From: Rajput < >

 Presidential address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim League 
Lahore, 1940

Ladies and Gentlemen:

[[1]] We are meeting today in our session after fifteen months. The last session of the All-India Muslim League took place at Patna in December 1938. Since then many developments have taken place. I shall first shortly tell you what the All-India Muslim League had to face after the Patna session of 1938. You remember that one of the tasks, which was imposed on us and which is far from completed yet, was to organise Muslim Leagues all over India. We have made enormous progress during the last fifteen months in this direction. I am glad to inform you that we have established provincial leagues in every province. The next point is that in every bye-election to the Legislative Assemblies we had to fight with powerful opponents. I congratulate the Mussalmans for having shown enormous grit and spirit throughout our trials. There was not a single bye-election in which our opponents won against Muslim League candidates. In the last election to the U.P. Council, that is the Upper Chamber, the Muslim League’s success was cent per cent. I do not want to weary you with details of what we have been able to do in the way of forging ahead in the direction of organising the Muslim League. But I may tell you that it is going up by leaps and bounds.

[[2]] Next, you may remember that we appointed a committee of ladies at the Patna session. It is of very great importance to us, because I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to give every opportunity to our women to participate in our struggle of life and death. Women can do a great deal within their homes, even under purdah. We appointed this committee with a view to enable them to participate in the work of the League. The objects of this central committee were: (1) to organise provincial and district women’s sub-committees under the provincial and district Muslim Leagues: (2) to enlist a larger number of women to the membership of the Muslim League: (3) to carryon an intensive propaganda amongst Muslim women throughout India in order to create in them a sense of a greater political consciousness — because if political consciousness is awakened amongst our women, remember your children will not have much to worry about: (4) to advise and guide them in all such matters as mainly rest on them for the uplift of Muslim society. This central committee, I am glad to say, started its work seriously and earnestly. It has done a great deal of useful work. I have no doubt that when we come to deal with their report of work done we shall really feel grateful to them for all the services that they have rendered to the Muslm League.

[[3]] We had many diffkulties to face from January 1939 right up to the declaration of war. We had to face the Vidya Mandir in Nagpur. We had to face the Wardha Scheme all over India. We had to face ill-treatment and oppression to Muslims in the Congress-governed provinces. We had to face the treatment meted out to Muslims in some of the Indian States such as Jaipur and Bhavnagar. We had to face a vital issue that arose in that littlc state of Rajkot. Rajkot was the acid test made by the Congress which would have affected one-third of India. Thus the Muslim League had all along to face various issues from January 1939 up to the time of the declaration of war. Before the war was declared the grratcst danger to the Muslims of India was the possible inauguration of the federal scheme in the central Government. We know what machinations were going on. But the Muslim League was stoutly resisting them in every direction. We felt that we could never accept the dangerous scheme of the central federal Government embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935. I am sure that we have made no small contribution towards persuading the British Government to abandon the scheme of central federal government. In creating that [state of] mind in the British Government, the Muslim League, I have no doubt, played no small part. You know that the British people are very obdurate people. They are also very conservative; and although they are very clever, they are slow in understanding. After the war was declared, the Viceroy naturally wanted help from the Muslim League. It was only then that he realised that the Muslim League was a power. For it will be remembered that up to the time of the declaration of war, the Viceroy never thought of me but of Gandhi and Gandhi alone. I have been the leader of an important party in the Legislature for a considerable time, larger than the one I have the honour to lead at present, the present Muslim League Party in the Central Legislature. Yet the Viceroy never thought of me. Therefore, when I got this invitation from the Viceroy along with Mr. Gandhi, I wondered within myself why I was so suddenly promoted, and then I concluded that the answer was the ‘All-India Muslim League’ whose President I happen to be. I believe that was the worst shock that the Congress High Command received, because it challenged their sole authority to speak on behalf of India. And it is quite clear from the attitude of Mr. Gandhi and the High Command that they have not yet recovered from that shock. My point is that I want you to realise the value, the importance, the significance of organising ourselves. I will not say anything more on the subject.

[[4]] But a great deal yet remains to be done. I am sure from what I can see and hear that the Muslim India is now conscious, is now awake, and the Muslim League has by now grown into such a strong institution that it cannot be destroyed by anybody, whoever he may happen to be. Men may come and men may go, but the League will live for ever.

[[5]] Now, coming to the period after the declaration of war, our position was that we were between the devil and the deep sea. But I do not think that the devil or the deep sea is going to get away with it. Anyhow our position is this. We stand unequivocally for the freedom of India. But it must be freedom of all India and not freedom of one section or, worse still, of the Congress caucus — and slavery of Mussalmans and other minorities.

[[6]] Situated in India as we are, we naturally have our past experiences and particularly the experiences of the past 2 1/2  years of provincial constitution in the Congress-governed provinces. We have learnt many lessons. We are now, therefore, very apprehensive and can trust nobody. I think it is a wise rule for every one not to trust anybody too much. Sometimes we are led to trust people, but when we find in actual experience that our trust has been betrayed, surely that ought to be sufficient lesson for any man not to continue his trust in those who have betrayed him. Ladies and gentlemen, we never thought that the Congress High Command would have acted in the manner in which they actually did in the Congress-governed provinces. I never dreamt that they would ever come down so low as that. I never could believe that there would be a gentleman’s agreement between the Congress and the Government to such an extent that although we cried [ourselves] hoarse, week in and week out, the Governors were supine and the Governor-General was helpless. We reminded them of their special responsibilities to us and to other minorities, and the solemn pledges they had given to us. But all that had become a dead letter. Fortunately, Providence came to our help, and that gentleman’s, agreement was broken to pieces~and the Congress, thank Heaven, went out of office. I think they are regretting their resignations very much. Their bluff was called off [=was called]. So far so good. I therefore appeal to you, in all [the] seriousness that I can command, to organise yourselves in such a way that you may depend upon none except your own inherent strength. That is your only safeguard, and the best safeguard. Depend upon yourselves. That does not mean that we should have ill-will or malice towards others. In order to safeguard your rights and interests you must create that strength in yourselves [such] that you may be able to defend yourselves, That is all that I want to urge.

[[7]] Now, what is our position with regard to [a] future constitution? It is that as soon as circumstances permit, or immediately after the war at the latest, the whole problem of India’s future constitution must be examined de novo and the Act of 1935 must go once for all. We do not believe in asking the British Government to make declarations. These declarations are really of no use. You cannot possibly succeed in getting the British Government out of this country by asking them to make declarations. However, the Congress asked the Viceroy to make a declaration. The Viceroy said, ‘I have made the declaration’. The Congress said, ‘No, no. We want another kind of declaration. You must declare now and at once that India is free and independent with the right to frame its own constitution by a Constituent Assemhly to be elected on the basis of adult franchise or as low a franchise as possihle. This Assembly will of course satisfy the minorities’ legitimate mterests.” Mr. Gandhi says that if the minorities are not satisfied then he is willing that some tribunal of the highest character and most impartial should decide the dispute. Now, apart from the impracticable character of this proposal and quite apart from the fact that it is historically and constitutionally absurd to ask [a] ruling power to abdicate in favour of a Constituent Assembly. Apart from all that, suppose we do not agree as to the franchise according to which the Central Assembly is to be elected, or suppose the the solid body of Muslim representatives do not agree with the non-Muslim majority in the Constituent Assembly, what will happen? It is said that we have no right to disagree with regard to anything that this Assemhly may do in framing a national constitution of this huge sub-continent except those matters which may be germane to the safeguards for the minorities. So we are given the privilege to disagree only with regard to what may be called strictly safe-guards of the rights and interests of minorities. We are also given the privilege to send our own representatives by separate electorates. Now, this proposal is based on the assumption that as soon as this constitution comes into operation the British hand will disappear. Otherwise there will be no meaning in it. Of course, Mr. Gandhi says that the constitution will decide whether the British will disappear, and if so to what extent. In other words, his proposal comes to this: First, give me the declaration that we are a free and independent nation, then I will decide what I should give you back. Does Mr. Gandhi really want the complete independence of India when he talks like this? But whether the British disappear or not, it follows that extensive powers must be transferred to the people. In the event of there being a disagreement between the majority of the Constituent Assembly and the Mussalmans, in the first instance, who will appoint the tribunal? And suppose an agreed tribunal is possible and the award is made and the decision given, who will, may I know, be there to see that this award is implemented or carried out in accordance with the terms of that award? And who will see that it is honoured in practice, because, we are told, the British will have parted with their power mainly or completely? Then what will be the sanction behind the award which will enforce it? We come back to the same answer, the Hindu majority would do it; and will it be with the help of the British bayonet or the Gandhi’s “Ahinsa”? Can we trust them any more? Besides, ladies and gentlemen, can you imagine that a question of this character, of social contract upon which the future constitution of India would be based, affecting 90 million of Mussalmans, can be decided by means of a judicial tribunal? Still, that is the proposal of the Congress.

