"If you come, with you, “if you don't, without you; and if you oppose,
in spite of you—the Hindus will continue to fight for their national freedom as best as they can." - Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

"However pure Mr. Gandhi"s character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character." - Maulana Mohammed Ali

"I do regard Islam to be a religion of peace in the same sense as Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are." - Mohandas Karamkhand Gandhi

"We have heard Muslim leaders declare that if the Afghans invaded India, they would join their fellow-believers, and would slay the Hindus who defended their motherland against the foe; we have been forced to see that the primary allegiance of Mussalmans is to Islamic countries, not to our motherland." Annie Besant

Delving in to the pages of primeval history, we observe that it is replete with the theory of primordially, which postulates that people will invariably remain the way they are due to the repeated actions of their past. Their attitudes towards each other are influenced by a prescribed and rigidly controlled edict that has given its followers a sense of identity, and an unchanging worldview. When expounding on religion and aspirations of a group of people, this theory gives way to constructivism, which claims that there is a definite hand of humans in ensuring actions of other humans. After all, monotheistic cults have been created by psychopathic individuals with an over inflated ego, and not because these individuals received any kind of divine message for the betterment of the world. Therefore, one is compelled to conclude that monotheistic faiths, that have been constructed and fueled by self-seeking humans, are responsible for much of the gory actions of the past rather than the innate nature of mankind. For instance: the Romans, due to the instigations by the emperors, did not stop quarreling among themselves to prevent the formation and solidification of a Christian empire, the Spaniards did not abandon their inhumane ways to live amicably with the native American population in the hope of discovering new lands, and the Muslims did not miss out on a chance to extirpate Hindu property and to maraud innocent people, just because Bharat aspired to becoming an independent nation.

Background Analysis

On August 15th, 1947, Bharat gained independence from the British. This “propitious” day is celebrated with much fanfare. But there is another less celebratory fact and that is Bharat was vivisected forcefully by the silent consent of people who put themselves in positions of protecting the Hindu homeland, but who in the end cowardly surrendered one-third of the territory to Islam. Something went terribly wrong somewhere, and with the right kind of maneuvering and the right amount of concessions, the Congress came in to power to reek havoc on the Indian polity with its brand of secularism which is In full force even today.

“A strategy based on self-deception, stands defeated from the very start”. It is interesting when the secular polymaths professing to know all the answers to the historical communal problems that lead to partition, quickly point the finger of blame to British ploys and later to Hindu communalism of the Hindu Mahasabha. But they will never part with the notion they so dearly cherish,, i.e. the British created the rift between Hindus and Muslims. The message we get from this specious reasoning is that, Hindus and Muslims were the best of neighbors before the wily British came around. This is false and misleading; the uncouth invaders who were unquestionably pious Muslims had never made it a priority to befriend the Kafirs of Bharat, instead they had expressly come to efface paganism altogether. The fact is that separatism is as intrinsic and fundamental to Islam, as an adhyatmik quest for eternal Satya is to Sanatan Dharm. Of course, like smart opportunists, the British did their part by exacerbating the already existing grave ideological disparities between Hindus and Muslims by offering Muslims favors to keep them aloof from the freedom struggle. This entailed offering well-placed jobs, favoring Urdu over Hindi, ignoring the Hindus demand for a ban on cow slaughter, granting special rights under the pretext of minority protection, and encouraging the already inherent separatist proclivities with the prospect of a separate Muslim state. We can sum up British attitude as: (divide and rule). As far as Hindu communalism being the culprit is concerned, there was no movement to divide Bharat, no question of surrendering territory to Islam, and there was certainly no concerted effort to appease one community at the expense of another.

The Muslim League also played its part by fomenting hatred and violence and overtly indulged in direct action also known as the Great Calcutta Killings which left thousands of Hindus dead or homeless. The Muslim League never truly supported the freedom struggle; the Hindus were its main enemies, not the British. The riots that took place in late 1946 and early 1947 could have been avoided. And, of course, before this tragedy, the Muslim League had been making absurd demands.

So, is there another more subtle but equally important factor that tipped the scales towards an ineluctable vivisection of the Hindu homeland? Yes. That factor is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. Now, it would be completely unfair and an insult to the memory of Gandhiji to say that his contributions were negligible. He had extraordinary appeal to the hoi-polloi, he transmuted the freedom-movement in to a mass-movement, and the idea of Swadeshi revolutionized the way the Bharatiya people viewed the British Empire from an economic perspective. In order to defeat Britain, Bharat would have to establish economic self-reliance, and Gandhi understood that very well. Gandhi’s principle of non-violence has influenced many personalities such as Martin Luther King Jr. in the fight for civil liberties for the Black community, and Nelson Mandela’s struggle to rid South Africa of apartheid.

