I have never once commented on the political, social, economic and cultural condition of India.
I have never said a word about Indian politics.
Per se, I do not intend to get into such subjects.
But, I feel an irresistible urge to say something on an issue which has been raging in this country for the last few years, and indeed, was a hot topic of contention for several decades.
This pertains to the so-called “Partition” of India, which took place in 1947.
I cannot help wondering at the amount of hatred spewed against Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru.
Certainly, this irrepressible impulsion to say something emerged on the heels of the mass hysteria over the issue of Nathuram Godse, the Hindu “Brahmin” assassin of Mohandas Gandhi.
No, I have nothing revolutionary to comment on, no “initiate’s” profound revelation to make, nothing sensational or particularly profound.
I am neither an academician, nor an “expert”, nor a political commentator of any sort.
I am expressing my personal assessment on a very specific perception {so to speak} because, today, public perception defines almost everything.
Per se, I have not looked into this issue as a political analyst or historian.
I have no clue why Godse really killed Gandhi, but a few videos here & there seemed to indicate some issues (like the Partition).
I am neither particularly interested in Gandhi, nor in Godse.
I am, however, astonished at the peculiar logic of the Hindutva, or Pro-Hindu, community.
First things first, I am not a Liberal, but I am not a typical Conservative either.
Yes, as an Indian I would like to demonstrate that India was the cradle of world civilization, and all other cultures were off-shoots of Indian culture {whether this can actually be done – or is even a desirable object – is a debatable issue}.
Yes, I would love to see Sanskrit as the most venerated language of the world, and see that all great Indian achievements get the recognition & respect they deserve, and have not received, for centuries.
Yes, I would love to see Sanātana Dharma with its Vedas, its Shāstras, its magnificent epics & Purāṇas — its lushly ornate, intricate temples & breath-takingly beautiful art — its joyous music & dance — honored as one of the greatest, most profound, and most relevant achievements of the human soul, and see people across all races & creeds bow their heads in reverence to its profundity & its glory.
Yes, I would love to see Indian cuisine, dress, arts & crafts, and culture, wash over the world like rosy-golden sunlight on a cloudless morning.
{No sarcasm, here.}
And yet, I don’t think I am religious, in the conventional sense of the term.
I do not agree with several ideas, values, & norms, of Hindus.
I do see myself as an Indian & as a Hindu, but I’m also a human being, and a being endowed with reason.
I have been born into a complex society where people of myriad languages, colors, creeds, beliefs, customs, practices, & cultures, lived long together very tolerantly & harmoniously.
I cannot just forget all that, and kick it out of my life.
At some fundamental level, all human beings must – naturally – connect – across the world, and see themselves as similar, in more ways than they’re comfortable admitting.
Deep down, we’re all – fundamentally – the same.
We must never lose sight of that truth, in our desire to see ourselves as specific, distinct cultural entities.
Remember, what Ashoka proclaimed, in his 12th Rock Edict:
“Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds.
But Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this — that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions.
Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one’s own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause.
And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way.
But it is better to honor other religions for this reason.
By so doing, one’s own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one’s own religion and the religions of others.
Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought “Let me glorify my own religion”, only harms his own religion.
Therefore contact (between religions) is good.
One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others.
Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.”
This is the highest wisdom.
Even if Buddhists did not follow it themselves.
Their Anti-Brahmanical propaganda is one of the most severe, though, in my assessment, it was a much later phenomenon.
But, to reiterate, I do not believe in many ideas & practices of Indians, and I do not think we can, either now or in the future, go back to what we once were {we can adopt, carry-forward, preserve, and develop many ancient ideas, yes}.
Science & technology have altered human existence so drastically, that we can afford to drop many old values — and have created a pressing need, not just to re-discover, but to re-invent ourselves.
Sanātana Dharma wasn’t perfect – {absolutely nothing is} – it was great.
Which is a good thing, because constant perfectibility is the only thing that gives meaning to human existence: the scope to strive to be better – to have the scope to change – always.
As for Liberalism: it has its own compelling logic – at times.
It had its own background, its reasons, its justification.
It does not possess that compelling logic, anymore.
While I can admire many Liberals for many of their qualities, talents, and achievements, I see no reason to agree with all their views, let alone their lifestyle, and I think they’re leading the world into utter moral, ethical, social, political & economic chaos.
