This falsified
history has affected the psyche of both Hindus and Muslims. Hindus were
infested with inferiority complex whereas Muslims were made arrogant with false
pride of their past.
Mr Pagdi tells us
-
“ In the recent
past we know of many Muslims who had Hindu ancestors. For example-
Urdu poet Musaphi
(original Rajput)
Historian Shibali
Nemani (Rajput)
Well-known Urdu
poet Sir Muhammad Iqbal (Kashmiri Brahmin)
Sir Phirozkhan
Noon – (Rajput)
Zulphikhar Ali
Bhutto – (Rajput)
Prime Minister of
Hyderabad state the Nawab of Chhatari -
(Rajput)
Poet Laureate of
Pakistan Hafiz Jalandhari (Chauhan – Rajput)
Prime Minister of
Hyderabad Sir Akbar Hyderi (Hindu from Gujarat)
Labour minister
who recently died, Abid Ali Japharbhai (Hindu from Kutch)
Revolutionary and
writer, Ubedulla Sindhi (Sikh)
Revolutionary
Abdulkarim (brother of Acharya Kripalani)
Boharis and
Momins of Gujrat, majority of Muslims of Kashmir, Jats in western Punjab,
majority of Muslims of Bangladesh were undoubtedly descendents of Hindus. One
can take a clue from the titles Pandit, Bhat, Jutshi (astrologer) among
Kashmiri Muslims, Kitchlu and other surnames give away their origin.”
[In the old
Bombay Province, Khojas and Memons of Kutchh were Hindu converts. They followed
inheritance as per Hindu Law till 1920.]
“ These are
without doubt Muslims who can be called Indian. That does not mean the rest are
not Indians. Today all Muslims must regard themselves as Indians whatever their
forefathers were.“
One can add -
Muhammad Ali
Jinnah & Poet Iqbal had Hindu grandfathers. Gandhi himself had pointed out
in 1940 that Sir Sikandar Hiyat Khan’s forefathers were Hindu Brahmins. Fazul
Huq, the Chief Minister of Bengal had Hindu forefathers. How could they, all of
a sudden start to say that, they, the Muslims are different from Hindus, have
their own history, culture, values, language and identity?? No one asked this
question. Hindu politicians led by Gandhi were just interested to make
concessions to Muslims. This led to the Khilafat Movement in the 1920s.
* Khalifat movement
The First World
War ended on 11 November 1918. Turkey, the ally of Germany was defeated and I
was obvious that Britain and France would disintegrate the Ottoman Turkish
Empire. Its Sultan was Khalifa.
As Prophet
Mohammed was both a political and religious, his successors also had both
roles. Of course, there were many feuds and many Khalifs but the Sultan of
Turkey was Khalif since 1517. He was also the ruler of the vast Ottoman Empire.
Arabs resented
Turkish rulers. During World War I, Arabs, with the help of the British, threw
yoke of Sultan of Turkey. Why were these events in a far off land of interest
to Indian Muslims? But as they were brought up to think that they were
foreigners and once rulers of India, they got into their heads that the Sultan
of Turkey must remain as Khalifa, their temporal and spiritual leader. And
Gandhi was so obsessed with seeking co-operation of Indian Muslims that he
immediately supported the Khilafat movement.
No Congressman
asked, “There are millions of Muslims in North Africa in countries such as
Nigeria, Tunisia, Algeria, Libya. But they are not agitating for the Sultan of
Turkey. Millions of Iranians who are Shias never accepted any authority of the
Sultan of Turkey as Khalifa. So, why should Indian Muslims feel affinity to
him?” They of course, did not put that question to likes of Mohammed Ali and
Shaukat Ali.
It was during
World War I that the principle of right of self-determination of nations was
being put forward. In 1919,Tilak, while in London, wrote to The French Prime
Minister M Clemenceau
and American President Woodrow Wilson that like European countries, India too
must have right of self-determination.
It was
astonishing therefore that Gandhi, Nehru and Bose were flagrantly denying that
right to Arabs who did not want to be ruled by Turks. And as a result even
Indian Muslim were mocked, ridiculed and despised by Arabs.
