In response to a query from India, the writer launched a serious investigation into Sufism, and came to the conclusion that what is called Islamic Mysticism is, in fact, an extension of the Vedic doctrine. The article would have been published in this issue of Liberty but for the present review headed: “Birds of a Feather Flock Together.”

It deals with the book: “The Rediscovery of India – A New Subcontinent” by Mr. Ansar Hussain Khan, who had emigrated to Pakistan in 1947, along with his parents, but when he grew up, became an Indian national again.

Mr. Khan thinks that India ought to become a part of a confederation with Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is not a new thought, but has perilous implications for Bharat. Why? This article answers this important question. – Anwar Shaikh

I have received from India, a copy of the book: “The Rediscovery of India – A New Subcontinent,” which has been reviewed by various magazines.

The book is actually a single volume history of India, yet it is different from other history books, which aim at describing facts through a neutral narrative. The volume under discussion, however, is a historical review of India, which seeks to demonstrate how past events have caused divisions among the natives, especially, the Hindus and the Muslims, leading to the partition of the land in 1947, and claims, had the British rulers so desired, this catastrophe could have been averted. To conclude, the author suggests that the old parts of India, namely, Bharat, Pakistan and Bangladesh can still be brought together through a confederation, which is bound to be beneficent to all the participants.

The author, Ansar Hussain Khan was born in 1928 in Calcutta but his family roots go back to Jhelum (now in Pakistan). Thus, in a way, he is a neighbor of the reviewer, who was born in the same year, some thirty miles away. However, the author’s birthplace bestows a distinction upon him.

By 1671 as the conversion mania of Aurangzeb, the Mughal Emperor of India, reached its climax, he ordered Nawab Iftikhar Khan, the Governor of Kashmir, to convert the Kashmiri Pandits, the acknowledged leaders of Hinduism. The Pandits formed a fifteen-man deputation under the leadership of Kirpa Ram Datt for stating their case to the immortal Sikh Guru, Tegh Bahadur. The two great Pandits, namely, Sati Dass and Dayal Dass, who embraced martyrdom heroically along with the Guru to save Dharma, came from Jhelum, the original homeland of Mr. Ansar Hussain Khan, the author.

The pro-Hindu stance of the book seems to have some instinctive virtue, directly related to the ancestral values of the author, whose roots go back to the Janjua Rajputs. With this goes his genuineness of expression and honesty of purpose, coupled with scholarship and immense hard work which has gone into the preparation of this work. No doubt, the author’s views are above suspicion and admit no political skullduggery, yet they are debatable and one feels obliged to analyse them owing to their challenge, boldness and the apparent desirability.

Before undertaking the deeper discussion, I must add that Ansar’s opinion of the British rule in India emanates from the prejudice, which is usually held by the ruled against their rulers. If slaves knew the dignity of liberty, they would not accept slavery at any cost. This lack of appreciation leads to the inferiority complex, which the vassals use as a shield to hide their shame and inadequacy. Thus, they blame their masters to look innocent themselves.

Like Ansar, I too hate the political degradation that I suffered during British Raj. Yet I can honestly say that the British were the best masters that India ever had; in fact, they were a blessing disguised as a blight. Hindustan, the land of the Hindus, was politically divided into roughly two equal parts: the British India and the Princely India. The former had colleges, universities, hospitals, nearly free press, well developed communications by way of rail, road and radio, and an irrigation system, especially in the Punjab, which ranked as the envy of the world. All this was crowned with political liberties, which culminated in parties like the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. These political parties were trained in the art of politics by the British themselves. The truth is that the British ruled India by consent. The Mutiny of 1857 had nothing to do with the British rule, which started after this uprising against the East India Company, a commercial concern. It shows the moral degradation of the Indians, who, despite their huge numbers and immense material resources, could not check the onslaught of a tiny business enterprise. When we look into this episode closely, it transpires that the British handed the Indians their freedom on a silver platter because the latter did not have to fight for it. Realizing the huge number of toadies in India, it is difficult to imagine how Indians could have won their independence through a war.