[[8]] Before I deal with what Mr. Gandhi said a few days ago I shall deal with the pronouncements of some of the other Congress leaders — each one speaking with a different voice. Mr. Rajagopalacharya, the ex-Prime Minister of Madras, says that the only panacea for Hindu-Muslim unity is the joint electorates. That is his prescription as one of the great doctors of the Congress organisation. (Laughter.) Babu Rajendra Prasad, on the other hand, only a few days ago said, “Oh, what more do the Mussalmans want?” I will read to you his words. Referring to the minority question, he says: “If Britain would concede our right of self-determination, surely all these differences would disappear.” How will our differences disappear? He does not explain or enlighten us about it.

“But so long as Britain remains and holds power, the differences would continue to exist. The Congress has made it clear that the future constitution would be framed not by the Congress alone but by representatives of all political parties and religious groups. The Congress has gone further and declared that the minorities can have their representatives elected for this purpose by separate electorates, though the Congress regards separate electorates as an evil. It will be representative of all the peoples of this country, irrespective of their religion and political affiliations, who will be deciding the future constitution of India, and not this or that party. What better guarantees can the minorities have?”

So according to Babu Rajendra Prasad, the moment we enter the Assembly we shall shed all our political affiliations, and religions, and everything else. This is what Babu Rajendra Prasad said as late as 18th March, 1940.

[[9]] And this is now what Mr. Gandhi said on the 20th of March, 1940. He says: “To me,  Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Harijans, are all alike. I cannot be frivolous” — but I think he is frivolous — “I cannot be frivolous when I talk of Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah. He is my brother.” The only difference is this that brother Gandhi has three votes and I have only one vote. (Laughter.) “I would be happy indeed if he could keep me in his pocket.” I do not know really what to say of this latest offer of his. “There was a time when I could say that there was no Muslim whose confidence I did not enjoy. It is my misfortune that it is not so today.” Why has he lost the confidence of the Muslims today? May I ask, ladies and gentlemen? “I do not read all that appears in the Urdu Press, but perhaps I get a lot of abuse there. I am not sorry for it. I still believe that without Hindu­Muslim settlement there can be no Swaraj.” Mr. Gandhi has been saying this now for the last 20 years. “You will perhaps ask in that case why do I talk of a fight. I do so because it is to be a fight for a Constituent Assembly.”

[[10] He is fighting the British. But may I point out to Mr. Gandhi and the Congress that you are fighting for a Constituent Assembly which the Muslims say they cannot accept; which, the Muslims say, means three to one; about which the Mussalmans say that they will never be able, in that way by the counting of head, to come to any agreenwnt which will be real agreement from the hearts, which will enable us to work as friends; and therefore this idea of a Constituent Assembly is objectionable, apart from other objections. But he is fighting for the Constituent Assembly, not fighting the Mussalmans at all! He says, “I do so because it is to be a fight for a Constituent Assembly. If Muslims who come to the Constituent Assembly” — mark the words, “who come to the Constituent Assembly through Muslim votes” — he is first forcing us to come to that Assembly, and then says — “declare that there is nothing common between Hindus and Muslims, then alone I would give up all hope, but even then I would agree with them because they read the Quran and I have also studied something of that holy Book.” (Laughter.)

[[11]] So he wants the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the Mussalmans; and if they do not agree then he will give up all hopes, but even then he will agree with us. (Laughter.) Well, I ask you. ladies and gentlemen, is this the way to show any real genuine desire, if there existed any, to come to a settlement with the Mussalmans? (Voices of no, no.) Why does not Mr. Gandhi agree, and.I have suggested to him more than once and I repeat it again from this platform, why does not Mr. Gandhi honestly now acknowledge that the Congress is a Hindu Congress, that he does not represent anybody except the solid body of Hindu people? Why should not Mr. Gandhi be proud to say. “I am a Hindu. Congress has solid Hindu backing”? I am not ashamed of saying that I am a Mussalman. (Hear, hear and applause.) I am right and I hope and I think even a blind man must have been convinced by now that the Muslim League has the solid backing of the Mussalmans of India (Hear, hear.) Why then all this camouflage? Why all these machinations? Why all these methods to coerce the British to overthrow the Mussalmans? Why this declaration of non-cooperation? Why this threat of civil disobedience? And why fight for a Constituent Assembly for the sake of ascertaining whether the Mussalmans agree or they do not agree? (Hear, hear.) Why not come as a Hindu leader proudly representing your people, and let me meet you proudly representing the Mussalmans? (Hear, hear and applause.) This all that I have to say so far as the Congress is concerned.

[[12]] So far as the British Government is concerned, our negotiations are not concluded yet, as you know. We had asked for assurances on several points. At any rate, we have made some advance with regard to one point and that is this. You remember our demand was that the entire problem of [the] future constitution of India should be examined de novo, apart from the Government of India Act of 1935. To that the Viceroy’s reply, with the authority of His Majesty’s Government, was — I had better quote that — I will not put it in my own words: This is the reply that was sent to us on the 23rd of December. “My answer to your first question is that the declaration I made with the approval of His Majesty’s Government on October the 13th last does not exclude — Mark the words —  “does not exclude examination of any part either of the Act of 1935 or of the policy and plans on which it is based.” (Hear, hear.)

[[13]] As regards other matters, we are still negotiating and the most important points are: (1) that no declaration should be made by His Majesty’s Government with regard to the future constitution of India without our approval and consent (Hear, hear, and applause) and that no settlement of any question should be made with any party behind our back (Hear, hear) unless our approval and consent is given to it. Well, ladies and gentlemen, whether the British Government in their wisdom agree to give us that assurance or not, but. I trust that they will still see that it is a fair and just demand when we say that we cannot leave the future fate and the destiny of 90 million of people in the hands of any other judge. –We and we alone wish to be the final arbiter. Surely that is a just demand. We do not want that the British Government should thrust upon the Mussalmans a constitution which they do not approve of and to which they do not agree. Therefore the British Government will be well advised to give that assurance and give the Mussalmans complete peace and confidence in this matter and win their friendship. But whether they do that or not, after all, as I told you before, we must depend on our own inherent strength; and I make it plain from this platform, that if any declaration is made, if any interim settlement is made without our approval and without our consent, the Mussalmans of India will resist it. (Hear, hear and applause.) And no mistake should be made on that score.

[[14]] Then the next point was with regard to Palestine. We are told that endeavours, earnest endeavours, are being made to meet the reasonable, national demands, of the Arabs. Well, we cannot be satisfied by earnest endeavours, sincere endeavours, best endeavours. (Laughter.) We want that the British Government should in fact and actually meet the demands of the Arabs in Palestine. (Hear, hear.)

[[15]] Then the next point was with regard to the sending of the troops. Here there is some misunderstanding. But anyhow we have made our position clear that we never intended, and in fact language does not justify it if there is any misapprehension or apprehension, that the Indian troops should not be used to the fullest in the defence of our own country. What we wanted the British Government to give us assurance of was that Indian troops should not be sent against any Muslim country or any Muslim power. (Hear, hear.) Let us hope that we may yet be able to get the British Government to clarify the position further.