* We can go
back to our country
On 11 May 1938,
Maulana Shaukatali met Savarkar and told him,” If tomorrow there is a
catastrophe in India we Muslims will go back to our countries, but you Hindus
have nowhere else to go.”
(public speech at
Ajmer, 20 May 1938, S S V 4, p348)
Pagdi tells us, “
We see a kind of arrogance in the writings of Sir Sayyad Ahmad, Poet Latif
Hussein Hali, journalist Vahibuddin Salim. They say, “ We came to Hindusthan
and we ruled.”. Vahibuddin Salim in his poem says -
Oh Indians,
racially we are different to you, but you honoured us, gave us everything,
positions of power, respect and honour. How can we thank you ?”
Garche hamame
miltijulti teri komiyat na thee. Hamame atha Hindosita go buye Insinayat na
thee.
Tune lekin
apani akhonpar liya hamako bitha.
Apani
akhanopar bithakar tune ijjat kee hame
Tune apane
hukmdanopar fajeelat do hame
Tune rahat
dee, famarat dee hame
Tune sarabat
dee, hukumad dee, riyasad dee hame
Shukra kis kis
miharbanika kare to ada
The family of
poet Altaf Hussein Ali, stayed in India for hundreds of years. Still he echoes
the same sentiments as above. Same applies to thoughts of Sir Sayyad Ahmad.
They may be true in a few cases. But vast majority of Indian Muslims are
descendents of converted Hindus. They cannot share above thoughts.
• Pagdi tells of
his own experience. He was appearing for examination for entry into land
revenue service under the Nizam in 1933. He came across a Muslim named Abu
Turab. Pagdi did favour to him and by copying Pagdi’s paper Abu Turab passed.
They met again a few years later. Abu Turab was transferred to Marathawada ( a
Marathi speaking area). Pagdi said, “ You better learn some Marathi to make
your life easy and understand the issues you have to deal with, in the same way
as we learn Urdu and Farsee.” Abu Turab replied,
“ There is no
need for we (Muslims) to learn your mother tongue. It is you (Hindus) who need
to understand us (Muslims).” In 1963 Pagdi wrote, “ So arrogant were the
remarks of Abu Tarab that even after 25 years I cannot forget them. That
reminds me of the cinema Benhur. Benhur was Jew and his childhood friend named
Masala, a Roman was sent to Palestine as Governor. Welcoming Masala, Benhur
said, “ It is good that you are appointed as Governor, I welcome you as someone
who knows the Jews well.” Masala replied, “ What is the necessity of we Romans
to know the Jews? It is they (Jews) who need to understand us.” Abu Tarab and
Muslims in Hyderabad harboured and expressed same arrogance.
(Vida rangato
asa, by Pagdi. 1963, pp65/66)
• Dr B R Ambedkar provides an example in his book Thoughts on Pakistan published in 1946 (pp 303/304).
In a manifesto on
Hindu-Muslim relations issued in 1928 Khwaja Hasan Nazami declared :
“ Musalmans are
separate from Hindus; they cannot unite with the Hindus. After bloody wars the
Musalmans conquered India, and the English took India from them. The Musalmans
are one united nation and they alone will be masters of India. They will never
give up their individuality. They have ruled India for Hundreds of years, and
hence they have a prescriptive right over the country. The Hindus are a minor
community in the world. They are never free from internecine quarrels; they
believe in Gandhi and worship the cow; they are polluted by taking other people’s
water. The Hindus do not care for self-government; they squabble. What capacity
have they for ruling over men? The Musalmans did rule, and the Musulmans will
rule.”
(Times of India
14 March 1928)
• Dr B R Ambedkar provides yet another example in his book Thoughts on Pakistan published in 1946 (pp 303/304).
