A hard-hitting and insightful article by Radha Rajan of Vigil Online about the simmering Hindu rage and the way Hindus are being declared terrorists by the Congress government that is being controlled by a White Christian. Reproducing here in full:
‘Hindu terrorism’ – See the writing on the wall
“Consequently, bearing in mind the words of the late Mr. S.R. Das, once Law Member of the Governor-General’s Executive Council, which appeared in the famous letter he had addressed to his son, to the effect that the ‘Bomb was necessary to awaken England from her dreams’, we dropped the bomb on the floor of the Assembly Chamber to register our protest on behalf of those who had no other means left to give expression to their heart-rending agony. Our sole purpose was “to make the deaf hear” and to give the heedless a timely warning. Others have as keenly felt as we have done, and from under the seeming stillness of the sea of Indian humanity, a veritable storm is about to break out. We have only hoisted the “danger-signal” to warn those who are speeding along without heeding the grave dangers ahead. We have only marked the end of an era of Utopian non-violence, of whose futility the rising generation has been convinced beyond the shadow of doubt.
We have used the expression Utopian non-violence in the foregoing paragraph which requires some explanation. Force when aggressively applied is “violence” and is therefore morally unjustifiable; but when it is used in the furtherance of a legitimate cause, it has its moral justification. The elimination of force at all costs is Utopian.”
This could be Sameer Kulkarni or Major Ramesh Upadhyay speaking in court but these were the stern words of Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt directed at the British Colonial Government. Bhagat Singh’s warning, on his behalf was read out by Asaf Ali in the Sessions Court on 6th June, 1929 in the Central Assembly bombing case. Sameer Kulkarni and Major Upadhyay may well have spoken the very words of Bhagat Singh to issue the same stern warning to the UPA government pursuing a national suicidal policy of appeasing religious minorities. Bhagat Singh bombed the Central Assembly to protest government intention to pass by ordinance a draconian law like the Rowlatt Act because he realised the utter futility of Gandhi’s “Utopian non-violence” to contain or deter the colonial government.
Indian polity’s Gandhi-Nehru secular administration has rested successfully, unchallenged and uninterrupted, only on Hindu impotence to protest or deter anti-Hindu politics of minority-ism. Hindu impotence is the result of Gandhi’s clueless and ideologically bankrupt leadership of the INC in the last and decisive phase of the so-called freedom movement which could neither expedite political freedom nor avert vivisection of the Hindu bhumi. Gandhi’s non-violence which could not contain the Muslim League only weakened and finally halted Hindu armed resistance to both jihad and slavery under colonialism. Post-independence Indian polity is continuing the Gandhian fetish of equating the Hindu concept of use of force for a just cause with the asuric violence of the Abrahamic religions in pursuit of their essentially destructive political objectives. The young men of Abhinav Bharat were, like Bhagat Singh and his compatriots, only registering their protest “on behalf of those who had no other means left to give expression to their heart-rending agony”; in this case, the Hindus of Hindu bhumi against the horrendous blood-letting of Hindus by domestic jihadis across the country.
The relentless pursuit of the Maharashtra ATS of the young men of Abhinav Bharat to the silent applause of the UPA government and the secular brigade is only a feeble attempt to nail Savarkar in his coffin and prevent his second coming. Gandhi, his mentors, and his INC allowed the British government, without any protest, to exterminate the Hindu nationalist leadership between 1909 and 1911; Gandhi with all his power and influence with the British government did nothing for Bhagat Singh, his colleagues or the other revolutionaries languishing in jail; he evicted Subhash Bose from the INC and forced him to flee the country; but Savarkar refuses even now, to roll over and die. The spirit of Savarkar continues to inspire Hindu nationalists and his ghost continues to haunt the Congress.
“No matter if once again the vanguard of the Indian movement, the Revolutionary Party, finds itself deserted in the thick of the war. No matter if the leaders to whom personally we are much indebted for the sympathy and feelings they expressed for us, but nevertheless we cannot overlook the fact that they did become so callous as to ignore and not to make a mention in the peace negotiation of even the homeless, friendless and penniless of female workers who are alleged to be belonging to the vanguard and whom the leaders consider to be enemies of their utopian non-violent cult which has already become a thing of the past; the heroines who had ungrudgingly sacrificed or offered for sacrifice their husbands, brothers, and all that were nearest and dearest to them, including themselves, whom your government has declared to be outlaws. No matter, if your agents stoop so low as to fabricate baseless calumnies against their spotless characters to damage their and their party’s reputation. The war shall continue.”