Among prominent collaborators were the hundreds of princely states, governed by the local rulers, who could hold their dignity during British pleasure only. These local despots were every bit as bad in oppression, injustice and plundering to their subjects as were the Turkish and Mughal rulers of India, who did not build a single university or hospital during their long period of iniquity.

Compared to the British India, the Princely India, was a cradle of suppression, depression and oppression. If it were not for the indirect British influence in these states, their rulers would have turned their men into monkeys. The fact that the Indians did not have to fight the British for freedom, absolves them of the usually levelled charge of divide and rule. The British ruled several communities and they were politcally and morally obliged to give a fair hearing to all of them. It was the attitudes of mutual hatred, which contributed to the communal divisions, but came to be ascribed to the British. This is the truth that Gandhi described when he said:”…but if both of us – Hindus and Muslims – cannot agree on anything else, the Viceroy is left with no choice.”

It was not the British, who divided India: it is the Congress and the League that had agreed to partition as the solution and “Mountbatten was not to blame”, Gandhi assured.

Then what were the causes of the partition? Broadly speaking, I believe that the following were the factors, which brought about the Indian calamity:

1. External
2. Internal

1. The external cause is mainly Islam. Why? Because Islam is not a religion but a political Arab doctrine, dressed up as a Divine Faith, which seeks to secure Arab cutural domination over the non-Arab Muslims through a complex mask of principles and practices – all aiming to serve the purpose of Muhammad. Here the author seems to have made a serious mistake: he depicts Islam as a tolerant and practical religion, and puts the entire blame on its practitioners. To understand the nature of Islam, one must ask: What was the purpose of Muhammad?

Answer to this question cannot be understood properly without a reference to human psychology: no social organization can be created and maintained without power. As we can see, the structure of power is hierarchical i.e. it is broad at the base like a pyramid but tapers off as it rises higher. This is the reason that, as a general rule, one person sits right at the top and the rest follow his command. In any hierarchy, the participants are engaged in a struggle for power, which emanates from the human urge for dominance. An example of this truth is to be found in the pecking order of birds: the stronger bird pecks the weaker bird to exert its dominance. The same urge (drive) is at work when a kangaroo fights other kangaroos to demonstrate its superiority over the rest for proving its priority to food and water.

Dominance is established, not by just force of arms; it also requires intellectual manipulation – a stratagem. This is well proven by the conduct of the conquerors, who would first indulge in carnage and plunder to establish their supremacy over the vanquished, and then prolong their grip through a peaceful political system, operated by their collaborators. However, the dominance urge of the conquerors, rulers and administrators becomes extinct when they die, but the dominance urge of the prophets does not perish with them. In fact, it becoems stronger as time marches on, because they are able to command people from beyond the grave.

Prophethood is based on the Middle Eastern doctrine of revelation. It means that God appoints a man as His sole Medium or Messenger and tells people through him what to do or not to do. As nobody can see or converse with God, but his Prophet can be contacted, he (the Prophet) serves as the symbol of God exactly the same way as a statue of Krishna is treated as his Symbol. The only difference is that the former is abstract but the latter is stone. In practice, they both are equally idolized and promote the cause of idolatry. Prophethood is a subtle ruse of a man, who eagerly wants to establish himself as God indirectly. He does so because he knows that by becoming the Divine Idol, he dominates, the hearts and minds of the people, who actually worship him through their prayers. It is well known that jealousy among the dominants is the worst. For example, Tamurlain, the conqueror, held that there is one God; that this earth can support one ruler only. To prove it, he eternally waged campaigns of terror to destroy, devastate and disgrace his rivals. This is the reason that a Prophet, who wants to be treated as the Divine Idol, cannot tolerate other idols and wants to uproot them. Herein lies the cause of destruction of Hindu temples and their statues. This is the reason that the Muslims built mosques in Benares and Mathura to cry out the name of Muhammad from the highest possible towers, not once, but five times a day. If this is not idolatry, then what is it?