Far from
rendering obedience to Hindus, the Muslims seem to be ready to try conclusions
with the Hindus again. In 1926 there arose a controversy as to who really won
the third battle of Panipat, fought in 1761. It was contended for the Muslims
that it was a great victory for them because Ahmad Shah Abdalli had 1 lakh of
soldiers while the Mahrattas had 4 to 6 lakhs. The Hindus replied that a
victory to them – a victory to the vanquished – because it stemmed the tide of
Muslim invasions. The Muslims were not prepared to admit defeat at the hands of
Hindus and claimed that they will always prove superior to the Hindus. To prove
the eternal superiority of Muslims over Hindus it was proposed by one Maulana
Akbar Shah Khan of Najibabad in all seriousness, that the Hindus and Muslims
should fight, under test conditions, fourth battle on the same fateful plain of
Panipat. The Maulana accordingly issued a challenge to Pandit Madan Mohan
Malaviya in the following terms :
“ If you
Malaviyaji, are making efforts to falsify the result at Panipat, I shall show
you an easy and excellent way (of testing it). Use your well-known influence
and induce the British Government to permit the fourth battle of Panipat to be
fought without hindrance from the authorities. I am ready to provide … a
comparative test of the valour and fighting spirit of Hindus and the Musalmans.
… As there are seven crores of Muslims in India, I shall arrive on a fixed date
on the plain of Panipat with 700 Musalmans representing the seven crores of
Muslims in India and as there are 22 crores of Hindus I allow you to come with
2,200 Hindus. The proper thing is not to use cannons, machineguns or bombs;
only swords and javelins and spears, bows and arrows and daggers should be
used. If you cannot accept the post of generalissimo of the Hindu host, you may
give it to any descendents of Sadashivarao or Vishwasrao so that their scions
may have an opportunity to avenge the defeat of their ancestors in 1761. But
any way do come as a spectator; for on seeing the result of this battle you
will have to change your views, and I hope there will be end of the present
discord and fighting in the country. …. In conclusion I beg to add that among
the 700 men that I shall bring there will be no Pathans of Afghans as you are
mortally afraid of them. So, I shall bring with me only Indian Musalmans of
good family who are staunch adherents of Shariat.” (Times of India 20 June
1926)
The above example
does show arrogance of Muslims, but it also illustrates inferiority complex of
Hindus.
Ambedkar was so
obsessed with anti-Hindu phobia that he took for granted the Muslim boasts.
What a pity that his own caste Mahars, though formerly treated as untouchables,
are warriors and the Indian Army even had a Mahar Regiment. 2,200 Mahars (who
are also covered by the term Marhatta) could have easily called bluff of
Muslims. But Ambedkar did not do that.
The
much-publicised Muslim riot of 1929 was another example. Before the riot,
Muslims boasted that one Muslim is superior to 29 Hindus, and that too ordinary
Indian Muslim. A Pathan would easily overpower 100 Hindus. And what happened?
At the very outset it was Pathans who were running away and pleading that the
riot should stop!! (S.S.V part 4, 1965, pp213-217)
As for the battle
of Panipat, one should only remember that just four days after the battle, the
victorious Ahmad Shah Abdalli sent a letter to the Maratha Peshwa Balaji
Bajirao, asking for a re-conciliation!! Why would a victor do that? The answer
is simple. He knew at heart that Marathas would seek revenge and were quite
capable of avenging their defeat. A few months after the battle Balaji Bajirao
died and when his 16 year old son Madhavrao became a Peshwa (July 1761), same
Ahmad Shah Abdalli paid his respects and sent presents to Madhavrao. Ambedkar
easily forgets this history, may be because he too only read the history as
written by English. But we have to remember that after the battle of Panipat,
Abdalli himself had expressed astonishment at bravery of Marathas and admitted
that such a battle was unprecedented.
But Ambedkar did
not want to know!!
Bhutto became
Prime Minister of Pakistan, after cessation of Bangladesh in December 1971. His
mother was Hindu. But her conversion to Islam put fantastic ideas into head of
Bhutto and he said that he would wage a war with India for a thousand years.
Effect on
minds of Hindus in the 20th century
Poet Iqbal
composed the famous poem Sare Jahanse Achha Hindoostan Hamara
There are many
lands on earth, but only our Hindosta is dear to us.