We are entering an age of Nero or Heliogabalus: an age of utter decadence, dissoluteness, and dissipation.
They’re taking the whole “freedom” thing too far – what they’re pushing is actually total psychological & emotional confusion, turmoil, conflict, & breakdown — and making everyone fight.
Despite my sympathy with many liberalist causes, and many liberal principles, I am certainly not one of your typical liberal-socialite-media fanatics.
That said, is the Hindutva community really thinking out its ideas clearly?
The Hindutva folk keep attacking Gandhi and Nehru for “dividing” India, and for the creation of Pakistan.
This is the most virulent, serious charge brought against them.
And here’s where I want to put in a small word of my own.
I do not see the logic.
Can we turn this around?
Let’s try.
We are told that Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru were Anti-Hindu ... but then the exact same people are condemned for dividing India into two countries.
Where is the sense in this?
For one, I doubt if the man, whose last two words, two final words he uttered before his death, uttered when – at a terribly, shocking, painful moment he realized he’s been betrayed & shot & his whole life was going to just vanish & he could do nothing about it – were “Hey Rām” – I doubt if that man was “Anti-Hindu”.
It is very much possible to be a Hindu, and not agree with a lot of ideas associated with Hinduism, & reject many old Hindu practices.
Well, that would be a digression.
Let me stick to the topic, and put it this way...
What’s the population of India today?
1.392 billion.
What is the percentage of Hindus?
Almost 80%.
How many people is that?
About 1.117 billion.
What is the percentage of Muslims, and how many people are those?
14.61% and about 203 million, respectively.
What is the population of Pakistan?
About 224 million.
Of this 96% are Muslims, which means approximately 215 million Muslims.
The number of Hindus in Pakistan is about 4.8 million.
What is the population of Bangladesh?
Apparently, about 166 million.
Of this, about 90% are Muslims, i.e. about 150 million Muslims.
The number of Hindus in Bangladesh is about 14 million.
Now, let us follow the Hindutva, Anti-Nehru, Anti-Gandhi logic.
Had Pakistan & Bangladesh (since these were part of erstwhile British India, and were one country after the Partition) continued to be a part of India, we would have the following demographics:
Total Population {1,392 + 224 + 166=}: 1.792 billion {very manageable!}
Total Muslim population {203 + 215 + 150 =}: 568 million
Total Hindu population {1,117 + 4.8 + 14 =}: 1.135 billion
Percentage of Muslims in a “divided” India: 14.61%
Percentage of Muslims in an “undivided” India: 31.29%
In other words, in adding Pakistan & Bangladesh to India, you add nearly 365 million Muslims to the Indian population, you more than double the percentage of Muslims in India.
Do you think Hinduism could have survived this massive addition of the confident, proud, war-like Islamic-spirit-bearing men & women?
Does anybody realize, that in “dividing” India & Pakistan, in shunting off the excess Muslims out of this country, and shoving the excess Hindus into this country, Nehru & Gandhi
Rather, they created a strong, solid basis, for the future emergence of a Hindu nation – a very specifically Hindu nation??
How can anybody not see this?
Is this not, undoubtedly, a distinct possibility?
Why do the Anti-Islamic Hindutva want the strength, the force – and let’s say – the cumulative passion! – of the Islamic population in India, to increase by double?
What advantage do they see in adding another 365 million Muslims – (more than the total population of the US) – to India??
Do they realize what would 365 million additional Muslims do, to the “Hindutva” cause??
Hindutva would be wiped out in just a few years.
Can the average Hindu match the average Muslim in the strength of his faith, in the firmness of his devotion, in the confidence of his conviction, in his recklessness, his intrepidity?
{For that matter, has India ever been in a position – economic, military, industrial, scientific, technological – to defy the entire world, and stand its ground, to hold its pride against one & all?
Perhaps we are judging the Gandhis & Nehrus too lightly: perhaps those men had no choice, or very little choice, in most of what they said or did.}
There is a fundamental assumption in this discussion, of course, that the population-statistics and demographics would remain more or less the same, had the division never taken place.
I would not expect the rate of growth {of population} of the respective creeds to be particularly different, if India remained undivided.
The basic argument, or idea, would stand, remain the same: you would have a much higher proportion of Muslims than you have now; the economic, military, political & culture influence they would’ve exercised would’ve been much greater; and their concentrated, united strength would be positively unbeatable.