[[16]] This, then, is the position with regard to the British Government. The last meeting of the Working Committee had asked the Viceroy to reconsider his letter of the 23rd of December, having regard to what has been explained to him in pursuance of the resolution of the Working Committee dated the 3rd of February; and we are informed that the matter is receiving his careful consideration. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is where we stand after the War and up to the 3rd of February.

[[17]] As far as our internal position is concerned, we have also been examining it, and you know. there are several schemes which have been sent by various well-informed constitutionalists and others who take interest with [=are interested in the] problem of India’s future Constitution; and we have also appointed a sub­committee to examine the details of the schemes that have come in so far. But one thing is quite clear: it has always been taken for granted mistakenly that the Mussalmans are a minority, and of course we have got used to it for such a long time that these settled notions sometimes are very difficult to remove. The Mussalmans are not a minority. The Mussalmans are a nation by any definition. The British and particularly the Congress proceed on the hasis, “Well, you are a minority after all, what do you want!” “What else do the minorities want?” just as Babu Rajendra Prasad said. But surely the Mussalmans are not a minority. We find that even according to the British map of India we occupy large parts of this country where the Mussalmans are in a majority, such as Bengal, Punjab, N.W.F.P., Sind, and Baluchistan.

[[18]] Now the question is, what is the solution of this prohlem between the Hindus and the Mussalmans? We have been considering, and as I have already said, a committee has been appointed to consider the various proposals. But whatever the final scheme of constitution, I will present to you my views, and I will just read to you in confirmation of what I am going  to put before you, a letter from Lala Lajpat Rai to Mr. C. R. Das. It was written, I believe, about 12 or 15 years ago, and that letter has been produced in a book recently published by one Indra Prakash, and that is how this letter has come to light. This is what Lala Lajpat Rai, a very astute politician and a staunch Hindu Mahasabite, said. But before I read his letter it is plain from [it] that you cannot get away from being a Hindu if you are a Hindu. (Laughter.) The word ‘nationalist’ has now become the play of conjurers in politics. This is what he says:

“There is one point more which has been troubling me very much of late and one [about] which I want you to think carefully and that is the question of Hindu-Muhammadan unity. I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim law and I am inclined to think it is neither possible nor practicable. Assuming and admitting the sincerity of Mohammadan leaders in the non-cooperation movement I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind.”You remember the conversation I reported to you in Calcutta which I had with Hakim Ajmal Khan and Dr. Kitchlew. There is no finer Muhammadan in Hindustan than Hakim Ajmal Khan, but can any Muslim leader over-ride the Quran? I can only hope that my reading of Islamic law is incorrect.

I think his reading is quite incorrect.

“And nothing would relieve me more than to be convinced that it is so. But if it is right then it comes to this, that although we can unite against the British we cannot do so to rule Hindustan on British lines. We cannot do so to rule Hindustan on democratic lines.”

[[19]] Ladies and gentlemen, when Lala Lajpat Rai said that we cannot rule this country on democratic lines it was all right; but when I had the temerity to speak the same truth about eighteen months ago, there was a shower of attacks and criticism. But Lala Lajpat Rai said fifteen years ago that we cannot do so — viz., rule Hindustan on democratic lines. What is the remedy? The remedy, according to Congress, is to keep us in the minority and under the majority rule. Lala Lajpat Rai proceeds further:

“What is then the remedy? I am not afraid of the seven crores [=70 million] of Mussalmans. But I think the seven crores in Hindustan plus the armed hordes of Afghanistan, Central Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Turkey, will be irresistible.” (Laughter.)”I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders. But what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis? The leaders cannot over-ride them. Are we then doomed? I hope not. I hope your learned mind and wise head will find some way out of this difficulty.”

[[20]] Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is merely a letter written by one great Hindu leader to another great Hindu leader fifteen years ago. Now, I should like to put before you my views on the subject as it strikes me, taking everything into consideration at the present moment. The British Govemment and Parliament, and more so the British nation, have been for many decades past brought up and nurtured with settled notions about India’s future, based on developments in their own country which has built up the British constitution, functioning now through the Houses of Parliament and the system of [the] cabinet. Their concept of party government functioning on political planes has become the ideal with them as the best form. of government for every country, and the one-sided and powerful propaganda, which naturally appeals to the British, has led them into a serious blunder, in producing a constitution envisaged in the Government of India Act of 1935. We find that the most leading statesmen of Great Britain, saturated with these notions, have in their pronouncements seriously asserted and expressed a hope that the passage of time will harmonise the inconsistent elements in India.

[[21]] A leading journal like the London Times, commenting on the Government of India Act of 1935, wrote that “Undoubtedly the difference between the Hindus and Muslims is not of religion in the strict sense of the word but also of law and culture, that they may be said indeed to represent two entirely distinct and separate civilisations. However, in the course of time the. superstitions will die out and India will be moulded into a single nation.” (So according to the London Times the only difficulties are superstitions). These fundamental and deep-rooted differences, spiritual, economic, cultural, social, and political havc been euphemised as mere “superstitions.” But surely it is a flagrant disregard of the past history of the sub-continent of India, as well as the fundamental Islamic conception of society vis-a-vis that of Hinduism, to characterise them as mere “superstitions.” Notwithstanding [a] thousand years of close contact, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into onc nation merely by means of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly togdher by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliamentary statutes. What the unitary government of India for one hundred fifty years had failcd to achieve cannot be realiscd by the imposition of a central federal government. It is inconceivable that the fiat or the writ of a government so constituted can ever command a willing and loyal obedience throughout the sub-continent by various nationalities, except by means of armed force behind it.

[[22]] The problem in India is not of an inter-communal character, but manifestly of an international one, and it must be treated as such. So long as this basic and fundamental truth is not realised, any constitution that may be built will result in disaster and will prove destructive and harmful not only to the Mussalmans, but to the British and Hindus also. If the British Government are really in earnest and sincere to secure [the] peace and happiness of the people of this sub-continent, the only course open to us all is to allow the major nations separate homelands by dividing India into “autonomous national states.” There is no reason why these states should be antagonistic to each other. On the other hand, the rivalry, and the natural desire and efforts on the part of one to dominate the social order and establish political supremacy over the other in the government of the country, will disappear. It will lead more towards natural goodwill by international pacts between them, and they can live in complete harmony with their neighbours. This will lead further to a friendly settlement all the more easily with regard to minorities, by reciprocal arrangements and adjustments between Muslim India and Hindu India, which will far more adequately and effectively safeguard the rights and interests of Muslim and various other minorities.

[[23]] It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.

[[24]] History has presented to us many examples, such as the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the sub-continent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many states as there are nations inhabiting them. [The] Balkan Peninsula comprises as many as seven or eight sovereign states. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula. Whereas under the plea of unity of India and one nation which does not exist, it is sought to pursue here the line of one central government, when we know that the history of the last twelve hundred years has failed to achieve unity and has witnessed, during these ages, India always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India. The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet, but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His Majesty’s Government, will be the herald of the entire break-up, with worse disaster than has ever taken place during the last one thousand years under the Muslims. Surely that is not the legacy which Britain would bequeath to India after one hundred fifty years of her rule, nor would Hindu and Muslim India risk such a sure catastrophe.

[[25]] Muslim India cannot accept any constitution which must necessarily result in a Hindu majority government. Hindus and Muslims brought together under a democratic system forced upon the minorities can only mean Hindu Raj. Democracy of the kind with which the Congress High Command is enamoured would mean the complete destruction of what is most precious in Islam. We have had ample experience of the working of the provincial constitutions during the last two and a half years, and any repetItion of such a government must lead to civil war and [the] raising of private armies, as recommended by Mr. Gandhi to [the] Hindus of Sukkur when he said that they must defend themselves violently or non-violently, blow for blow, and if they could not they must emigrate.