And yet same
Iqbal demanded Pakistan in 1930 on the basis that Muslims were different people
from Hindus!!
As Pagdi remarked
earlier even Mughal Emperors used to say that they were rulers of Hindusthan.
Surprisingly enough even a map printed in London in 1808 clearly shows (so
called) India as Hindoosthan, its western boundary is with Iran (I do have a
copy of such a map). And the same name is used on many maps of Globe. But once
the British started to use the meaningless word India Hindus loved it because
it removes the word Hindu. Even after the partition in 1947 Hindus were not
prepared to call their land as Hindusthan, Nehru suggested the name Bharat and
yet even that name was never adopted. Have you ever heard of an Embassy of
Bharat anywhere ? So shameless have we become that even while speaking in our
mother tongues, be it Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali or whatever Hindus continue to
use the word India!!
In February 1937
Dr Ambedkar addressed the conference in Punjab arranged by Jatpat Todak Mandal
(Society for abolishing of the caste system). He said, “ The Hindus’ has been a
life of a continuous defeat. It is a mode of survival of which every Hindu will
feel ashamed.” Savarkar replied to such senseless remarks and later, in 1952 he
delivered his famous series of speeches – Six Glorious Epochs of Indian
History, which are available in book form.
One can say that
Dr Ambedkar was prejudiced, having declared two years earlier that he would not
die as a Hindu. But his sentiments were echoed even by Gopalrao Agarkar,
Tilak’s contemporary. Agarkar was born in poverty but still studied to M A.
standard. He however refused to accept service under the British Government. He
started his movements for social reforms, which he believed were necessary
before fight for political independence could be started. He was a staunch
Hindu, but he still wrote in 1880, “ How can we say that we had a golden past
when we were ruled by Muslims for more than 700 years and now the British have
been ruling over us for more than 100 years.”
In 1968 Prof P N
Oak of New Delhi proved that Taj Mahal was a ancient Rajput Temple Palace and
not a Mausoleum built by Shahjahan. His research indicated the extent to which
Indian history has been falsified. And yet many of Mr Oak’s followers still use
the phrase “Thousand year slavery of Hindus” without thinking. It has been a
thousand year of struggle to keep the identity and freedom of the Hindu people.
The struggle could have been won over much shorter period if only Hindus had
learnt from their history.
Accessing
Hinduism by Helen
Kanitkar and Duncan Macpherson was published in 1999. Helen was a Welshwoman
married to my friend Hemant Kanitkar of London.
In Module Four :
The Modern Historical Context the authors say on pp28/29 –
Hinduism and
Islam
“… When Muslims
ceased to rule India, however, they found it difficult to reconcile themselves
to the prospect of being a minority out of power.”
* We must
remember that there were some leaders who were aware of the truth. Veer
Savarkar was such a person. In 1910 he was sentenced to Transportation for Life
twice to Andaman Islands, some 1000 miles from Chennai. He narrates his
experiences during World War I
I (Savarkar) said
to fellow prisoners. “ Don’t get carried away by emotions. We have to see how
we can use this war to our advantage. It is natural that we sympathise with
Germans (and her allies like Turkey). But we must be careful. We do not want to
change one ruler (English) for another (German). Most accepted my argument. I
also said – what good would it be for us if Turkish Sultan or Amir of Afghanistan
was to become ruler of India?
Muslim prisoners
objected to that. The Sultan of Turkey was a God to them. How many stories and
legends had grown around him as the Khalifa in their sacred writings! They were
taught in their cradle to worship the name of that Sultan with feelings of
sanctity and reverence. That personage was to invade India and I said that his
rule will bring no good to India. What a blasphemy to say so. That the rule
of the Sultan over India would be a foreign rule was a proposition beyond their
understanding. If among the prisoners there was a Maulavi or a Muslim with
some education who knew something of history, I would tell him of the
atrocities committed by Arabs on Iranians, by Turks on Arabs, by Pathans and
Iranians on each other and finally by all these and Mughals on Indian Muslims.