How can Muslims of India dissociate themselves from the most sacrilegious acts of Ghaznavi and Aurangzeb? By doing so, they deny respect to Muhammad, the Divine Idol.

The truth is that Muhammad possessed the most extraordinary urge of dominance. First, he incorporated his own name in Kalma (Shahada) along with Allah to be His equal, and then he projected himself much higher than Allah, who along with His angels prays i.e. worships him (Muhammad):

XXXIII – The Clans: 56 “God and His angels pray peace to the Prophet(Muhammad) Oh believers, you must also pray peace to the Prophet.”

One should remember that Salaat, the main form of Muslim worship is a fundamental ritual of Islam, in this verse:

“Yasalluna alan-Nabi”

“Yasallun” has exactly the same root as Salaat, which is the method to worship Allah. It is incredible that in every religion, it is man who worships God, but in Islam, it is Allah, who worships Muhmmad.

Bokhari, Vol. one, Hadith No. 14 “None of you will have faith till you love me (Muhammad) more than your father, your children, and all mankind.”

Another hadith says that Allah and His angels bless (Darood) ten times the person, who sends Darood to the Prophet once. Obviously, this is all that Allah and His angels exist for. Yet the Muslims claim that Islam represents monotheism!

To gain Divinity, the Prophet devised a plan of Arab Imperialism, not known to history; nor was it exposed by anyone until “Islam – The Arab National Movement” was published recently. Having dealt with the issue in the said book, I shall refer to it here briefly. However, I may quote a hadith from Tirmzi, volume two, page No. 722, which clearly shows what Muhammad thought of himself and his people i.e. fellow Arabs:

God created mankind. Then He chose two groups – the descendants of Isaac (the Jews) and the descendants of Ishmael, the Quresh tribe (the people of Muhammad). Then He (God) chose the tribe and family, and created me in the best tribe and family. Therefore, I am the best of mankind.

This is the reason, the Muslims believe that Muhammad was Khair-ul-Bashar, the best of all mankind, and he himself thought of his people as the best of all nations. However, some scholars, especially the Hindus, refuse to believe that Muhammad was essentially a national leader because “he molested the Arabs themselves.” This is a very shallow argument, indeed. Muhammad found his people divided into warring tribes, and realized that this mutual division and hatred was the main cause of their disrepute, downfall and degradation. Therefore, through a process of carrot and stick, he welded them into a great nation. His example, knowingly or unknowingly, was boldly followed by the great Mongolian leader, Genghis Khan, and the immortal Abraham Lincoln of the United States. Just because their actions caused bloodshed, they cannot be held as nation-bashers. On the contrary, they were national heroes of a high stature. Their deeds are like a surgical operation, which is undertaken to cure the patient. One should also remember that the Prophet expelled all Jews from Arabia to create a pure Arab nation but he did not banish the Quresh, who had caused him much greater persecution, because they were Arabs and constituted his own tribe.

In this regard, the Prophet copied the Mosaic model, which demonstrates that a national leader is likely to fall into oblivion unless he has united a nation behind him, ready to do his bidding. Having created a sense of national unity among the Arabs, his second step was to make them believe that their land and institutions were the best in the world for being of Divine Origin. The national tendencies of the Prophet are well displayed by his famous hadith:

“Love of one’s motherland is an integral part of Faith” (Habb al Watan man al Iman) but the Muslim zealots of non-Arab extraction, especially, Bharti, Pakistani and Bangladeshi, who have lost the ability to love their country of origin, believe that this is an apocryphal saying of the Prophet. To encounter it, they claim that the Prophet during his last Hajj, had stated:

1. No Arab has any preference over a non-Arab, nor the red has any priority over the black, and vice versa.
2. All Muslims are brothers among themselves.