There would much more cross-cultural intermingling, our lives would be far more tightly interwoven.
Think for yourself: it would be difficult to imagine the rise of Hindutva {the rapidity with which it has risen & expanded} in an undivided India with hundreds of millions of additional Muslims.
So, logically speaking, shouldn’t we say that by dividing India, Gandhi and Neh
I am not saying that they did do so, consciously or intentionally – probably they didn’t have much choice in the matter — probably there were too many other factors & forces working about, then.
What I am trying to do, is turn around the entire shallow argument, turn it on its ruddy head, and disprove the notion that there was something wrong with the Partition of India {from the Hindu viewpoint}.
One cannot see anything wrong with it, from the perspective of long-term, large-scale Hindu survival.
Hinduism wouldn’t have survived, or would have been greatly weakened, if India were left undivided.
So if Gandhi & Nehru consciously & deliberately & willingly acquiesced to it – then they certainly did it in the interest of Hinduism.
They must’ve thought of the long-range consequences of such an action.
Not that the Pro-Congress, Liberal, Secular bandwagon would agree :)
The division of India changed the demographics of this country drastically, and in such a way, so to as to give supremacy & control to the Hindus – i.e. lay the foundation for such supremacy & control.
And, methinks, Indira Gandhi further contributed to this, by dividing Pakistan into Pakistan & Bangladesh.
She weakened Pakistan even more, by fragmenting it, and further cut down Muslim power & Islamic unity.
In religious politics, numbers matter.
Imagine how much Islam would have gained, from an undivided India, and how much it lost, because of these fragmentations.
I doubt if Indira Gandhi was, in her heart, Anti-Hindu, either.
Anybody who knows politics should know that not much credence need be given to what a politician, or statesman, or conqueror, or invader, says.
What matters is the long-term consequences, and the long-term potentialities, of any decision, or policy, or action – not what is printed on some sheet, or babbled at a public rally, or broadcast on TV.
There’s a very good reason for the term “politically correct” – you may say & publish a lot of things – you do, or instigate, or catalyze, or set into motion, or lay the foundation for, something else.
The black-skinned dwarf-Brāhmaṇa, Vāmana, asked the mighty Emperor Bali to take three steps – merely three dwarfish steps – but he reclaimed the whole of Earth & Heaven, from Bali.
A small seed sown today grows into a mighty tree years later.
Muslims being flooded into Europe & America, and gaining the overwhelming, gushing sympathy of the Liberals, is not the conquest of the Free, Liberal world by Islam, but the overtaking of Islam by Liberalism!
The Muslims of the world do not seem to realize that they are being manipulated in such a way that the doom of their religion & their culture is being sealed with every passing day they keep joining forces with the Liberal elite.
The solid fortress of the Middle East, hitherto quite impenetrable by the Liberal legions, is bound to fall, with this collaboration of Islam & Liberalism.
The fact that Marxists are jumping into the fray is not a good sign – for Islam.
Muslims are only outwardly becoming more influential {if that is the case}: this sudden exaltation is superficial; this is an illusion — deep down, the roots of Islam are being cut.
What happened in India was not so very different.
If Jinnah insisted on an Islamic country, he was lacking in true foresight, as far as the empowerment of Islam is concerned.
If Mohandas Gandhi & Jawaharlal Nehru divided India willingly & deliberately, then they were protecting Hinduism – they were making it feasible to rise in the future – they were giving it the greatest chance of survival it ever had, in 8 centuries.
Yes or No?
At any rate, the act was of no benefit to Islam.
The image they projected before the world is almost irrelevant.
And even if they had no such intention – even if it was not something they wanted – this is exactly what has happened.
Can Indians reckon that Destiny delivered Hindus from the dominance of Islam through the British – and then delivered Hindus from the dominance of the British through – through what? – through Liberalism, perhaps?
Jawaharlal Nehru was too big a man: he must have had a thousand considerations up his sleeve, a thousand pressures on his head, a thousand conflicts of interest to balance, and a thousand secrets in his heart, to have bothered to inform the world at large about everything he thought or wanted, to have the time or inclination or sense, to explain himself, reveal all his intentions, divulge all his ulterior motives, to everyone.
Mind you, I am not “defending” him.
I do think we’re getting an overly simplistic, one-sided portrait of someone whose life was way more complex, and perhaps full of mysteries that nobody can comprehend today – but that’s not the issue in this post.