It would also be pure exaggeration to claim that Gandhi and the Congress were not honestly for a united Bharat. But the truth is, the national leadership simply could not expect a community whose essential belief is to eliminate Dar-ul-harb land of (infidels), and to establish Dar-ul-Islam to constructively participate in an essentially pagan nation’s aspiration for freedom. Gandhi’s distorted knowledge of the Quran and its anti-humanity message was a major factor that determined Bharat’s blood-soaked fate. In two parts, this essay attempts to explain a series of avoidable blunders made in the hope of achieving unity with the Muslims which left Bharat bleeding, its Hindu population fleeing from death and destruction, and the leaders silently and heartlessly watching their mistakes burgeon but too proud to admit that they indeed were wrong for entertaining even the slightest possibility that Muslims would abandon their slake for Hindu blood.

After the first war of independence of 1857, the British realized that they would have to grant India a level of limited autonomy. So, in 1885, the Indian National Congress was formed by a British civil servant with the objective of granting Indians some rights at the local and even state level, but to have central British rule continued unhindered. The Congress eventually split in to distinct ideological camps. The moderates: were the ones who believed that if they complied with the British authorities and worked on expanding the meager reforms offered, it would sooner or later lead to freedom. The extremists believed in a less forbearing method; they asserted that freedom could only be achieved through conventional violence. Patriots such as: Bipin Chandra Pal, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Orobindo Ghose, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the Chafekar brothers, Kudiram Bose, Madanlal Dhingra, Dadabhai Naoroji, Lala Hardayal, Rash Behari Bose, Udham Singh, Shiam Krishna Verma, Sarat Chandra Chatargee, Virendranath Chatopadhyaya, Ulhaskar Datta, Bhagat Singh, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat rai and later Subhash Chandra Bose who took an invigorating initiative by infusing national pride in the populous and created an exhilarating ambience of infectious aspiration for complete Svarajya.

It wasn’t until 1914 when Gandhi was excommunicated from South-Africa. Upon reaching Bharat, he immediately plunged in to political life. The struggle for freedom however, was begun much earlier by more assertive and discerning revolutionaries. It was only during Gandhi’s reign that the concept of Satyagraha (civil disobedience) was formulated and put in to practice, and that is when the placation method commenced culminating in an event drenched in so much blood that it can only be likened to the Holocaust.

Separate Electorates: a Solution?

Although Lord Dufferon the Viceroy of India in 1888 was the first to spur Muslim separatism by suggesting separate electorates and communal representation, which became an unfortunate reality with the introduction of the Moorley-Minto reforms, the Congress too, quietly accepted the terms of the Lucknow Pact conceived at its 31st session on December 29th 1916, and later agreed upon by the All India Muslim League on the 31st. After the unsuccessful partition of Bengal in 1905, a tactic initiated by the governor General Lord Curzon, and its annulment in 1911, the Muslims wanted some kind of special perquisites because of their supposed delicate position in the Indian polity. Muhammad Ali Jinnah although still belonging to the Congress, was the chief architect for cementing one outrageous and destructive demand after another eventually precipitating to the partition. The pact’s main clauses were increased self-government for Indians at the provincial and central level, and more sinisterly the granting of separate electorates and communal representation to the Muslims. One of the first seeds of certainty that Akhand Bharat would no longer exist as concrete reality had been sowed. Muslims did not have to fear the Hindus at all, because the provinces in which the Muslims were a minority, weight ages were granted to them. This was a gargantuan mistake fore a united nation having separate electorates for each community is unheard of and usually spells doom as far as harmony between different religious groups is concerned. How can a section of the population that is allowed special treatment in such a blatant and partisan way be loyal to a state whose very political mechanism it is being divided against? The Lucknow pact not only sanctioned the intrinsic separatism of Islam, but it also let loose a juggernaut of increasingly irrational Muslim demands, that made it impossible for Gandhi and the Indian National Congress to refuse.