[[26]] Mussalmans are not a minority as it is commonly known and understood. One has only got to look round. Even today, according to the British map of India, out of eleven provinces, four provinces where the Muslims dominate more or less, are functioning notwithstanding the decision of the Hindu Congress High Command to non-cooperate and prepare for civil disobedience. Mussalmans are a nation according to any defmition of a nation, and they must have their homelands, their territory, and their state. We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people. We wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social, and political life, in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people. Honesty demands [that we find], and [the] vital interest[s] of millions of our people impose a sacred duty upon us to find, an honourable and peaceful solution, which would be just and fair to all. But at the same time we cannot be moved or diverted from our purpose and objective by threats or intimidations. We must be prepared to face all difficulties and consequences, make all the sacrifices that may be required of us, to achieve the goal we have set in front of us.

[[27]]  Ladies and gentlemen, that is the task before us. I fear I have gone beyond my time limit. There are many things that I should like to tell you, but I have already published a little pamphlet containing most of thc things that I have said and I have been saying, and I think you can easily get that publication both in English and in Urdu from the League Office. It might give you a clearer idea of our aims. It contains very important resolutions of the Muslim League and various other statements. Anyhow, I have placed before you the task that lies ahead of us. Do you realise how big and stupendous it is? Do you realise that you cannot get freedom or independence by mere arguments? I should appeal to the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia in all countries in the world have been the pioneers of any movements for freedom. What does the Muslim intelligentsia propose to do? I may tell you that unless you get this into your blood, unless you are prepared to take off your coats and are willing to sacrifice all that you can and work selflessly, earnestly, and sincerely for your people, you will never realise your aim. Friends, I therefore want you to make up your mind definitely ,and then think of devices and organise your people, strengthen your organisation, and consolidate the Mussalmans all over India. I think that the masses are wide awake. They only want your guidance and your lead. Come forward as servants of Islam. organise the people economically, socially, educationally, and politically, and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody. (Cheers.) 

Source: Address by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah at Lahore Session of Muslim League, March, 1940 (Islamabad: Directorate of Films and Publishing, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, 1983), pp. 5-23. Paragraph numbers in double brackets have been added by FWP for classroom use, and punctuation slightly clarified in a few places. All editorial emendations in square brackets are by FWP.

From: Mohan Alok < >

Some Quotes from modern historians

Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:

“There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.

The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526).”

He also writes in his book “Negation in India”:

“The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.”

Will Durant have argued in his 1935 book “The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage” (page 459):

“The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.”

Francois Gautier in his book ‘Rewriting Indian History’ (1996) wrote:

“The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese.”

Writer Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations (1995), that Islamic rule in India as a

“colonial experiment” was “extremely violent”, and “the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm – burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion, there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burnt, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves.”

Alain Danielou in his book, Histoire de l’ Inde writes:

“From the time, Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of ‘a holy war’ of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races.”

Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

“While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

Mughals hacking children apart, wax statue reenactment in India.

Islamic methods of punishment in India.

“Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage…”

A sample of contemporary eyewitness accounts of the invaders and rulers, during the Indian conquests

The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 – 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ – written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns: “The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river…but many of them were slain, taken or drowned… Nearly fifty thousand men were killed.”

In the contemporary record – ‘Taj-ul-Ma’asir’ by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko – Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.

The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book ‘Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar’ that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twenty thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.




Dear Vyasji.,


Recently serial about Ashoka in 2015.

Depicting a foreigner as Ashoka second mother , which was promptly written to Indian broadcasting authority.

Where as 2500 ago , no foriegner visited or discovered india.

Carefully planned prepostion to stall & mis represent indian history

But No response.

InCidently ~ I have a copy of broadcasting authrty acknowledging recpt but no reply.

Sharmila tagore was chairperson.


S bhanushali



From: Avnish Kashyap < >




why are the Hindus lying down and taking all these abuses and humiliations without striking back?

Please forward this to ALL Hindus all over the world”

It’s time we realize our culture is being wiped away!!!

If you care forward this….IF NOT Delete!!!!!


Why are we Hindus taking all this lying down. Why is there an IAS officer as head of very temple. Can they dare TO go to a MUSLIM Masjid or a CHRISTIAN church? OR A SIKH GURUDWAARAA Please see the article and decide for yourself.

Foreign writer opens our eyes.

The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment

Act of 1951 allows State Governments and politicians to take over thousands of Hindu Temples and maintain complete control over them and their properties. It is claimed that they can sell the temple assets and properties and use the money in any way they choose.

A charge has been made not by any Temple authority, but by a foreign writer, Stephen Knapp in a book (Crimes Against India and the Need to Protect Ancient Vedic Tradition) published in the United States that makes shocking reading.

Hundreds of temples in centuries past have been built in India by devout rulers and the donations given to them by devotees have been used for the benefit of the (other) people. If, presently, money collected has ever been misused (and that word needs to be defined),

It is for the devotees to protest and not for any government to interfere. This letter is what has been happening currently under an intrusive law.

It would seem, for instance, that under a Temple Empowerment Act, about 43,000 temples in Andhra Pradesh have come under government control and only 18 per cent of the revenue of these temples have been returned for temple purposes, the remaining 82 per cent being used for purposes unstated.

Apparently even the world-famous Tirumala Tirupati Temple has not been spared. According to Knapp, the temple collects over Rs 3,100 crores every year and the State Government has not denied the charge that as much as 85 per cent of this is transferred to the State Exchequer, much of which goes to causes that are not connected with the Hindu community. Was it for that reason that devotees make their offering to the temples? Another charge that has been made is that the Andhra Government has also allowed the demolition of at least ten temples for the construction of a golf course. Imagine the outcry.

Writes Knapp, if ten mosques had been demolished.

It would seem that in Karnataka, Rs. 79 crores were collected from about two lakh temples and from that, temples received Rs seven crores for their maintenance, Muslim madrassahs and Haj subsidy were given Rs. 59 crore and churches about Rs 13 crore. Very generous of the government.

Because of this, Knapp writes, 25 per cent of the two lakh temples or about 50,000 temples in Karnataka will be closed down for lack of resources, and he adds: The only way the government can continue to do this is because people have not stood up enough to stop it.

Knapp then refers to Kerala where, he says, funds from the Guruvayur Temple are diverted to other government projects denying improvement to 45 Hindu temples. Land belonging to the Ayyappa Temple, apparently has been grabbed and Church encroaches are occupying huge areas of forest land, running into thousands of acres, near Sabarimala.

A charge is made that the Communist state government of Kerala wants to pass an Ordinance to disband the Travancore & Cochin Autonomous Devaswom Boards (TCDBs) and take over their limited independent authority of 1,800 Hindu temples. If what the author says is true, even the Maharashtra Government wants to take over some 450,000 temples in the state which would supply a huge amount of revenue to correct the states bankrupt conditions.

And to top it all, Knapp says that in Orissa, the state government intends to sell over 70,000 acres of endowment lands from the Jagannath Temple, the proceeds of which would solve a huge financial crunch brought about by its own mismanagement of temple assets.

Says Knapp: Why such occurrences are so often not known is that the Indian media, especially the English television and press, are often anti-Hindu in their approach, and thus not inclined to give much coverage, and certainly no sympathy, for anything that may affect the Hindu community. Therefore, such government action that play against.

The Hindu community go on without much or any attention attracted to them.

Knapp obviously is on record. If the facts produced by him are incorrect, it is up to the government to say so. It is quite possible that some individuals might have set up temples to deal with lucrative earnings. But that, surely, is none of the governments business?

Instead of taking over all earnings, the government surely can appoint local committees to look into temple affairs so that the amount discovered is fairly used for the public good?

Says Knapp: Nowhere in the free, democratic world are the religious institutions managed, maligned and controlled by the government, thus denying the religious freedom of the people of the country. But it is happening in India. Government officials have taken control of Hindu temples because they smell money in them, they recognize the indifference of Hindus, they are aware of the unlimited patience and tolerance of Hindus, they also know that it is not in the blood of Hindus to go to the streets to demonstrate, destroy property, threaten, loot, harm and kill.