In fact, this statement ascribed to the Prophet, is a clever forgery of the Arab rulers, who exploited the non-Arab Muslims in the guise of Muslim brotherhod. Of course, there are hadiths which state that Muslims are brothers, but they mean Arab Muslims because non-Arab Muslims hardly existed at that time. The purpose of these hadiths was to unite the mutually warring Arab tribes into one nation under the flag of Islam. One must remember, the Welfare State that Umar, the second Caliph, established in Arabia, was for the sole benefit of the Arabs, who despoiled the Egyptians and the Iranians to provide care for their own people with the looted wealth of these subjugated people. Among these plundered, persecuted and paralysed folks were also the Muslim converts, whose lands had been seized by these Arab brethren.

There is a Koranic test to settle this point: when an issue is not quite clear, the truth or falsehood may be decided with reference to the Sunnah, i.e. Muhammad’s authentic words and deeds, which are treated as the behavioral model of the Prophet, and being the practical annotation of the Koran, are considered binding on every Muslim. The hadith No. 137 of Mishkat, volume one, page 51, lays down that he who defies the Sunnah, does not belong to Muhammad i.e. he is not a Muslim.

Having dealt with this issue in “Islam – The Arab National Movement”, I may quote from the Sunnah summarily. One can clearly see from the following that Muhammad’s entire thinking and actions were dedicated to Arab nationalism, which is fully represented by his already cited hadith: Habb al Watan man al Iman (love of one’s motherland is the integral part of Faith). Draw your own conclusions from the following:

1. When Allah expelled Adam from the Garden of Eden, He ordered him (Adam) to go to Mecca and build there the House of God, called Kaaba. (Obviously, there was no such thing as Mecca or Arabia at the time because Adam was the first man on earth, and he had not been there before). Mecca being the place where Allah lives, has got to be the best spot of the entire universe!
2. This house of Allah known as Kaaba, also, happens to be the Kibla i.e. the direction of worship. To cover up this distinction, the Koran does say that the East and the West belong to Allah and there is no special virtue in any direction. This statement is just an eye-wash because it is obligatory to face Mecca, the birth place of Muhammad, for offering prayers to Allah where His house is.
3. A Muslim’s grave must be dug in a way that his body when buried, faces Mecca.
4. So sacred is Mecca that nobody must defecate himself facing Mecca. He who does so is a Kafir or infidel.
5. Every Muslim, no matter where he lives, must come to Mecca for pilgrimage, provided he has the financial means to do so.
   This is a pre-Islamic custom which the prophet retained because of its very high economic significance to his country, Arabia.
6. Allah speaks Arabic, and the Koran is also in Arabic, which is a very difficult language to learn. All Muslims must learn it to be blessed. Fancy how biased Allah is in favor of Arabia!
7. Kaaba was made to look more sacred to the Jews than Jerusalem because it was claimed by Muhammad to have been rebuilt by Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews.
8. Kaaba is the center of Allah’s blessings because it is here that 120 Divine Benedictions descend every day, and are then distributed to the rest of the world.
9. Even the Arabian graveyards known as Jannat ul Mualla and Jannat ul Baquee are the most sacred. According to a hadith,, they look shining to the dwellers of the skies the same way as sun and moon appear to the people of the earth. Those who are buried there, shall enter paradise without any accountability and each of them shall be privileged to intercede for seventy thousand people!
10. Ibne Majah reports in hadith No. 1463, page 404, that a namaz i.e. prayer in the Mosque in Medina brings 100 times more blessings than a similar prayer in other mosques; and a prayer in the Kaaba invokes 100,000 benedictions compared to a similar worship in other mosques.

Having raised sky-high the sanctity of his national institutions and cultural values, the Prophet declared that Allah has made him the model of behavior for every Muslim. Therefore, they must think, act, eat, drink, dress, sleep, walk and talk like him. In fact, the closer his imitation, the greater the chances of a person to enter paradise.

Look at the following:

XXXIII, The Confederates: 20 “You have had a good example in Allah’s Messenger for whosoever hopes for Allah and the Last Day…”

In Bokhari, volume 9, hadiths No. 381, 382 and 401, emphasize this point, and the already quoted hadith from Mishkat makes it clear that those who do not follow Muhammad’s traditions, that is Sunnah, are not Muslims, and therefore shall go to hell or dozakh/jahannum.