In Punjab Muslims were to represent as much as One-half of the electorate! In Bombay One-third, in Madras 15 percent, in the central provinces 15 percent, in bihar 25 percent, and in Bengal 40 percent. In 1918, placating the implacable went further, the communal representation was expanded to include Muslims not just in the legislative and local bodies but also spread to the cabinet. The Montague Chelmsford reforms which were devised by Mr. Edwin Montague the secretary of state for India and the Viceroy Lord Chelmsford, lead to the Government of India act in 1919. Here, communal representation was increased, especially in Bengal where Muslims got more than what had been surrendered by the Lucknow Pact. The craven attitude of kowtowing to Muslims by surrendering vital issues that the Congress adopted did not help Bharat to move towards a self-governing eventuality; rather it emboldened certain minorities to look out for their self-serving and partisan interests instead of being collective citizens. There was more to come.

Khilafat Agitation = Mopla Rebellion

Turkey was expeditiously becoming a secular state, and the Sultan of Turkey or the Khillifa was losing power. The Khilafat was an extra-territorial pan-Islamic movement that sought to align Muslims with Turkey. This movement had nothing to do with Svarajya, but it was a detriment to Bharat; the Hindus would not gain anything at all by assisting the Muslims. In a last bid to preserve Muslim domination, the Muslim League invited the Congress to join in the Khilafat agitation in its meet in December 1919. Gandhi was positively elated at the prospect of Hindu and Muslims amalgamating to achieve the “primary” goal, Svarajya. He was deluded however. The Congress also lent its support to the Khilafat movement and from 1919 to 1921, precious time was squandered to expedite an impracticable and anti-national cause. Arvind Lavakare, a Rediff columnist, in an article titled Of Sabarmati secularism & non-violence, quotes Gandhi from VB Kolcarni’s book “India and Pakistan”, as saying: "If the Hindus wish to cultivate eternal friendship with Mussalmans, they must perish with them in the attempt to vindicate the honor of Islam." It is worth asseverating that when the secularists hurl vituperations at the Hindutva parties for mixing religion with politics, they would do well to remember that it was the “Father of the Nation” who began the deleterious practice.

The leaders of the Khilafat agitation in India were Maulana Mohammed Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali also known as the Ali brothers. Gandhiji of course, showered encomiums upon the Ali brothers, forgetting that not only was Khilafat Andolan far removed from the goals of independence, butt was also a violent movement that sought to bring the entire world under the aegis of Islam. Gandhi thought that he could intricately intertwine the non-cooperation movement, which he started in support of the Khilafat, with Islam’s desire to rule Bharat once again. The two movements were diametrically opposed to each other.

It is indubitable that Gandhi did not fully understand the implications or repercussions of what he was doing, or that what he was trying to accomplish, i.e. (Hindu-Muslim unity), could not be achieved as long as Islam retained its fundamentals of inequity between the believer and the “unbeliever”. In a book titled: “Pakistan, or, the Partition of India”, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar perspicuously elucidates the irrational positions that the Congress and Gandhiji adopted in order to defend their formula of Hindu-Muslim unity. For instance: they had no qualms about defending a violent movement that without any doubt was against Ahimsa. The author states, that when the Hindus expressed their doubts about supporting the Khilafat on the grounds that:

The Muslims would never support a ban on cow slaughter. There was a good possibility that the Amir of Afghanistan might invade bharat. Finally, the main concern was Muslims might gain political dominance over the Hindus.

But Gandhiji had explanations for all these valid concerns. For the issue of cow slaughter, he advised the Hindus to assist the Muslims without placing any conditions in supporting the Khilafat (Ambedkar 109). Regarding concerns over the Amir’s invasion of Bharat, Gandhi informed his faithful followers that he would certainly assist the Amir of Afghanistan if he were to wage war against the British (109). In short, this statement was a clear endorsement of the invasion of Bharat. Finally, regarding the possibility of the potential for political dominance of the Muslims, he simply said that the Hindus were right to raise these concerns, but the Muslim position was irresistible. He suavely asserted: “If I deem the Mahomedan to be my brother, it is my duty to help him in his hour of peril to the best of my ability, if his cause commends itself to me as just (110).” So, supporting Khillifat movement was just? But was it not the complete antithesis of what Gandhi’s non-violence was all about? Ambedkar further evinces how Gandhi not only lent his support to the Khilafatists but was also their one and only enthusiastic Hindu guide. In a fruitless attempt to win eternal friendship with the Muslims, Gandhi forgot the real goal of the Bharatiya people which was to win freedom.

Another blunder that Gandhi made was like all things, he over-emphasized Ahimsa, and the Chauri Chaura incident was no exception. When the enraged mob burned down the police station after being provoked by passing constables, Gandhi hurriedly withdrew the non-cooperation movement. This incident was relatively minor compared to some of the sanguinary history and more grim incidents that would occur in the near future. In short, Chauri Chaura did not merit a cancellation of a movement whose aim was freedom, and not allegiance to a gross misinterpretation of Ahimsa.

