In the words of Padmashree awardee Dr Dhananjay Keer: Nehru wouldn't have cared if the Hindus would have got wiped off from the face of the Earth.
The Congress (a British created party basically to discourage Indians to take up arms against the British) always toed the British interests in India and also appeased Muslims for votes given that they will get windfall 10 to 20% of the votes straightaway. In the same vein they also prevented the Hindu vote from consolidating by dividing Hindus on basis of caste, language region, sect, etc. So the plan was: Consolidate Muslim votes and keep Hindu votes divided.
They pretended to be Secular but in practice supported only Muslims for their votes. They imposed Nationalism from the Secular and Muslim perspective and introduced majority Muslims as HRD Ministers from 1947 to 1975 right in the prime years of Independence for subverting/skewing Indian people to their ideology.
The Article 30A is called the real backstab of Hindus in India. Nehru is regarded as responsible for introducing Article 30A in India.
Article 30A prevents educational institutions from teaching Hinduism or even Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism in the syllabus. Hindu religious teachings at educational level are forbidden as per Article 30A.
This is in sharp contrast to Madarassas and Convents where religious teachings are imparted on Islam or Christianity however you cannot open a Gurukul in India.
As a result today’s Indians do not even know what Hinduism is, or they have half knowledge about Hinduism, they use words which are a mixture of Urdu and English, Sanskrit is long forgotten and even Tamilians speak more of mixed language laced with English words.
The Article 30A is notorious as it has weakened our national culture. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism originated in India and are our core cultural base or samskaars (values) and with the weakening, national pride will be weakened too. Imagine a France minus its Frenchness, Scotland without it’s Scottishness or a Denmark without it’s Danishness.
In the foolhardiness to cultivate blind scientific temper Nehru ended up radicalizing Muslims and Christians and on otherside alienating Hindus from their roots.
PS:
As said above since the Congress appeased Muslims for votes given that they will get windfall 10 to 20% of the votes straightaway this also set the narrative for a lot of pseudo-secular parties like Congress which proliferated from 1947 to 2014 as Hindu parties waned in Hindu majority India.
The Congress/Secular parties plan however flopped in 2014 as BJP did the exact opposite of what Congress did. They smartly consolidated the Hindu vote of 80% with Hindus being all sons of soil religions like Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shaivism, etc. BJP vote bank comprises of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jain, Lingayats, Parsis, Jews, and those Muslims and Christians who can put India above their religion. Given the success of BJP the Congress started appeasing Hindus too but only during election time so this part time strategy never worked for the Congress either.
Now let us understand that India is a democracy and having so many so called secular parties is a threat to democracy and a tool of subversion and appeasement. Let us just compare the number of Hindutva parties in the country Vs the number of so called secular parties:
Hindutva electoral parties: BJP and Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde camp)
Secular parties: Congress, SP, NCP, DMK, JDU, RJD, TRS, TDP, JMM, AAP, Uddhav Sena, CPI, TMC, MIM, NC, PDP, BSP.
Hence it's a case of 2 Vs 17+ which is so unfair for a democracy. So we want more Hindutva parties in mainstream to contest elections and as an outcome we must have an alliance of Hindu+Secular parties in Govt and other Hindu+Secular parties also at same time in opposition to provide perfect balance.
The Congress also tried to build the Hindu Terror narrative in the last few years of it’s Government. It is a very correct statement to say that No Hindu is a Terrorist. Here are pointers below:
a) Can a person be a burglar or even trespasser in his own home especially when he is the chief Karta of his house? Likewise India is a land of Hindus as Hindus are natives of India from last 5000 years, and any act done in protection of one's own soil cannot be terrorism.
b) By above definition even Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Lingayats etc cannot be terrorists as they are natives of India too by core identity with their religion or sects having developed on greater Indian soil itself. However if they try to break India for eg: to create an independent Khalistan and cause indiscriminate public damage leading to loss of lives then it can be an act of terrorism. If the same people fight to save the integrity of India then it is not terrorism.
c) A terrorist never plans and kills an individual person but an assassin does. A terrorist kills people or causes damage indiscriminately. The terrorist doesn't even know his victims whom he has targetted. Did Kasab know personally whom he was killing?
Left brains may argue that even the JKLF Brigade in the 1980s in Kashmir personally knew their Hindu neighbours, acquaintances etc whom they individually may have targeted and killed however there is a difference- the aim of the JKLF person was not to target a person, the aim was to target a particular Non-Muslim community as a whole and he killed his neighbour because of hatred for an entire community. Hence the JKLF man is a terrorist.
d) A terrorist aims to cause widespread mayhem, killings and damage. Did Godse want to cause, widespread trouble? No. He only planned to kill one person. You can call him hence an assassin but not a terrorist.
e) Islamic terror exists because Muslims often cause attacks in other people's territories like for eg: Pakistan pushing terrorists in India. For Indian born Muslims who have gone on the terror path they can be called terrorists too because they in that case represent a foreign community not formed on Indian soil as Islamic ideology is not India born the way a Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism and Shaivism are. Moreover Indian Muslims are also originally Hindus or from any other son of soil religions whose forefathers were forcibly or manipulatingly converted to Islam but those who consider themselves Muslims first and Indians later are those who have chosen to make their Indianness secondary which is unpalatable. Highest respect for those Muslims who can proudly say that they are Indians first and anything else later as the Hindu says.
The Hindu Terror word is a Left wing controversy. They want to portray sons of soil as terrorists for ulterior benefit. They even tried to build a theory that Kasab was a Hindu terrorist due to the saffron band he was wearing even after the Lashkar E Toiba took responsibility of 26/11. The UPA Govt before 2009 tried to push the Hindu Terror agenda upto a point that the 26/11 case was weakened, India's global image suffered and even a dud like Hafiz Saeed could stand up and point fingers at India.
The Congress also gave covert encouragement to Bollywood allowing foreign agendas to finance movies to develop the Rahim Chacha syndrome images (portraying Muslim characters as kind and noble) for years as Urdu was promoted through Bollywood.
The Congress as said earlier taught Hindus scientific temper to an extent that numerous Hindus went away from their core culture. Many Hindus today dont know what Hinduism is but the Congress on other side ensured that Muslims become more aware of their Muslimness. The Congress encouraged the AIMPLB as representative of the Muslims but the only thing the AIMPLB has done till today has to encourage more Sharia based judgements and radicalization.
The Congress not only did not touch Muslim Personal Laws but also supported then even if their ugly side was noticed as we saw in the Shah Bano case. The Congress never tried to ban triple talaq, polygamy, animal sacrifices and Nikah Halala for Muslims though polygamy and animal sacrifices.
Muslims wrongly accuse Hindus of casteism (though deeper casteism and division exists in Islamic society) but when a Hindu from a reserved category becomes a Muslim by conversion he still demands reservations.
Even if we observe contemporary incidents (2022–23) when the whole of fundamentalist Iran is opposing the Hijab, the Congress is trying to support the Hijab in India by vocalizing hapless groups who call it a choice. In 1921 when Turkey rejected the Caliph and wanted democracy, the Congress supported the Caliph through the pro-Caliph Khilafat movement which had nothing to do with India.
No comments:
Post a Comment