Even though the Maulavi or little educated Muslim accepted the historical truth
of my arguments he would still say – ‘ It is in India’s interest that Sultan of
Turkey should invade India and establish a Muslim rule there.’ Muslim prisoners
were devoid of any national self-respect. Added to that was their religious
fanaticism and utter ignorance of world affairs. Their bloating knew no bounds.
The Muslim
prisoners started to preach, ‘ Germany was sure to beat England and conquer
India. The Sultan of Turkey would personally crown the German Kaiser as the
Emperor of India, and Muslims would get high positions and big jobs in the
Indian Empire. Those who would not be Muslims then, were going to be severely punished.’
Savarkar of course effectively countered this Muslim propaganda.
Savarkar
continues, “ The fact of Turkey entering the war on the side of Germany against
England, fired the imagination of the Muslims; and man, woman and child began
to dream of Muslim Raj in India. And when occasionally they came to hear that
the Amir of Afghanistan had made a common cause with the Germans and the Turks,
their enthusiasm knew no bounds. The Pathans were so entrapped by the prospect
that their tongues began to wag like the croaking of frogs in a pool of water
before the advent of the monsoon. If one Pathan raised one rumour, another
multiplied it tenfold, and so long as Anvar Beg was in the field, he was
reported to have decimated thousands of British regiments or taken the city of
Basra. About the Amir of Afghanistan, the reports were still more extravagant.
It was not enough for him to cross the Indus (Sindhu), but he must knock today
at the door of Lahore, and march another day on to Sirhind. The petty officers,
moving in and out of prison, brought in fantastic news that produced convulsion
among the prisoners…… But behind the ridiculous behaviour of the Pathans there
was one quality, which I never failed to impress upon those who simply laughed
at them. I always asked my Hindu brethren not to forget how enthused they were,
to a man, over the prospect of Muslim Raj in India or over the invasion of
India by a Muslim power. This pride of race and religion was a virtue worthy of
emulation, and it was this pride that would instantly translate itself into
action at the right moment and with the right opportunity. The Hindus lacked
this pride, this fervour, this unity of action, and therefore, they had
suffered.
This was a matter
of compliment for the Pathans but was full of menace to the Hindus, and the
Hindus must be ever vigilant about it. Eternal vigilance was the price of
liberty. Also they had to bear it well in mind that the Musulman imbibed this
religious fervour and this spirit of Pan-Islamism with their mother’s milk. In
every Muslim household he was taught from his childhood to love his religion
and to stand by the Muslim Raj. What had the Hindus to show in comparison with
this fervour, with this ardent, burning passion? Not one in ten thousand Hindus
knew or cared to know what was Hindusthan, what was Hindu power, Hindu Raj, or
the meaning of the term Hindu. What then of a common bond of sympathy among
them?
(My
Transportation for Life, pp 349/354
In 1921 Savarkar
was sent back to mainland India and being kept in various prisons for another
three years, was released from prison but had to live in internment in
Ratnagiri. He moved to other places on some occasions with the permission of
the Governor of Bombay Province.
* In November
1924, in Mumbai, Savarkar met the Muslim leader Maulana Shaukat Ali. The
Maulana told Savarkar, “ You see things are quite different for Hindus and
Muslims. Historically we Muslims have always beaten you Hindus (we have hit you
with shoes). Therefore you Hindus can only rise if you co-operate with
Muslims.”
Savarkar was of
course not going to accept such remarks. He retorted, “It is true that we
Hindus suffered defeats at the hands of Muslims, but we had avenged our defeats
and defeated you Muslims on every battlefield from Attock (near Rawalpindi) to
Rameshwar.”
The British
therefore always despised Savarkar and praised Gandhi who was perfectly happy
to live under a Muslim Rule, whether he was the Amir of Afghanistan or Nizam or
Jinnah.