I am addressing a very specific point – a very specific charge – a very specific cliché – directed against Gandhi & Nehru.
I’m saying it makes no sense.
I’m trying to look at it from a very different perspective, one I have not seen or heard enunciated anywhere.
And I can’t help saying: people simply don’t know the truth.
They haven’t the faintest clue what was going on behind the scenes.
This might apply to many other Indian personalities too, and it certainly does, to world politics at large.
World politics is way more complicated, way more mysterious, convoluted, sordid, difficult, and challenging, than 99.999% of the world imagines.
Don’t all responsible, mature, responsible adults already understand that?
We must not judge in haste.
Nehru & Gandhi were more consistent in their attitude than the Hindutva community, which wants Pakistan & Bangladesh, and yet wants to kick out Muslims from India (or send them to Pakistan, or someplace), a most unrealistic, short-sighted, and very ludicrous view.
Where would you send them after including them, and how could you possibly fight an additional 365 million Muslims, having added only 18.8 million Hindus more?!!!
To your Hinduism-admiring, Islam-hating neighbors, Iran & Afghanistan?
{Sarcasm fully intended!}
And then what, the whole world would just sit and quietly watch while you extirpate Muslims from your country?
This is neither feasible nor desirable: I do not see why should anybody even think that such a thing is possible.
Imagine the chaos, the turmoil, the rage, the constant bickering & fighting, how it would rip the fabric of the entire nation: and the effect on the entire world, the reactions its would provoke — the economic, cultural & social backlash.
We are not in a position to judge Nehru, or Gandhi.
None of us really know what they had to face, what they were up to, what & whom they were fighting, what were their compulsions, how helpless they were, or how powerful.
Whoever divided India, did Hinduism a great service, and Islam a great disservice.
The British came to India – and expurgated it of the Islamic royalty & rule – the Islamic aristocracy itself – and left the field free for Hindus to rise, in power.
Whether anybody likes it or not, the British left India – and purged it even more surely of Islamic dominance & force (for the Muslims are an immensely forceful, proud, & self-respecting community: they are a force to reckon with: unyielding, highly spirited — but how long will this spirit remain resolute, before the immense glamor & glitter of the Liberal world?) – and created the ultimate platform for the survival & future resurrection of Hinduism.
The British Empire became the unwitting tool for the expansion of Hinduism into the world – especially the West – something which must’ve been unimaginable in the Medieval Ages.
Witness admirers from Goethe & Emerson, to Walt Whitman, to Theosophy, to Carl Jung.
How many Americans practised yoga at the time of Thomas Jefferson, and how many of them do, now?
How many had heard of the śrī-chakra then, and how many, now?
How many cared about Shiva-Shakti then, and how many, now?
Infact, even the Jesuit missionaries became a channel for flooding Europe with Oriental works (before the British Empire came to full fruition): which effected a great change in European thinking: something completely downplaye
Wittingly or unwittingly, the history of the last 300 years has been moving towards the liberation of Hindus.
But “History” can only do so much.
Hindus who are fighting for their pride have to try to figure out if there’s a pattern out there: if Destiny is trying to tell them something; they have to pay attention to it, act upon their own sense of their Destiny – & take it from there.
It’s up to them.
But their methodology has to be intelligent, wise, foresighted.
I think it is better for sober, sensible, mature people not to propagate shallow, impracticable ideas: ideas which cause unnecessary agitation, which can never be carried out, and just roil & boil the masses.
It is better to remain silent, rather than display our ignorance & stupidity.
If there is something we do not understand, or understand only partially, it is better to keep quiet, or be highly circumspect.
I cannot, & do not, understand how can Hindus make 200 million Muslims leave India, or what exactly is expected, of the Muslims.
Nor do they seem to have any idea how such an aggressive attitude will irritate & dismay people of other creeds & races, across the world.
Fight for truth & justice, yes — fight for your respect & fairness, yes — fight for the correct facts & correct representation of facts, yes — but all this propaganda which leads nowhere except creating bad-blood, is simply toxic, poisonous.
I do not intend to return to this topic, or any topic relating to it, in the near future, at least.
I have shared my thoughts on one nagging issue, and my job is done :)
Do forgive me if some of the mathematical calculations and numbers above, are mistaken: the essence of the matter would remain unchanged.