Many Hindus are sitting and watching the demise of their culture. They need to express their views loud and clear Knapp obviously does not know that should they do so, they would be damned as communalists. But it is time someone asked the Government to lay down all the facts on the table so that the public would know what is happening behind.

its back. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not secularism. And temples are not for looting, under any name. One thought that Mohammad of Ghazni has long been dead.


Hinduism remains the most attacked and under siege of all the major world religions. This is in spite of the fact that Hinduism is the most tolerant, pluralistic and synthetic of the world’s major religions.

Money is diverted for Muslim causes and paid to the Muslims.







From: Pramod Agrawal < >

वीर शिवाजी जी मुस्लिम नीति एवं औरंगज़ेब की धर्मान्धता- एक तुलनात्मक अध्ययन 

महाराष्ट्र के पुणे से सोशल मीडिया में शिवाजी को अपमानित करने की मंशा से उनका चित्र डालना और उसकी प्रतिक्रिया में एक इंजीनियर की हत्या इस समय की सबसे प्रचलित खबर हैं। दोषी कौन हैं और उन्हें क्या दंड मिलना चाहिए यह तो न्यायालय तय करेगा जिसमें हमारी पूर्ण आस्था हैं। परन्तु सत्य यह हैं की जो लोग गलती कर रहे हैं वे शिवाजी की मुस्लिम नीति, उनकी न्यायप्रियता, उनकी निष्पक्षता, उनकी निरपराधी के प्रति संवेदना से परिचित नहीं हैं। सबसे अधिक विडंबना का कारण इतिहास ज्ञान से शुन्य होना हैं।  मुस्लिम समाज के कुछ सदस्य शिवाजी की इसलिए विरोध करते हैं क्यूंकि उन्हें यह बताया गया हैं की शिवाजी ने औरंगज़ेब जिसे आलमगीर अर्थात इस्लाम का रखवाला भी कहा जाता था का विरोध किया था। शिवाजी ने औरंगज़ेब की मध्य भारत से पकड़ ढीली कर दी जिसके कारण उनके कई किले और इलाकें उनके हाथ से निकल गए। यह सब घंटनाएँ ३०० वर्ष से भी पहले हुई और इनके कारण लोग अभी भी संघर्ष कर रहे हैं। यह संघर्ष इस्लामिक साम्राज्यवाद की उस मानसिकता का वह पहलु हैं जिसके कारण भारत देश में पैदा होने वाला मुसलमान जिसके पूर्वज हिन्दू थे जिन्हे कभी बलात इस्लाम में दीक्षित किया गया था, आज भारतीय होने से अधिक इस्लामिक सोच, इस्लामिक पहनावे, इस्लामिक खान-पान, अरब की भूमि से न केवल अधिक प्रभावित हैं अपितु उसे आदर्श भी मानता हैं। सत्य इतिहास के गर्भ में हैं की औरंगज़ेब कितना इस्लाम की शिक्षाओं के निकट था और शिवाजी का मुसलमानों के प्रति व्यवहार कैसा था। दोनों की तुलना करने से उत्तर स्पष्ट सिद्ध हो जायेगा।
औरंगजेब द्वारा हिन्दू मंदिरों को तोड़ने के लिए जारी किये गए फरमानों का कच्चाचिट्ठा

 १. १३ अक्तूबर,१६६६- औरंगजेब ने मथुरा के केशव राय मंदिर से नक्काशीदार जालियों को जोकि उसके बड़े भाई दारा शिको द्वारा भेंट की गयी थी को तोड़ने का हुक्म यह कहते हुए दिया की किसी भी मुसलमान के लिए एक मंदिर की तरफ देखने तक की मनाही हैंऔर दारा शिको ने जो किया वह एक मुसलमान के लिए नाजायज हैं। 
 २. ३,१२ सितम्बर १६६७- औरंगजेब के आदेश पर दिल्ली के प्रसिद्द कालकाजी मंदिर को तोड़ दिया गया।  
३. ९ अप्रैल १६६९ को मिर्जा राजा जय सिंह अम्बेर की मौत के बाद औरंगजेब के हुक्म से उसके पूरे राज्य में जितने भी हिन्दू मंदिर थे उनको तोड़ने का हुक्म दे दिया गया और किसी भी प्रकार की हिन्दू पूजा पर पाबन्दी लगा दी गयी जिसके बाद केशव देव राय के मंदिर को तोड़ दिया गया और उसके स्थान पर मस्जिद बना दी गयी।  मंदिर की मूर्तियों को तोड़ कर आगरा लेकर जाया गया और उन्हें मस्जिद की सीढियों में दफ़न करदिया गया और मथुरा का नाम बदल कर इस्लामाबाद कर दिया गया।  इसके बाद औरंगजेब ने गुजरात में सोमनाथ मंदिर का भी विध्वंश कर दिया। 
 ४. ५ दिसम्बर १६७१ औरंगजेब के शरीया को लागु करने के फरमान से गोवर्धन स्थित श्री नाथ जी की मूर्ति को पंडित लोग मेवाड़ राजस्थान के सिहाद गाँव ले गए जहाँ के राणा जी ने उन्हें आश्वासन दिया की औरंगजेब की इस मूर्ति तक पहुँचने से पहले एक लाख वीर राजपूत योद्धाओं को मरना पड़ेगा। 
५. २५ मई १६७९ को जोधपुर से लूटकर लाई गयी मूर्तियों के बारे में औरंगजेब ने हुकुम दिया की सोने-चाँदी-हीरे से सज्जित मूर्तियों को जिलालखाना में सुसज्जित कर दिया जाये और बाकि मूर्तियों को जमा मस्जिद की सीढियों में गाड़ दिया जाये। 
 ६ . २३ दिसम्बर १६७९ औरंगजेब के हुक्म से उदयपुर के महाराणा झील के किनारे बनाये गए मंदिरों को तोड़ा गया।  महाराणा के महल के सामने बने जगन्नाथ के मंदिर को मुट्ठी भर वीर राजपूत सिपाहियों ने अपनी बहादुरी से बचा लिया। 
 ७ . २२ फरवरी १६८० को औरंगजेब ने चित्तोड़ पर आक्रमण कर महाराणा कुम्भा द्वाराबनाएँ गए ६३ मंदिरों को तोड़ डाला। 
८. १ जून १६८१ औरंगजेब ने प्रसिद्द पूरी का जगन्नाथ मंदिर को तोड़ने का हुकुम दिया। 
९. १३ अक्टूबर १६८१ को बुरहानपुर में स्थित मंदिर को मस्जिद बनाने का हुकुमऔरंगजेब द्वारा दिया गया। 
१०. १३ सितम्बर १६८२ को मथुरा के नन्द माधव मंदिर को तोड़ने का हुकुम औरंगजेब द्वारा दिया गया। इस प्रकार अनेक फरमान औरंगजेब द्वारा हिन्दू मंदिरों को तोड़ने के लिए जारी किये गए।

हिन्दुओं पर औरंगजेब द्वारा अत्याचार करना 

२ अप्रैल १६७९ को औरंगजेब द्वारा हिन्दुओं पर जजिया कर लगाया गया जिसका हिन्दुओं ने दिल्ली में बड़े पैमाने पर शांतिपूर्वक विरोध किया परन्तु उसे बेरहमी से कुचल दिया गया।  इसके साथ-साथ मुसलमानों को करों में छूट दे दी गयी जिससे हिन्दू अपनी निर्धनता और कर न चूका पाने की दशा में इस्लाम ग्रहण कर ले। १६ अप्रैल १६६७ को औरंगजेब ने दिवाली के अवसर पर आतिशबाजी चलाने से और त्यौहार बनाने से मना कर दिया गया। इसके बाद सभी सरकारी नौकरियों से हिन्दू क्रमचारियों को निकाल कर उनके स्थान पर मुस्लिम क्रमचारियों की भरती का फरमान भी जारी कर दिया गया।  हिन्दुओं को शीतला माता, पीर प्रभु आदि के मेलों में इकठ्ठा न होने का हुकुम दिया गया। हिन्दुओं को पालकी, हाथी, घोड़े की सवारी की मनाई कर दी गयी। कोई हिन्दू अगर इस्लाम ग्रहण करता तो उसे कानूनगो बनाया जाता और हिन्दू पुरुष को इस्लाम ग्रहण करनेपर ४ रुपये और हिन्दू स्त्री को २ रुपये मुसलमान बनने के लिए दिए जाते थे। ऐसे न जाने कितने अत्याचार औरंगजेब ने हिन्दू जनता पर किये और आज उसी द्वारा जबरन मुस्लिम बनाये गए लोगों के वंशज उसका गुण गान करते नहीं थकते हैं।