Since Muhammad loved and followed the Arab cultural traditions and institutions, all Muslims must follow suit. This is the unique national wisdom of Muhammad!

In this connection, one finds a stunning hadith in Tirmzi, volume one, page 733, which tells people of the Arina tribe to drink milk and urine of camels to quench their thirst. It is an attempt to make camel the national symbol, as the Turks had wolf and the Poles, eagle as their emblems.

Since there is nothing worse than receiving a terrible roasting in a burning hell, one’s greatest object of life is to seek escape from it. Luckily, the Prophet Muhammad has a sure solution for this most dreadful problem; he has been given intercessory powers by Allah, that is, whomever he (Muhammad) recommends shall qualify for paradise even if he were a thief, murderer, rapist and cheat. The only real condition for this most felicitous favor is an unshakable faith in Muhammad and the keenness to imitate him in all detail.

And what is paradise?

It is a limitless garden where there is no dole, death or disease. This is the most beautiful place of luxury. Everything is available by desire. People do not do anything there except love-making. For this purpose, every man shall be given sevent-two ever-young virgins of sparkling beauty and manners. In addition, there will be pearl-like youths to enhance the pleasures of the paradise-dwellers. To make sure that they can cope with the delightful pressures of merriment, they will be made thirty years old when entering paradise, and shall not age further. Above all, their virility shall be increased a hundred fold and it will take eighty-four years to experience orgasm.

Now one can see that the Prophet built the entire Islamic faith about the greatness and sanctity of his own person. Not only is he the best of mankind, but Allah and His angels worship him. Despite all this self-eulogy, he knew that it requires the strength of a nation to keep a person’s name alive as a hero. To achieve this end, he made Jehad i.e. war against the non-Muslims a duty, just for not acknowledging Muhammad as the Savior, and with a view to tempting his followers to become ever-ready warriors, he declared that murder, plunder and rape of the captured women was ‘lawful and good’. It is for self-glory that he wanted to create a Superior Arab Race. This desire of the Prophet became true and lasted for several centuries.

In Mishkat, volume 3, pages 213-19, there is a chapter about Quresh, the tribe of the Prophet Muhammad, which lays down that the Quresh are the best of all nations, and the only people entitled to govern the world of Islam including all non-Muslim countries. If there were only two people alive, it was Quresh, who would be eligible to rule. The Prophet made Arabs conscious of their national superiority: for example, when he saw one of his men holding an Iranian bow, he said: “What is this? Throw it away; this type of thing is not necessary for you.” Showing him an Arabian bow, he continued: “This, and things like this (i.e. of an Arabian origin) are necessary for you because Allah helps you in faith and cities with these.” (Mishkat volume two, chapter Jehad, Section 3). I hardly need add that the Prophet made fencing, archery, javelin-throwing and horse-riding, parts of piety and a guarantee of entering paradise!

Having raised an Arab army fired with the ideal of national dominance, the Prophet expressed political sagacity, which only a man of his stature could muster. He declared that Islam is the religion for all nations! This is a piece of high wisdom. Why? Having established the Arab institutions and cultural values as divine by dint of the Islamic faith, and announcing imitation of the Prophetic Model of Behavior, the proof of faith which guarantees paradise, he imposed on non-Arab Muslim nations the Arabian superiority which is not only religious but also cultural and political. This is the reason that the Arabs no longer need the sword to keep the non-Arab Muslims under subjugation: the opium of faith is quite sufficient to secure this goal.

With this sophistication goes the master plan of the Prophet which permanently divided the human society into perpetually opposed groups through a scheme of friction based on the dichotomy of Momim (Muslims) and Kafir (non-Muslims), assuring victory to the former. This revolutionary interpretation of history known as Didactical Materialism is ascribed to Karl Marx, who borrowed it from F.W. Hegel. It holds that there is a permanent friction between opposing forces, thesis and antithesis, which is resolved by the emergence of a new force synthesis.

