual to individual, the society and the State. There will be electoral reforms and also judicial reform in the direction that the punishment is given according to gravity of crime and importance of the convict - greater the position, greater the punishment.

8(3).. It needs to be underlined that, if Hindus fail to make India a Hindu State even now and go on bearing the present humiliation political subordination, their future is bleak. India is bound to become an Islamic State of Taliban brand. Hindu Dharma, Hindu Sanskriti, and Hindu identity will be lost soon to be found only in history books.

9. Hindus have to fight for Statehood - In the end, let me make it clear that the existing power holders and beneficiaries of the anti-Hindu and pro-minority government will do everything to crush the votaries of Hindu State. Hindus, have, therefore, to fight their way through all these adversities. But, first of all it is necessary to correctly understand the concept of Hindu State, difference between nation and State and to gather sufficient strength and resources to achieve Statehood. If Hindus could fight for freedom against the British Raj, they must not shirk from fighting for their due share with the present government. It is because of their 60 years of lethargy that the re-organisation of States, (1956), made them a minority community in 7 States, (J&K, Panjab, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh), without minority status, whereas other minorities, (Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Boudhh), are entitled to special minority rights even in States where they are in a minority. [The remedy lies in removing the distinction between minority and majority community, not in granting minority rights to Hindus in States where they are in a minority. Articles 29 and 30 must be removed].

10. The arc of the main gate of the North Block, (facing South Block), of the Central Secretariat, New Delhi, carries the following message in golden letters:

"LIBERTY SHALL NOT DESCEND ON A PEOPLE: A PEOPLE MUST RAISE THEMSELVES TO LIBERTY: IT IS A BLESSING WHICH MUST BE EARNED BEFORE IT IS ENJOYED"

The struggle of Hindu State has to be like the freedom struggle. Now, it will need a greater effort, because in their foolhardiness Hindus missed the bus in 1947. Persons who dream of attaining their desired goal within the present anti-Hindu Constitution are living in a fool's paradise.

I have received some more points after I finalized this note. I shall take them up separately.

Yours truly,
Ram Gopal

***