वीर शिवाजी द्वारा औरंगज़ेब को पत्र लिखकर उसके अत्याचारों के प्रति आगाह करना

वीर शिवाजी ने हिन्दुओं की ऐसी दशा को देखकर व्यथित मन से औरंगजेब को उसके अत्याचारों से अवगत करने के लिए एक पत्र लिखा था। इस पत्र को सर जदुनाथ सरकार अपने शब्दों में तार्किक, शांत प्रबोधन एवं राजनितिक सूझ बुझ से बुना गया बताया हैं।
वीर शिवाजी लिखते हैं की सभी जगत के प्राणी ईश्वर की संतान  हैं। कोई भी राज्य तब उन्नति करता हैं जब उसके सभी सदस्य सुख शांति एवं सुरक्षा की भावना से वहाँ पर निवास करते हैं। इस्लाम अथवा हिन्दू एक ही सिक्के के दो पहलु हैं। कोई मस्जिद में पूजा करता हैं , कोई मंदिर में पूजा करता हैं पर सभी उस एक ईश्वर की पूजा करते हैं। यहाँ तक की कुरान में भी उसी एक खुदा या ईश्वर के विषय में कहा गया हैं जो केवल मुसलमानों का खुदा नहीं हैं बल्कि सभी का खुदा हैं। मुग़ल राज्य में जजिया एक नाजायज़, अविवेकपूर्ण, अनुपयुक्त अत्याचार हैं जो तभी उचित होता जब राज्य की प्रजा सुरक्षित एवं सुखी होती पर सत्य यह हैं की हिन्दुओं पर जबरदस्ती जजिया के नाम पर भारी कर लगाकर उन्हें गरीब से गरीब बनाया जा रहा हैं। धरती के सबसे अमीर सम्राट के लिए गरीब भिखारियों, साधुओं ,ब्राह्मणों, अकाल पीड़ितो पर कर लगाना अशोभनीय हैं।मच्छर और मक्खियों को मारना कोई बहादुरी का काम नहीं हैं।
अगर औरंगजेब में कोई वीरता हैं तो उदयपुर के राणा और इस पत्र के लेखक से जजिया वसूल कर दिखाए।  
अपने अहंकार और धर्मान्धता में चूर औरंगजेब ने शिवाजी के पत्र का कोई उत्तर न दिया पर शिवाजी ने एक ऐसी जन चेतना और अग्नि प्रजलवित कर दी थी जिसको बुझाना आसान नहीं था।
वीर शिवाजी हिन्दू धर्म के लिए उतने ही समर्पित थे जितना औरंगजेब इस्लाम के लिए समर्पित था परन्तु दोनों में एक भारी भेद था।
शिवाजी अपने राज्य में किसी भी धर्म अथवा मत को मानने वालों पर किसी भी का अत्याचार करते थे एवं उन्हें अपने धर्म को मानने में किसी भी प्रकार की कोई मनाही नहीं थी।

इस्लाम के विषय में शिवाजी की निति

१. अफजल खान को मरने के बाद उसके पूना, इन्दापुर, सुपा, बारामती आदि इलाकों पर शिवाजी का राज स्थापित हो गया। एक ओर तो अफजल खान ने धर्मान्धता में तुलजापुर और पंडरपुर के मंदिरों का संहार किया था दूसरी और शिवाजी ने अपने अधिकारीयों को सभी मंदिर के साथ साथ मस्जिदों को भी पहले की ही तरह दान देने की आज्ञा जारी की थी।

२. बहुत कम लोगों को यह ज्ञात हैं की औरंगजेब ने स्वयं शिवाजी को चार बार अपने पत्रों में इस्लाम का संरक्षक बताया था। ये पत्र १४ जुलाई १६५९, २६ अगस्त एवं २८ अगस्त १६६६ एवं ५ मार्च १६६८ को लिखे गए थे। (सन्दर्भ Raj Vlll, 14,15,16 Documents )

३. डॉ फ्रायर ने कल्याण जाकर शिवाजी की धर्म निरपेक्ष नीति की अपने लेखों में प्रशंसा की हैं। Fryer, Vol I, p. 41n

४. ग्रांट डफ़ लिखते हैं की शिवाजी ने अपने जीवन में कभी भी मुस्लिम सुल्तान द्वारा दरगाहों ,मस्जिदों , पीर मज़ारों आदि को दिए जाने वाले दान को नहीं लूटा। सन्दर्भ History of the Mahrattas, p 104

५. डॉ दिल्लों लिखते हैं की वीर शिवाजी को उस काल के सभी राज नीतिज्ञों में सबसे उदार समझा जाता था।सन्दर्भ Eng.Records II,348

६. शिवाजी के सबसे बड़े आलोचकों में से एक खाफी खाँ जिसने शिवाजी की मृत्यु पर यह लिखा था की अच्छा हुआ एक काफ़िर का भार धरती से कम हुआ भी शिवाजी की तारीफ़ करते हुए अपनी पुस्तक के दुसरे भाग के पृष्ठ 110 पर लिखता हैं की शिवाजी का आम नियम था की कोई मनुष्य मस्जिद को हानि न पहुँचायेगा , लड़की को न छेड़े , मुसलमानों के धर्म की हँसी न करे तथा उसको जब कभी कही कुरान हाथ आता तो वह उसको किसी न किसी मुस्लमान को दे देता था। औरतों का अत्यंत आदर करता था और उनको उनके रिश्तेदारों के पास पहुँचा देता था। अगर कोई लड़की हाथ आती तो उसके बाप के पास पहुँचा देता। लूट खसोट में गरीबों और काश्तकारों की रक्षा करता था। ब्राह्मणों और गौ के लिए तो वह एक देवता था। यद्यपि बहुत से मनुष्य उसको लालची बताते हैं परन्तु उसके जीवन के कामों को देखने से विदित हो जाता हैं की वह जुल्म और अन्याय से धन इकठ्ठा करना अत्यंत नीच समझता था।
सन्दर्भ लाला लाजपत राय कृत छत्रपती शिवाजी पृष्ठ 132 ,संस्करण चतुर्थ, संवत 1983

७. शिवाजी जंजिरा पर विजय प्राप्त करने के लिए केलशी के मुस्लिम बाबा याकूत से आशीर्वाद तक मांगने गए थे।
सन्दर्भ – Vakaskar,91 Q , bakshi p.130
८. शिवाजी ने अपनी सेना में अनेक मुस्लिमों को रोजगार दिया था।