The Khilafat agitation failed and the Khilifa in far off Turkey was defeated. Furious at being thwarted by the British regime in the attempt to reestablish the Khilafat, the Muslims vented their anger on the Hindus of Malabar. Thousands of Hindus were killed, their property looted, women raped, and many more were forcibly converted to Islam. British troops were called to quell the unprecedented bloodshed. Gandhi also called an immediate halt of hostilities, against the Hindus? No. Gandhi wanted the British troops to suspend hostilities against the Moplas! As proof of Gandhi’s and Congress’s soft-corner for Muslim intransigence and barbarism, Dr. Ambedkar presents the resolution passed by the Congress Working Committee (CWC), which claimed that, the reports published on behalf of the government were very one-sided and exaggerated accounts of Mopla enormities against the Hindus. The resolution was very carefully worded, so as not to hurt Muslim sentiments. The CWC still urged the Khilafatists to adopt the message of non-violence; if the CWC and other national leaders had bothered to study Islamic theology, they would have known that non-violence against the infidels did not figure in the Quranic vocabulary. The CWC was blissfully incognizant of the seriousness of the attacks on Hindus, or, perhaps, if such enormities were acknowledged, then that would patently suggest that the Muslims were at fault. For the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity, no atrocity against Hindus could even be alluded to, let alone acknowledged. Another interesting instance cited by Dr. Ambedkar is the CWC’s reaction to the massive bloodshed. While mildly condemning the pernicious actions of moplas, the congress asserted that the blood of the Hindus had been spilled due to provocation. This was pure and unadulterated casuistry, because there was no provocation by the British government or the Hindus. Today, going by the logic that the Congress employed during the Mopla massacres, we can safely conclude that the post-Godhra incident is also pure exaggeration, just as the enormities committed by the Moplas were one-sided and exaggerated. The Muslims and their Mullahs and Maulvis think of it as a divine right to slaughter the Kafirs (unbelievers). It is not difficult at all to locate the Quranic Ayats from which this divine inspiration to eliminate Kafirs came from. But Gandhiji did not like to face reality, instead he clinched the matter by saying, "They are brave and god-fearing people who were fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner which they consider
as religious.”

Although the forcible conversions and assaults on Hindus of Malabar were widespread, Gandhi and the Congress were mum on the matter. It is time to question the whole idea of Gandhi’s version of Ahimsa, which becomes glaringly patent even in an early stage of this essay that it was applied selectively, and was reserved exclusively for the Hindus. Gandhi was no specialist in Islamic theology, and therefore did not realize that the sudden interest in defeating the British patrons was simply fugacious, and had ulterior pan-Islamic motives.

However, not everyone had fallen victim to Gandhiji’s sophistic logic, and Dr. Annie Beasant was certainly not impressed by the slogan of "Ishwar Allah Tere Naam". In a report titled: Malabar’s Agony that appeared in New India on November 29, 1921, she criticized the stance of Gandhi on the plight of the Hindus of Malabar. She rightfully claimed that the predictable outcome was due to Gandhi’s impolitic idea of supporting the Khilafat movement, and mixing it up with non-cooperation. Dr. Beasant described the sufferings of the Malabar men, women, and children At the hands of the “God fearing” Moplas. For instance: the report sites an instance where a Muslim asked the Doctor if he would live, when the answer was in the negative, the Mopla’s reply was: "Well, I"m glad that I killed fourteen infidels", but of course this was the true and righteous Mopla spirit and religion according to Gandhi.

Despite these sharp observations recorded by Dr. Beasant, and the report by the British government, the CWC put the number of forcible conversions at only three. The Moplas did not hesitate even a second to slay innocent Hindus, and Gandhi’s attitude vis-à-vis the Moplas reflected anything but condemnation for the savage acts sanctioned by Islam.

More Fruits of Hindu-Muslim Unity

In spite of Gandhi’s tireless efforts to encourage the so-called nationalist Muslims to participate constructively in the national struggle, nothing was achieved as far as Hindu interests were concerned. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, there were ferocious riots that claimed a high loss of life. These riots were usually started under pretexts such as: a Muslim holiday, around a mosque, or over Hindu religious processions passing through Muslim dominated neighborhoods. The book “Pakistan, or the Partition of India” further clarifies Gandhi’s hazardous obsession with Hindu-Muslim unity. In 1924, Gandhi fasted for 21 days to bring about unity among Hindus and Muslims; this fast was taken under the roof of a Muslim house (233). The fast produced unity conferences, which, were superficial and ephemeral to say the least. There was heavy rioting from 1924 to 1926. As Bharat’s struggle for achieving freedom unfolded, so did the results of Gandhi’s misguided and stubborn policies.

The Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayananda Saraswati, was proactive in removing untouchability, promoting widow remarriage, denouncing animal sacrifice, discouraging Sati (widow immolation), and most crucially, the founder of this pioneering reformist organization actually bothered to examine Islamic dogma and was one of the few Hindu revivalists to recognize the cult for what it really is. But of course, this novel and liberating approach did not stand a chance, when Gandhiji and the Congress were so busy overdosing the Hindu Samaj with otiose “all religions are equally true" slogans.

The Arya Samaj was also active in the Shuddhi program started by Swami Shraddhananda that sought to bring the alienated Muslims and Christians back to the Hindu fold. This movement gained tremendous popularity in the early 1900s, and at the same time Mullahs began to denounce this movement and openly called for the elimination of Swami Shraddhananda. The call was taken up by one Abdul Rashid, a Muslim youth who assassinated the Swami in his sick bed. Rashid was hanged for his untenable crime, but the Muslim community treated him as a martyr. Gandhi as usual went a step further, and pronounced that he considered Abdul Rashid to be a brother.

From 1926-1930, several prominent Hindu leaders were killed or severely injured, and the death toll from rioting also rose exponentially. The Muslim community defended these acts by simply asserting that the Quranic law sanctioned the killings of Kafirs. The Congress under the leadership of Gandhi, did not condemn Muslim aggression; no protestation at all was expected from the Muslim leaders.

In 1927, the Simon Commission was set up to monitor and proffer suggestions regarding the constitution, the Muslims quickly rushed forth with yet another set of intemperate demands, which entailed: autonomy for all provinces, central legislature to constitute one-third Muslim representation, more safeguards for Islamic personal law, culture, and religion, raising the North-West Frontier Provinces and Baluchistan to the status of self-governing provinces, weakened authority of the central government, and the separation of Sind from the Bombay presidency. Ironically, along with the Hindus, the Simon Commission also opposed the importunities, but when push came to shove, the British gave in and each of the desires was fulfilled.

Thus far we have observed an abysmal pattern of: the Muslims make a demand, the Congress and Gandhi rise magnificently to meet that demand, which is then ensued by sanguinary acts by the Muslims. Was this constant surrender necessary, was it called for? Gandhi frequently invoked the Bhagavad-Gita as his divine inspiration. Although the Bhagavad-Gita does focus on Ahimsa as a virtue to be emulated, however it does not put a premium on the aggressor’s excesses regarding morality. Shri-krishna urges Arjun to fight; he does not advise the Pandavs to lay down their arms and lead a protest against the outrages of the Kauravs.

In the English translation of the Bhagavad-Gita by A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami, Shri-Krishn asserted that Arjun should perform his duty as a Kshatriya, and advises Arjun not to hesitate in defending Dharm against Adharm. ShriKrishn further affirms: “Do thou fight for the sake of fighting, without considering happiness or distress, loss or gain, victory or defeat -- and by so doing you shall never incur Sin”. Simply from a few verses of the Gita, we can patently observe that it’s essential meaning is not full surrender to the forces of evil, but rather it is a call to defeat this evil, first by dialogue, than if necessary by force.. Ahimsa does play a prominent role in dissuading the enemy from their unjust deeds, but the Gita does not rule out all other alternatives. If Gandhi had really comprehended the clarion message, than he would not have spent all his time trying to enlist Adharmic forces in support of Bharat’s independence, and that Adharmic force is Islam.

With separate elections firmly established, the Mopla uprising being a success in once again terrorizing the Islam incognizant Hindu samaj in to making more concessions, and the subsequent street riots playing an efficacious role, the Muslim League with each successive election became increasingly powerful. One sagacious step that Gandhi and the Congress could have taken, was to join the Hindu Mahasabha to check the alarming growth of the Muslim League and its irrational demands. However, as we have observed and will continue to observe, Gandhi had very little time or patience with anyone opposed to his scheme of Hindu-Muslim unity and his distorted version of Ahimsa. Finally, we are left with the rhetorical question: if valorous Hindus like the Marathas, the Rajputs, the Sikhs, and the Jats had followed Gandhi’s interpretation of the Bhagavad-Gita in dealing with Islamic invaders, would Bharat still be predominantly Hindu at present?