By: V Sundaram IAS
July 25, 2005
expressed here are authorís own and not of this website. Full disclaimer
is at the bottom.
The fury of Congress fundamentalism - I
Mahatma Gandhi wrote a controversial article in the `Harijan` in which he
said: `Every Hindu is a coward and every Muslim a bully.` There is
categorical documentary evidence available to show that even this elevated
soul could not properly understand the nuances of the Muslim psyche. His
sustained attempts to understand this psyche began in South Africa in 1893
and ended with the partition of India in 1947. His coming forward to lead
the Khilafat Movement in the larger interests of `Swaraj` did not move the
Muslims at all.
Though he sang `Ishwar Allah Tero Naam` all his political life, yet to
most of the Muslims in India he appeared to be a kafir or an infidel. To
save India from being partitioned, the Mahatma also offered the Prime
Ministership of Independent India to Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Such was his
anxiety to keep Muslim goodwill. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, though he did not
state in so many words, yet considered Mahatma Gandhi as a Hindu infidel.
The passionate forces of fundamentalist Islam represented by Mohammed Ali
Jinnah easily rode roughshod over the puerile and anaemic forces of
secularism represented by Gandhi and Nehru at the time of partition.
However, Jinnah, true to his word if not his faith, at least succeeded in
protecting the Muslims of Pakistan. Gandhi and Nehru, Gandhi true to his
word and faith and Nehru true neither to his word nor faith, together
bungled in creating an India of total confusion where nothing has been
defined till date including fundamentals like nationhood, citizenship,
national identity, which are the warp and woof of the fabric of any
As a result, any citizen from any country including unknown islands from
the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean or some remote village in any of the
not so well known countries of Africa or Latin America can make it to the
highest public offices in the land through sheer money power or blatant
familial influence acquired through matrimonial alliances or inheritance
or though partisan political patronage. Indeed the law of the jungle
(criminal men with dubious records) has replaced the rule of law.
A wonderful opportunity to create a great Indian Hindu nation called `Bharat`
was lost by the Congress party at the time of Independence. The congress
party functioned almost as an unchallenged monopolist in the political
scenario of the time. Reasonable and balanced cries of several small
political parties about atrocities done to the Hindus at the time of
partition were not only ignored but brushed aside in a monarchical and
monotheistic manner by Pandit Nehru. The tragic assassination of Mahatma
Gandhi was converted into a political handle by Jawaharlal Nehru and
company for imposing a ban on the RSS and in the process giving a feeling
of special status to the Muslims and second-class status to the Hindus.
Thus the process of political appeasement of the Muslims which began with
Gandhi in a sublime context in 1919 at the time of Khilafat Movement was
consolidated by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru after independence in 1947 in the
sordid context of electoral politics. This was indeed Jizya in reverse
Nehru`s contempt for the Hindus and even some great leaders like Pandit
Madan Mohan Malavia and Rajendra Prasad is too well known to merit any
detailed reference here. His romantic attachment and fascination for the
Muslims was greater than Jinnah`s attachment to his coreligionists, if not
for anything, at least for garnering the Muslim votes in several parts of
the country starting from the first General Elections in 1952.
Even when he wrote his well-known and popular books like `Discovery of
India` and `Glimpses of World History`, he only spoke about the mythical
past of India and then completely jumped over the difficult and
controversial period relating to that of Muslim invasions and conquests.
He wrote eloquently about Chinese Pilgrims coming to Nalanda in Bihar,
Kancheepuram in Tamil Nadu. Yet he took care to remain silent as to why
the structures in Nalanda and several other parts of Northern India were
in ruins. Why Elephanta was in ruins or why Bhuvaneshwar was desecrated -
these questions did not seem to have bothered Nehru at all.
He wrote to Indira Gandhi: `I can write about the rise and fall of Rome,
the conceit of Constantinople, the pride of Pompeii and count the
palpitations of a peasant`s heart`. Such a sensitive soul was just not
worried about the destruction of Somnath Temple by Mohammed of Gazni in
the first quarter of the 11th century AD.