Dr Munje
Dr Munje of
Nagpur was another such person. Once
one Muslim student came met Munje. He started the conversation very politely
and then suddenly said, “We Muslims ruled over India for 700 years.” Doctor
intervened,”You are mistaken. You are a Hindusthani Muslim. The Muslim rulers
were foreigners such as Afghans and Mughals. At present the English are ruling
over us, would you say that the Anglo-Indians or Indian Christians are the
rulers?”
The Muslim
understood what Dr Munje had stated
(Dr Munje’s
biography, part II by Mrs Veena Hardas, 1981, p425)
Effect on
minds of Hindus in the 21st century
It is astonishing
that today, even staunch Hindus do not know the true history. Take for example
the book Architects of RSS by Dr V R Karandikar, former Head of Marathi
Department, Fergusson College, Pune, India, published in 2003. On pages 31 and
32 we find –
“ The
Muslims came to India as invaders. The English also occupied
this country as rulers. They had no involvement with this nation’s earlier
history and heritage. In fact, as conquerors they wanted to wipe it out. Even
during the struggle for independence, the Muslims ever felt proud of
having once established a mighty empire in this country. One can
understand this, as the Muslim rule was a part of the history of mediaeval
period. The Hindus do not feel any need of denying it. How can history be
disowned? But, then, the Hindus are also aware that their history stretches
more than two thousand years beyond the Muslim and Christian conquests of
Bharat. In their new awakening of self-respect they also knew that they
could overthrow the English rule and be free to re-establish the old glory of
their country. On the contrary, Muslims could never forget that they were
the absolute rulers here, and therefore they did not feel it necessary
to develop a feeling of fraternity with the earlier people in this country. The
English rulers saw great advantage in this aggressive mentality of the Muslims
and they in fact, encouraged it. One cannot but admire the courage, ambition,
and confidence of these two societies. But then the safety and the future of
this country was also a sincere concern of the Hindus who cared for the same.”
The author was
born in around 1918. Just look at the blunders he has repeated. Even the
British rulers did not describe their conquest as Christian conquest!!.
One can but feel
astonished at how the falsified history has moulded the thinking of even
staunch Hindus.
* Recently I came
across a booklet in Marathi entitled, “ Why the Congress does not like
Savarkar?”
It has been
written by Arvind Vitthal Kulkarni. Second edition was published in January
2005. The author, a staunch supporter of Savarkar uses the phrase, “Hindus had
developed certain phobias due to 1,000 years of slavery.”
In 1977 Setu
Madhavrao Pagdi was invited to attend Shivajayanti (birthday of Shivaji)
function in Bhivandi, which has a large Muslim population. Muslims were invited
for the celebrations and did attend. Pagdi explained the theme of this article.
The reaction of Muslims was encouraging. After his lecture Pagdi took tea with
Mr Gafud Said, a well-known resident. He said, “ It would have been much better
if such lectures had taken places in the past.”
Pagdi therefore
remarked, “ Enlightenment on this subject is difficult, but possible. Yes, it
can be done.”
We do not know if
Pagdi delivered series of lectures, but he had shown the way.
Bibliography
In
English
Ambedkar Dr B R Thoughts
on Pakistan, 1946
Kane P V, History
of Dharmashastras Vol II
Kanitkar Helen
and Macpherson Duncan
Accessing
Hinduism
Karandikar Dr V.R
- Architects of RSS, 2003
Savarkar V.D - My Transportation for Life
- Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History
In
Marathi
Hardas Mrs Veena
- Dr Munje’s biography, part II, 1981
Kulkarni.Arvind
Vitthal - Congressla Savarkar nakot,
Karan, 2005
Pagdi,
Setumadhavrao,
Amhala khotach
itihas shikaval jato ka?
(Kirloskar magazine, Nov 1974)
Vida rangato
asa, 1963,
Ashi hee
Shivajayanti (Sobat
weekly 13 May 1977)
Samagra Savarkar
Vangmaya part 4, 1965
Savarkar, Balarao
– Biography of Veer Savarkar, Ratnagiri Era, 1972
Prepared by Dr V
S Godbole on 27 January 2004, revised 8 and 25 February, 25 and 31 July
2004.and 8 July 2005