Similarly, Muhammad held that there is a permanent war between Islam and non-belief in Muhammad (Kufr). The situation is rectified when Islam, being the Din e Ghalib (the naturally dominant religion), shall triumph through a never-ending process of Jehad (the holy war). See this truth for yourself:

1. Those who oppose Islam are Satan’s party, and shall be losers; those who believe in Allah and Muhammad are Allah’s (or God’s) party and they are sure to be the victors. (LVIII – The Disputer:20)
2. The true religion with God is Islam. (The House of Imran:15)
3. Allah has sent Muhammad to uplift Islam over all other religions. (XLVIII, Victory: 25)
4. Slaughter the idolaters wherever you find them…but if they repent, and perform the prayer…(IX – Repentance: 5)
5. Fight those who do not believe in Allah and Muhammad…until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled. (IX – Repentance: 25)
6. The Prophet must struggle against the unbelievers and hypocrites and must be harsh with them. (IX – Repentance: 70)
   Against the above, examine the following sample:
7. The believers indeed are brothers. (Apartments: 10)
8. Muslims are hard against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. (XLVIII – Victory: 25)

From the above one cans see easily that Islam is the faith not only based on the principle of Muslim versus non-Muslim, but the followers of this religion also have the divine duty to make Islam prevail over all other religions and ideologies such as Marxism. This is the reason why wherever the Muslims settle, the country becomes Dar ul Harb, the land of war, and cannot become Dar ul Islam, the land of peace, until the Muslims gain political dominance through arbitrary rule and forced conversions. This is the real tragedy of India because this is what creates communal divisions giving rise to the two-nation theory, and this is the reason that the Muslims of India do not class themselves as Indians. Instead they are Muslims, the deadly enemies of idolaters, the Hindus, and rejoice in associating themselves with Muhammad bin Qasim and Mahmud Ghaznavi.

After this discussion, I am in a position to make an unusual judgment on the Muslims of India. I have shown clearly that the Prophet Muhammad was driven by the love for his country and this is fully borne out by the Sunnah, which is binding on those who claim to be Muslims. Thus a person is not a Muslim, unless he loves his motherland. Since an Indian Muslim thinks of Bharat as Dar ul Harb, the land of war i.e. perpetual strife, he defies the Sunnah and thus comes within the definition of a Kafir.

I am certainly not exaggerating it. The Muslims of India refuse to accept a Uniform Civil Code, which is absolutely necessary to turn all Indians into one nation. They even demand to abolish the economic concept of interest because Islam does not permit it.

I hope that I have exposed Islam, as it really is but Mr. Ansar Hussain Khan has glossed it over by showing it as a tolerant and practical religion. This is the fundamental problem of India, and must be dealt with seriously. Without this attitude, solution cannot be found. Instead, he blames the practitioners of Islam for what has happened; this pussy-footing is likely to exacerbate the situation.

Mr. Khan believes that Ijtehad i.e. innovative interpretation of the Islamic commandments may provide the solution. Ijtehad has a very limited role to play in Islam. To understand this issure, one must realize that the Islamic Commandments are divided into two categories:

1. Muhkamaat, the fundamental rules of Islam, which cannot be changed or interpreted, and
2. Mutashabihaat, which can be changed.

The problem is that Islam is rooted in the former and not the latter. It is a fundamental principle of Islam that a non-Muslim belongs to the Devil’s party and must be humiliated or eliminated. How does one change this law to create harmony between the Muslims and the non-Muslims? Look at the world history: wherever Islam went, it uprooted all local traditions and imposed the Arab culture on the indigenous populations. This fact is evident in all countries such as Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, Algeria, Morocco, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc. Though India has suffered terribly, it has stood up to this faith resolutely. It shows the Indian tenacity and spiritual magnificence which herald a future of greatness, grandeur and glory.

The innovative approach is no more than wishful thinking. Hadiths 132 and 135 (pp. 49-50) of Mishkat, volume one, and Hadith No. 14 of Ibne Majah clearly hold such innovator a renegade, whose punishment is death.