१६५० के पश्चात बीजापुर, गोलकोंडा, मुग़लों की रियासत से भागे अनेक मुस्लिम , पठान व फारसी सैनिकों को विभिन्न ओहदों पर शिवाजी द्वारा रखा गया था जिनकी धर्म सम्बन्धी आस्थायों में किसी भी प्रकार का हस्तक्षेप नहीं किया जाता था और कई तो अपनी मृत्यु तक शिवाजी की सेना में ही कार्यरत रहे। कभी शिवाजी के विरोधी रहे सिद्दी संबल ने शिवाजी की अधीनता स्वीकार कर की थी और उसके पुत्र सिद्दी मिसरी ने शिवाजी के पुत्र शम्भा जी की सेना में काम किया था। शिवाजी की दो टुकड़ियों के सरदारों का नाम इब्राहीम खान और दौलत खान था जो मुग़लों के साथ शिवाजी के युद्ध में भाग लेते थे। क़ाज़ी हैदर के नाम से शिवाजी के पास एक मुस्लिम था जो की ऊँचे ओहदे पर था। फोंडा के किले पर अधिकार करने के बाद शिवाजी ने उसकी रक्षा की जिम्मेदारी एक मुस्लिम फौजदार को दी थी। बखर्स के अनुसार जब आगरा में शिवाजी को कैद कर लिया गया था तब उनकी सेवा में एक मुस्लिम लड़का भी था जिसे शिवाजी के बच निकलने का पूरा वृतांत मालूम था। शिवाजी के बच निकलने के पश्चात उसे अत्यंत मार मारने के बाद भी स्वामी भक्ति का परिचय देते हुए अपना मुँह कभी नहीं खोला था। शिवाजी के सेना में कार्यरत हर मुस्लिम सिपाही चाहे किसी भी पद पर हो , शिवाजी की न्याय प्रिय एवं सेक्युलर नीति के कारण उनके जीवन भर सहयोगी बने रहे।
सन्दर्भ Shivaji the great -Dr Bal Kishan vol 1 page 177

शिवाजी सर्वदा इस्लामिक विद्वानों और पीरों की इज्ज़त करते थे। उन्हें धन,उपहार आदि देकर सम्मानित करते थे। उनके राज्य में हिन्दू-मुस्लिम के मध्य किसी भी प्रकार का कोई भेद नहीं था। जहाँ हिन्दुओं को मंदिरों में पूजा करने में कोई रोक टोक नहीं थी वहीँ मुसलमानों को मस्जिद में नमाज़ अदा करने से कोई भी नहीं रोकता था। किसी दरगाह, मस्जिद आदि को अगर मरम्मत की आवश्यकता होती तो उसके लिए राज कोष से धन आदि का सहयोग भी शिवाजी द्वारा दिया जाता था। इसीलिए शिवाजी के काल में न केवल हिन्दू अपितु अनेक मुस्लिम राज्यों से मुस्लिम भी शिवाजी के राज्य में आकर बसे थे।

शिवाजी की मुस्लिम नीति और न्याप्रियता  की जीती जागती मिसाल हैं। पाठक मुस्लिम परस्त औरंगज़ेब की धर्मांध नीति एवं न्यायप्रिय शिवाजी की धर्म नीति में भेद को भली प्रकार से समझ सकते हैं। फिर भी मुस्लिम समाज के कुछ सदस्य औरंगज़ेब के पैरोकार बने  फिरते हैं और शिवाजी की आलोचना करते घूमते हैं। सत्य के दर्शन होने पर सत्य को स्वीकार करने वाला जीवन में प्रगति करता हैं।

डॉ विवेक आर्य

Dear Vedics:


Namaste _/\_.


Because the world currently does not know that Vedic is universal dharma, it makes us Vedics difficult to create Hindustan a Vedic State.


Some Hindus (incorrectly) argue that Hinduism is not a religion, but it is just a philosophy.  Let me share some thought for your consideration:


  1. Every religion influences behavior of the followers of that religion. The Vedic dharma is not an exception.


  1. Every religion has a philosophy.  The Vedic dharma is not an exception.  Actually, the Vedic dharma has six well developed philosophies.


  1. The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Xianity, and Islam) are exclusive, dogmatic, and history centric. The Vedic dharma is an exception, and that is why it is universal.


  1. What makes the Vedic dharma universal, and so very powerful to cause peace from personal to global levels, are these facts:


  1. ॥ असतो मा सत् गमय॥Vedic dharma give maximum emphasis on knowing the truth, and finally knowing the absolute truth (which is an aspect of the Supreme god.)


  1. Vedic dharma is pro-life, and anti-demoniacs.  अहिंसा परमो धर्मः। धर्म हिंसा तथैव च॥ To not injure or kill is dharma, but to kill (or keep them out of country) the demoniacs or asuras is also dharma.  This is the reason why Krishna recommended Arjun to fight against Duryodhan and his army and kill them all including Bhishma and Drona whom Arjun loved very much. Why, because they took the side of adharma.


  1. A Vedic dharmi (i. e. a Hindu) can consider the supreme god as a male or female.  Actually, as Brahma, god is neither male or female, and still is capable to create (and destroy) innumerable universes.


  1. Unlike other religions that prescribe just one way to worship god or go to haven, the Vedic dharma provides a number of ways that are different yoga processes. Ultimate destination of all these processes is the same just like you can travel from one city to another in many ways.


  1. Vedic dharma tells followers to not force dharma on others, nor to entice non-Hindus into accepting Vedic dharma.  Why, because dharma gives maximum freedom of thought, speech, and action (karma); and depending upon one’s karma, and by the perfect justice system of God, one advances spiritually towards God, or stays where one is, or falls spiritually.


  1. Vedic dharma provides complete spiritual science, which is beyond material science.  Knowing this spiritual science, e.g. from Bhagavad Gita, one can make a choice how to act or react in any situation.  One’s karma is what one acts or reacts or even thinks or desires; and karma determines what one will get in future in current or next life.


  1. Unlike other religions, the Vedic dharma informs us that we are not the body, but the jiva within the body.  A jiva is an aatmaa with a bundle of desires, and each aatmaa is qualitatively same as the param-aatmaa (the supreme god).  Aatmaa is eternal, and that is why a jiva takes another body after death when one body is not habitable for the jiva.  But a jiva’s next body is determined by God based on the jiva’s karma.  On YouTube, will find many videos describing the experiences of those who somehow remember their past life(s).


  1. Any practice of the Vedic dharma is eco-friendly. This cannot be said of other religions.


  1. Vedic scriptures inform us that Arya or Aryan is not a race at all. Anyone who strives to live per the Vedic dharma is an Aryan.


  1. Per the Vedic dharma God does not favor one race, or one skin color against another, and God love all living beings equally. Because God is Supreme, God is not jealous of anyone.


  1. A few short articles at below link provide other characteristics of the Vedic dharma that make it universal.




Now let me explain why it will help Vedic causes when the world knows that it is universal.


“Democracy” is a Western construct, not svadeshi, and it says nationalism is bad and must be resisted and not allowed in a country. It promotes pluralism or multi-culturalism.


It certainly is true for the nationalisms that are based on exclusive and intolerant religions.

It is not true for Vedic Nationalism because Vedic is universal dharma for mankind.


When adharma advances (e. g. terrorism advances), all suffer.

When Vedic dharma advances, then all feel peace.


Therefore, there is need for an active program educating the world that no one should fear (except the asuras and demoniacs) from the Vedic dharma or Vedic nationalism.


The correct understanding of the Vedic dharma—that it is universal– will make it easy to create Hindustan a Vedic State, without which Hindus and Hinduism will vanish forever due to the aggressive spread of Islam and enticed spread of Xianity.


I will be glad to answer any questions on the subject.


jai sri Krishna!

Suresh Vyas


From: Pramod Agraval < >

*।।वन्दे मातरम्।।* 🙏🏼 🚩
*स्वदेशी के प्रखर प्रवक्ता, भारत रत्न श्री राजीव दीक्षित जी के 330 घण्टे के व्याख्यानों के नाम व links*

*श्री राजीव दीक्षित जी ने अपने पूरे जीवन मे देश भर मे घूम- घूम कर 5000 से ज्यादा व्याख्यान दिये! सन् 2005 तक वह भारत के पूर्व से पश्चिम, उत्तर से दक्षिण चार बार भ्रमण कर चुके थे !! उन्होने विदेशी कंपनियो की नाक मे दम कर रखा था ! भारत के किसी भी मीडिया चैनल ने उनको दिखाने का साहस नहीं किया !! क्योकि वह देश से जुडे ऐसे मुद्दो पर बात करते थे कि एक बार लोग सुन ले तो देश मे 1857 से बडी क्रांति हो जाती ! वह ऐसे ओजस्वी वक्ता थे जिनकी वाणी पर माँ सरस्वती साक्षात निवास करती थी। जब वे बोलते थे तो स्रोता घण्टों मन्त्र-मुग्ध होकर उनको सुना करते थे ! 30 नवम्बर 1967 को जन्मे और 30 नवंबर 2010 को ही संसार छोडने वाले ज्ञान के महासागर श्री राजीव दीक्षित जी आज केवल आवाज के रूप मे हम सबके बीच जिंदा है उनके जाने के बाद भी उनकी आवाज आज देश के लाखो करोडो लोगो का मार्गदर्शन कर रही है और भारत को भारत की मान्यताओं के आधार पर खडा करने आखिरी उम्मीद बनी हुई है!*

1: आज़ादी का असली इतिहास

2: आज़ादी के बाद भी चल रही मैकाले की शिक्षण प्रणाली

3: आज़ादी के बाद भी गुलामी की निशानियां

4: आज़ादी के बाद भी गुलामी की निशानियां (भाग २)

5: आज़ादी के बाद स्वदेशी अपनाने की जरुरत क्यों?