This again could well have been Major Upadhyay or any of the young men in Abhinav Bharat mercilessly exposing the callousness and anti-Hindu bent of mind of deracinated Hindus in the UPA government; and they may well be referring to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur; but these words once again evoke the familiar sense of deja vu because this was Bhagat Singh, in his last letter to the Punjab Governor before he was hanged, rebuking in polite but biting language Gandhi’s refusal to negotiate the release of all Indian revolutionaries as a pre-condition during the Gandhi-Irwin dialogue before concluding the suicidal-for-Indians Gandhi-Irwin Pact. Now however, in a sharp departure from 1931, these brave men and women have not been “deserted in the thick of the war”. The Hindu community in its entirety has rallied behind them and the war indeed shall continue – against jihad and jihadis, and against the missionary church and her missionaries.
Equating the Bajrang Dal and Hindu nationalists with the SIMI, equating Hindu armed resistance against ceaseless jihad against Hindus with jihad itself, naming votaries of armed resistance among Hindu nationalists as Hindu terrorists, defaming our armed forces in a language fit only to be used against global jihadis and other anti-nationals, is not merely Arundhati-speak but is a continuation of Gandhi’s mindset when he was faced by similar armed resistance from the Punjab and Bengal.
“Further details that have come through the press of the assassination of Sir Michael O’Dwyer; and the attempted assassination of Lord Zetland, Lord Lamington and Sir Louis Dane confirm my opinion that it was a work of insanity. It is none the less reprehensible on that account. We had our differences with Sir Michael O’Dwyer, but that should not prevent us from being grieved over his assassination or condoling with Lady O’Dwyer and her family. I would like every Indian patriot to share with me the shame of the act and the joy that the lives of the three distinguished Englishmen were saved. We have our grievance against Lord Zetland. We must fight his reactionary policy. But there should be no malice or vindictiveness in our resistance. The papers tell us that the accused acted with amused nonchalance when he faced the court and the spectators. This does not command my admiration. It is to me a sure sign of continuing insanity. The accused is intoxicated with the thought of his bravery. I have known drunken men act with a recklessness of which they would be incapable in a sober state. I understand that extra rum is issued to soldiers who are sent to specially hazardous tasks. What am I to praise, the rum or its after-effect?
The word assassin owes its origin to the hasheesh that was administered to the would-be assassins in order to deaden their conscience. This continuing insanity of the accused should fill us with pity and grief. If we are to fight fairly and squarely, we must, as far as is humanly possible, make every Englishman feel that he is as safe in our midst as he is in his own home. It fills me with shame and sorrow that for some time at least every Indian face in London will be suspect. Is it not possible for us all to realize that the masses will never mount to freedom through murder? I would like every reader of these lines to know that every such act harms our non-violent struggle and therefore to dissociate himself in the secret of his heart and openly from such acts of insanity.” (Notes: The London Assassination, Ramgarh, March 17, 1940 Harijan, 23-3-1940, CWMG Vol. 78 pp 67-68)
Gandhi’s language is breathtaking for its sheer arrogance compounded by smug cupidity. Michael O’Dwyer was the Governor of the Punjab when Gen. Dyer issued his infamous ‘crawling order’ to the Sikhs before gunning and bayoneting them to death at Jalianwala Bagh. Gandhi declared later, “Only the deserving got justice from God. They were made to crawl because they deserved it”. (Speech on Khilafat and Non-Cooperation, Lahore, July 17, 1920, The Tribune, 20-7-1920, CWMG Vol. 21, pp 55-56) Needless to say Gandhi, like Nehru’s and Sonia’s Congress reserved public opprobrium only for Hindu nationalism while maintaining deafening silence in public on relentless jihad in this country.
The Congress Party, when it was created by AO Hume was a creature of colonial intent; it was transformed into a nationalist vehicle for political freedom by Tilak, Aurobindo and Lajpat Rai but was soon returned to its original purpose under Gokhale, Gandhi and then Nehru. Savarkar is reviled even today by the Congress and deracinated Hindu politicians because they associate Gandhi’s executioner Godse with Savarkar and with the Hindu Mahasabha to which both owed allegiance. The Hindu Mahasabha like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was a Hindu Nationalist organization formed to protect Hindu interests vis a vis the Muslim League. By Gandhi’s own admission, the Hindu Mahasabha was a part of the Congress party as was Dr. Hedgewar, the Founder of the RSS and this is not surprising at all. The ceaseless effort to free the Hindu nation from Muslim rule and from Christian colonial rule entered its last and decisive phase with the creation by the British colonial government of both the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League.