With a view to showing that Islam is a tolerant religion, he has quoted the People of the Book. This is a misconception. Look at the following:

“O believers. do not make friends with the Jews and the Christians…whoso of you makes them his friend, is one of them.” (The Tables: 55)

It is a folly to think that Islam advocates friendly relations with the Jews and Christians, the People of the Book. The latter had to fight the Muslims for 400 years at a terrible cost to secure the future. I have included a small article in this issue of Liberty to explain this point further owing to its importance, and therefore, may not prolong this discussion here.

Again, Ansar advocates mixing of religion with politics. It is totally undesirable; this is the fundamental cause of troubles in India. People are free to recite “Ram Ram” or “Allah Allah” but it must be a striclty personal affair; the Europeans did not make any material or moral progress until they were able to divorce religion from politics. However, there is one very important proviso, that is, whatever is left of India must be governed by the Indian values. This is especially so because the Muslims have had a large chunk of land called Pakistan for practicing Arab civilization. The minorities are entitled to their human rights but within the bounds of a unified civil code.

However, I applaud Ansar Hussain Khan’s motive of writing this book, that is, the Muslims of India should dissociate themselves from the profane acts of their foreign co-religionists; and Bharat, Pakistan and Bangladesh ought to link themselves into a confederation.

1. Of course, it is a noble thought but a hurried action will destroy Bharat. It is because only birds of a feather flock together: wolves and sheep do not live together nor do cobras and mongooses. Such a union will reunite the Muslims, who will become a majority in the subcontinent within a few decades owing to their demographic activities. I may state what was reported about the Moroccan Emperor Maula Ismail in the British press during December 1994; it said that the Emperor had 1042 children from 500 women. Of course, he could have only four wives at a time. This fantastic yield came from his concubines that embellished his seraglio or harem. It is possible that the rich Muslim states will be happy to subsidize a polygamous drive in India for turning the land of the kafirs into a Dar ul Islam.
2. In the beginning, I stated two causes of the Indian partition, namely, External and Internal. Having dealt with the External cause, which is Islam, a foreign ideology, in direct clash with Indian values, now I may say a few words – just a few words about the Internal Cause: the brevity is desirable to stem the wave of further disuntiy.

The Hindus are no less sinners than the Muslims in partitioning their Motherland because they failed to match the Muslim hatred with their love of Bharat Mata. Even if they were least patriotic, they could have resisted this most diabolical act with the force of arms. History demonstrates clearly that motherland is the goddess that always demands a sincere offering of sweat and blood from her proud devotees, but the Hindus failed miserably on this count. They did not fire a single shot to save the integrity of Bharat Mata. Gandhi had bragged that India would be pertitioned over his dead body, but when the time for sacrifice came, he showed a dishonorable conduct. Instead of dissuading his colleagues as he had pledged to Abul Kalam Azad, he withdrew his opposition to partition before the Congress Working Committee. Far more shabby was the role of Nehru, who was intoxicated with the dream of personal power, though at a devilishly high cost to Mother India. Gandhi gained his ‘National Sainthood’ and Nehru achieved his ambition of prime ministership and subsequent dynastic rule.

The fact that the Hindus have been reluctant to fight for the honor of Bharat Mata for the last one thousand years, clearly demonstrates that lack of national patriotism is the real Hindu malaise. Unless they renounce the anti-vedic principle such as Ahimsa and caste system, they will never make a bold and united nation fit to serve the cause of Bharat Mata, which is the only way ahead.

However, I do not preach narrow nationalism, which in its extreme form, can rank as a subhuman cult. The Indian Muslims may class themselves as the children of foreign invaders to nurse their inferiority complex but the truth is that 95% of them have the same Indian blood in their veins as all other Hindus, Sikhs or Christians. The remaining 5% have certainly become Indians by the long domicile in this country. Have they got anywhere else to go? Never mind other Islamic countries, even Pakistan, which was created for all Muslims of the subcontinent, shall not take them in. It is high time that they sober up to the reality, and being Indians, start living as Indians; their participation in singing the Vande Mataram, shall be a step in the right direction.