6: आज़ादी नहीं ये धोखा है

7: आज़ादी से पहले सदेशी आन्दोलन की लड़ाई

8: आपका मांसाहार करना वैश्विक गर्मी का सबसे बड़ा कारण

9: आर्थिक गुलामी में धंसता हुआ भारत

10: अर्थव्यवस्था के बर्बाद होने का कारण और निवारण

11: अभी भी भारत वैसा ही गुलाम है

12: अगर आप कार्य करते है तो आपको किन नियमो का पालन करना चाहिए

13: Coke-Pepsi की असलियत

14: अमेरिका का भारत पर आर्थिक प्रतिबन्ध

15: आन्दोलन का मीडिया कैसा होगा?

16: अंग्रेज तो चले गए पर अंग्रेजियत नहीं गयी

17: अंग्रेजी भाषा की गुलामी

18: अंग्रेजी कानून व्यवस्था

19: अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संधियों में फंसा भारत

20: हिन्दू विरोधी NGO अंधश्रद्धा निर्मूलन समिति की असलियत

21: अर्थव्यवस्था में मंदी के कारण और निवारण

22: आयुर्वेद जैविक कृषि, काला धन

23: आयुर्वेद और राष्ट्रीय समस्याएं

24: आयुर्वेद बनाम एलोपैथी

25: आयुर्वेदिक चिकित्सा

26: आयुर्वेदिक चिकित्सा (भाग २)

27: श्री राम कथा में भारत की समस्याओं का समाधान

28: श्री राम कथा में भारत की समस्याओं का समाधान (भाग २)

29: भारत आज़ाद या गुलाम

30: भारत और यूरोप की सभ्यता और संस्कृति

31: भारत और यूरोप विज्ञान और तकनीक

32: भारत और यूरोप की संस्कृति

33: भारत देश की व्यथा (हिसार)

34: भारत है कैसा और बनाना कैसा है?

35: भारत का स्वर्णिम अतीत

36: भारत का सांस्कृतिक पतन कैसे हुआ?

37: भारत के किसानो के लिए जैविक खेती का सूत्र (नुस्खा)।

38: भारत के किसानो की गुलामी और खेती

39: भारत के परमाणु बम से दूसरे देशो को तकलीफ

40: भारत की एतिहासिक भूले जो हमें दुबारा नहीं करनी चाहिए

41: भारत की दुनिया को देन

42: भारत कानून और शिक्षा व्यवस्था

43: भारत देश की कथा

44: भारत की कृषि

45: भारत की लूट और अंग्रेजी कानून

46: भारत की मान्यताये और उनके खिलाफ अंग्रेजी कानून

47: भारत की संस्कृति और सभ्यता कैसे ख़त्म हो रही है?

48: भारत को आजादी मिली है लेकिन स्वतंत्रता नहीं

49: भारत में आतंकवाद और उसका निवारण

50: भारत में हुई पहली क्रांति की कहानी

51: भारत में मौत का व्यापार

52: भारत में नयी व्यवस्था के लिए हमारी लड़ाई

53: भारत में स्वराज्य कैसे आएगा?

54: भारत में स्वाइन फ्लू के पीछे का सच

55: भारत में विदेशी कम्पनियों की लूट

56: भारत पाकिस्तान कारगिल युद्ध और अमेरिका

57: भारत स्वदेशी के रास्ते से ही स्वावलंबी बनेगा

58: भारत तब और अब

59: भारतियों की मानसिक गुलामी

60: काला धन स्विस बैंको में और गरीबी

61: भारत से प्रतिभा पलायन

62: चार्टड अकाउंटेंट, स्वदेशी भारत

63: सभी शीतल पेयो की असलियत

64: CTBT और भारतीय अस्मिता

65: दातुन बनाम दंतमंजन

66: दुनिया के दुसरे देशो में क्रांति

67: भारत स्वाभिमान आन्दोलन

68: इंग्लैंड की महारानी की भारत यात्रा

69: एक सच जो आपकी आँखे खोल देगा

70: परिवार नियोजन कैसे करे

71: भाजपा सरकार के समय insurance में FDI

72: गर्भपात एक पाप

73: GATT समझौते का भारत की अर्थव्यवस्था पर असर

74: GATT समझौता

75: गौ आधारित कृषि और धर्म

76: गौ हत्या और उसको रोकने के उपाय

77: गौ हत्या की राजनीती और प्रधान न्यायालय में लड़ाई

78: गौ हत्या का इतिहास

79: Globalization Banking Gulbarga Jan-2005 by Rajiv Dixit

80: कीमती आभूषणों पर हालमार्क : एक साजिश

81: भूमंडलीकरण और उदारीकरण द्वारा भारत की अर्थव्यवस्था का विनाश

82: गौरक्षा और उसका महत्त्व

83: स्वास्थ्य: आयुर्वेद और होम्योपैथी ६ घंटे

84: स्वास्थ्य: १ घंटा

85: स्वास्थ्य: भारत बनाम यूरोप २ घंटे

86: Health lecture 7 Hour At Pune (स्वास्थ्य: ७ घंटे)

87: Health Lecture 10 hour At चैन्नई (स्वास्थ्य: १० घंटे)

88: Health Lecture 11 hour At chennai (११ घंटे)

89: स्वास्थ्य

90: स्वास्थ्य: शराब, गुटका, धुम्रपान कैसे छोड़े?

91: स्वास्थ्य: नाडी परिक्षण महत्वपूर्ण

92: बहुत सारे रोगों के लिए स्वास्थ्य युक्तियाँ

93: हिंदी भाषा का महत्त्व

94: आदोलन काम कैसे करे?

95: कैसे TV और विज्ञापन आपका दिमाग कुंद कर रहे है?

96: कैसे बहुदेशीय कंपनियों से लड़े

97: अवैध खनन और उपाय

98: भारत का अज्ञात इतिहास और वर्तमान समस्याएं

99: भारत और यूरोप की सभ्यता

100: आयोडीन युक्त नमक कभी न खाए

101: जन-मन-गन बनाम वन्दे मातरम

102: जैविक खेती कैसे करे?

103: जीवन जीने की कला

104: बच्चों को कैसी शिक्षा दी जाये?

105: कार्यकर्ताओं को क्या करना होगा?

106: कश्मीर समस्या और समाधान

107: क्रांति होने के कुछ उदाहरण

108: Lecture At Andhrapardesh

109: Lecture At Bathinda Punjab

110: Lecture At Bemetara Chhattisgarh

111: Lecture At Bhopal

112: Lecture At Biaora Rajgarh

113: Lecture At Bicholim Goa

114: Lecture At Bilaspur CG(Low Quality)

115: Lecture At Budge Budge kolkata

116: Lecture At Delhi

117: Lecture At Dewas 6-April-2010

118: Lecture At Janjgir Champa CG

119: Lecture At Madurai

120: Lecture At Mungeli CG

121: Lecture At Pipariya

122: Lecture At Ponda Goa(Low Quality)

123: Lecture At Raigarh(Low Quality).

124: Lecture At Sakti CG