The politically-conscious ordinary people of India, inspired by Tilak and Aurobindo, saw in the Congress the instrument which would lead the country towards freedom but they were soon disappointed with the turn that Gandhi gave to the INC and to the freedom movement. Not surprisingly, those like Savarkar, Bhagat Singh and Babasaheb Ambedkar who did not see Gandhi or the Congress as representing them, did not join the Congress party and worked outside it. Others like Aurobindo, Dr. Hedgewar, Dr. Moonje and much later KM Munshi quietly distanced themselves from Gandhi and the Congress while Gandhi himself machinated the eviction of Subhash Bose and NB Khare. Few would know that KM Munshi resigned from the Congress because, as he told Gandhi, Hindus of Mumbai looked up to him as leader and given the strident march of the Muslim League towards vivisection, he could not advocate non-violence to Hindus. Munshi subsequently founded the Akhand Hindusthan Front; Akhanda Hindusthan or Akhand Bharat – the undivided Hindu nation.
By the time Gandhi was executed by Godse in 1948, political Hindus had rejected the Congress Party. Gandhi had ensured that the Congress would never represent Hindu interests in spite of the fact that the Muslim League was uncompromisingly and unflinchingly only Muslim in character, content and objective.
“There were some who described the Congress as a Hindu organization. They only betrayed their ignorance of the political history of India. At one time the Hindu Mahasabha was in the hands of the Congress and so was the Muslim League and others. Congress was not a Hindu organization. It did not serve Hindu interests to the exclusion of the other communities. It was hinted that the Congress leaders had come to consult him with regard to the interests of the Hindus. Had they done so they would have lowered the stature of the Indian National Congress in the eyes of the world.” (Speech at prayer meeting, Srirampur, December 28, 1946, The Hindu, 2-1-1947; and Harijan, 26-1-1947, CWMG Vol. 93, page 207)
The prestige of the Congress party “in the eyes of the world” was more important to Gandhi than leading the Congress to avert vivisection. The Hindu nation was vivisected by the Muslim League which too was a part of the INC. But for Nehru and Nehru’s Congress, Godse, the Hindu Mahasabha and a fierce nationalist like Savarkar are political untouchables while the Muslim League which vivisected the nation can still be embraced as a coalition partner in government. Clearly, for the Congress the individual Gandhi was and is larger than the timeless Hindu nation. Lt. Col. Purohit, a serving army officer too has been arrested today in connection with the Malegaon blasts. The country must ask itself why members of one of the highest and most revered institutions of the country are looking to defend the Hindu nation outside the establishment. The involvement of army officers – serving and retired – is a damning indictment of Indian Polity which is disinclined to dealing with the political objectives of Christianity and Islam, which constitute the two biggest threats to the nation from within.
Gandhi did not think of this country as a Hindu nation. He had no conception of janmabhumi or homeland and this was evident from his surprising reaction to the demand for a Jewish homeland. The Jews like the Hindus are born into their religion; like Hindus they do not convert others to their faith and like Hindus again, possess a sense of homeland. Both Hindus and Jews realize now, after immense suffering and deprivation that Islam and White Christianity have caused them both, that neither they as peoples nor their religion can survive without territory that is theirs by right and by a sense of historical belonging.
“I do believe that the Jews have been cruelly wronged by the world. “Ghetto” is, so far as I am aware, the name given to Jewish locations in many parts of Europe. But for their heartless persecution, probably no question of return to Palestine would ever have arisen. The world should have been their home, if only for the sake of their distinguished contribution to it. But, in my opinion, they have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism. Their citizenship of the world should have and would have made them honoured guests of any country. But one would have thought adversity would teach them lessons of peace. Why should they depend upon American money or British arms for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine? If they were to adopt the matchless weapon of non-violence whose use their best Prophets have taught and which Jesus the Jew who gladly wore the crown of thorns bequeathed to a groaning world, their case would be the world’s, and I have no doubt that among the many things that the Jews have given to the world, this would be the best and the brightest. It is twice blessed. It will make them happy and rich in the true sense of the word and it will be a soothing balm to the aching world.” (Jews and Palestine, Panchgani, July 14, 1946 Harijan, 21-7-1946, CWMG Vol. 91, pp 272-73)
The Jews may not be amused at Gandhi’s prescription for peace – world citizenship and the status of honoured guests in countries around the world but no homeland, no nation for themselves. Hindus today are not amused either. It was a similar prescription for peace that led to vivisection. Nehru was as afraid of what Savarkar and Golwalkar represented as Gandhi was afraid of what Tilak, Aurobindo, Bhagat Singh, Subhash Bose and KM Munshi represented. Their fears of Hindu nationalism have brought this nation to the brink of self-destruction wreaked by jihad and the evangelical church, aided and abetted by India’s secular anti-Hindu polity. Sadhvi Pragya Singh, Sameer Kulkarni, Major Upadhyay, Lt. Col. Purohit signal the determined rise of Hindu nationalism. Hindu terrorism? Call it what you will but see the writing on the wall. The war shall continue.