As a historian, I am overawed by the scrupulous concern for fidelity to
facts shown by many Muslim historians during the last 1000 years. Nowhere
have they tried to hide the fact that they came to establish Quwwatul
Islam, which means the might of Islam, in India. What is notable is that
various deeds of comprehensive brutality relating to desecration of
temples were recorded by the Sultans themselves or by their Court
These desecrations had a cruelly vicarious side to them. For, there is no
record or mention anywhere that the idol of the presiding deity was
removed and handed over to the priest concerned for taking it away to
another temple. In fact, in many cases, there are gleeful references that
the idol was destroyed and its broken pieces were placed below the
entrance of the Mosque, so that they could be trampled upon by those who
came for their `Ibadat`.
One desecration, however, that takes the cake is the one that was
perpetrated at Mehrauli, which until about 700 years ago was the centre of
Delhi. It is situated next to the famous Qutub Minar. The masjid was named
after by builder Qutubuddin Aibak, as Quwwatul Islam which, translated
into English, means the might of Islam. Nehru conveniently ignored these
facts in his `Glimpses of World History`.
In the preamble to the Indian Constitution, our founding fathers had
declared: `We the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute
India into a sovereign, socialist, democratic, republic and give to
ourselves this Constitution.`
The framers of the Constitution had never used the word `Secular` in our
Constitution. THE TERM `SECULAR` WAS INCORPORATED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA BY THE 42ND AMENDMENT ACT 1976 BY INDIRA GANDHI FOR IMPROVING THE
POLITICAL PROSPECTS OF HER PARTY IN AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION.
Though the word `secular` was not specifically inserted by the framers of
our Constitution, yet the objects of secularism in letter and spirit were
enshrined in the Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution i.e., right to
freedom of religion under the Fundamental Rights chapter of the
The philosophy of Indian secularism is that the State should neither
sponsor nor favour any religion and should treat all religions equally.
Religious tolerance and equality are the components of Indian
constitutionalism. These principles are inserted in the Constitution as
Right to Freedom of Religion under Articles 25 to 28 of Part III of the
Constitution. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free
profession, practice and propagation of religion.
This Article ensures equality of all religions and thus promotes
secularism. Article 26 deals with freedom to manage religious affairs.
These rights are not absolute, reasonable restrictions can be imposed to
maintain public order, morality, health and subject to `other provisions
of this part`. The characteristic feature of Indian civilisation is
tolerance and this religious tolerance is patent in these Articles of the
Eminent jurist and writer D D Basu has described the expression `secular`
as vague. According to him the expression `secular` qualifies the
expression `republic`. `Secular` means a republic in which there is equal
respect, for all religions. The Constitutional authority HM Seervai, also
expressed that `secular` may be opposed to `religions` in the sense that a
secular State can be an anti-religious State. In this sense the
constitution of India is not secular, because the right to the freedom of
religion is a guaranteed fundamental right.
The political process of State-sponsoring of minority fundamentalism
inaugurated by Mahatma Gandhi, strengthened and stabilised by Nehru was
finally given a sacred, sacrosanct and legal shape by Indira Gandhi for
her narrow political ends through 42nd Constitution Amendment in 1976.
Ever since then the term `secular` has been used as a free-size all
purpose machine gun by almost all political parties against the Hindu
majority during elections for their respective partisan purposes.
V Sundaram IAS
Send your views to author
Do you wish to reach our readers?
submit your guest column
Copyright and Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and not of this
website. The author is solely responsible for the contents of this
article. This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy,
completeness or reliability of any opinion, statement, appeal, advice or
any other information in the article. Our readers are free to forward this
page URL to anyone. This column may NOT be transmitted or distributed by
others in any manner whatsoever (other than forwarding or weblisting page
URL) without the prior permission from
us and the author.
V Sundaram IAS
The fury of Congress
fundamentalism - I
July 24, 2005
India that is Bharath
July 14, 2005
Bharatiya JINNAH Party
June 26, 2005
The quintessence of Hindutva
May 24, 2005
Autocracy in science education
May 24, 2005
Jaya and Ramadoss!
April 23, 2005
Admn Reforms Comm: Welcome move
April 18, 2005
USA: With good will towards none
March 27, 2005
Public Impeachment of Indian Nabobs
March 17, 2005
The tragedy of Indian
The Dancing Dervish of Goa February
Benny Hinn - Symbol of Secular
January 29, 2005
Beware of Nocturnal Raids
January 14, 2005
Was Veer Savarkar ever a
December 24, 2004
Our National Degradation
December 13, 2004