हिंदुत्व, हिंदुधर्म, हिंदुराष्ट्र आणि स्वातंत्र्यवीर सावरकर !

Submitted by विशाल कुलकर्णी on 12 October, 2009 - 07:16

स्वा. सावरकरांचे आजवर वाचलेले साहित्य, आंतरजालावर उपलब्ध माहिती आणि इतरही काही संदर्भ वापरुन हा लेख संकलीत केला होता. अर्थात त्यामुळे हा लेख मी लिहीलाय असे म्हणता येइल की नाही कुणास ठाऊक. पण स्वातंत्र्यवीरांचे विचार संकलित करण्याची मेहनत मी जरुर घेतली आहे. हा लेख माबोच्या दिवाळी अंकासाठीदेखील पाठवला होता. पण कुठल्याशा कारणाने (नियमात बसत नसल्याने असेल कदाचित) तो तिथुन साभार परत आला. तेव्हा तो इथे टाकत आहे. धन्यवाद.

..............................................................................................................................................

"आसिंधु सिंधु पर्यन्ता, यस्य भारतभूमिका ।
पितृभू: पुण्यभूश्चैव स वै हिंदुरिति स्मृत: I I "

सिंधुस्थान ही ज्याची केवळ पितृभूमी नव्हे, तर पुण्यभूमीही आहे तो हिंदू! सिंधुपासुन सिंधुपर्यंत, अर्थात सिंधुनदीपासुन ते सिंधु म्हणजे सागरापर्यंत पसरलेली ही भुमी म्हणजे हिंदुभुमी आहे आणि प्रत्येक व्यक्ती ,जो कुणी या भुमीला केवळ आपली पितृभुमीच नव्हे तर पुण्यभुमीही मानतो तो हिंदु!मग तो कुठल्याही जाती धर्माचा असेना का! मुळात हिंदु हा केवळ एक धर्म नाहीच आहे, तर ती एक जिवनप्रणाली आहे. 'हिंदुधर्म' हे नाव कोणत्याही एका विशिष्ट धर्माचे वा पंथाचे विशेष नि अनन्य नाव नसून ज्या अनेक धर्मांची नि पंथांची ही भारतभूमी हीच पितृभूमी नि पुण्यभूमी आहे त्या सार्‍यांना समावेशिणार्‍या धर्मसंघाचे हिंदुधर्म हे सामुदायिक अभिधान आहे.!

हे आमचे एकजीवन आज ज्या एकाच शब्दात नवीन व्याख्येप्रमाणे व्यक्तविता येते तो अनन्य शब्द आहे 'हिंदू' ! या शब्दाच्या 'हिंदू' या दोन अक्षरांत अगस्तीच्या अंजलीत महासागर तसे तीस कोटी लोकांचे राष्ट्रचे राष्ट्र सामावलेले आहे.किती सार्थ आणि योग्य शब्दात स्वातंत्र्यवीर सावरकरांनी हिंदु या शब्दाची महती, त्याचा योग्य अर्थ सांगितला आहे. हिंदु या संकल्पनेची व्यापकता, तिचा विस्तार केवढ्या समर्पक शब्दात मांडले गेल आहे इथे.

स्वातंत्र्यवीर सावरकरांच्या मते आपल्या वंशाच्या मूळ पुरुषांनी आपल्या राष्ट्राला व आपल्या लोकांना देण्याकरिता जे पहिले आणि जवळ जवळ पाळण्यातले नाव निवडले ते सप्तसिंधू अथवा हप्त हिंधू आहे. सिधु नदीच्या समृद्ध खोर्‍यात राहणारे ते सिंधू. आणि इतर जगातील जवळ जवळ सर्व राष्ट्रे आपणांस ह्याच सिंधू किंवा हिंदू याच नावाने ओळखत असत. बर्‍याचदा असे म्हणले जाते की हिंदु हे नाव किंवा हा शब्द आपल्याला अरबांकडुन मिळाला. पण सावरकरांच्या मते हिंदू हा शब्द आपणांस अरबांनी दिलेला नाही. प्रेषित महंमदाच्या जन्मापूर्वी, नव्हे अरब हे एक 'लोक' म्हणून ओळखले जाण्यापूर्वीदेखील हे प्राचीन राष्ट्र आपणांकडून व इतरांकडून सिंधू वा हिंदू ह्या स्वाभिमानी नावाने ओळखले जात होते. अरबांनी सिंधू नदीचा शोध लावला हे म्हणणे जितके खरे तितके अरबांनी ह्या शब्दाचा शोध लावला हे म्हणणे आहे

हिंदुत्व, हिंदुधर्म, हिंदुजगत्

हिंदू चळवळीची विचारप्रणाली समजण्याकरिता ह्या तीन शब्दांचा अर्थ नीट समजावून घेणे अत्यावश्यक आहे. हिंदू या शब्दापासून इंग्रजीमध्ये 'हिंदुइझम' (हिंदुधर्म) हा शब्द बनविला आहे. त्याचा अर्थ हिंदू लोक ज्या धर्ममतांना वा मार्गांना अनुसरतात ती धर्ममते वा मार्ग. दुसरा शब्द हिंदुत्व हा त्यापेक्षा अधिक संग्राहक शब्द आहे. हिंदुधर्म ह्या शब्दाप्रमाणे हिंदूंच्या केवळ धार्मिक अंगाचा त्यात समावेश होत नसून त्यात हिंदूंच्या सांस्कृतिक, भाषिक, सामाजिक व राजकीय अंगांचाही समावेश होतो. 'Hindu Polity' ह्या इंग्रजी शब्दाशी तो जवळ जवळ समानार्थी शब्द आहे. त्याचे जवळ जवळ तंतोतंत भाषांतर Hinduness ह्या शब्दाने करता येईल. हिंदू जगत् Hindudom ह्या तिसर्‍या शब्दाचा अर्थ संकलितपणे हिंदू म्हणून संबोधिले जाणारे सर्व लोक. ज्याप्रमाणे इस्लामने मुसलमानी जगताचा किंवा ख्रिश्चनडम ह्या शब्दाने ख्रिस्ती जगताचा बोध होतो त्याप्रमाणे ह्या शब्दाने हिंदुजगताचा सामुदायिक बोध होतो.

स्वातंत्र्यवीर अगदी ठामपणे प्रतिपादन करतात की हिंदुत्व हा केवळ एक शब्द नव्हे, तर तो इतिहास आहे. ते मनापासुन समग्र हिंदु बांधवाना आवाहन करतात की अग्निहोत्री ब्राह्मण ज्याप्रमाणे यज्ञकुंडात अग्नी प्रज्वलित ठेवतो त्याप्रमाणे तुम्ही हिंदुत्वाच्या भावनेचे स्फुल्लिंग जतन करुन ठेवा. योग्य वेळ येताच त्याला फुंकर घालून भरतखंडभर हिंदुत्वाचा डोंब उसळून दिला की काश्मीरपासून कन्याकुमारीपर्यंत हिंदुत्वाच्या भावनेने जनता भारली जाईल

हिंदुत्व का हवे? त्याचा आपल्याला काय फायदा होवु शकेल हे विषद करताना स्वातंत्र्यवीर सावरकर सांगतात कीं असा एक दिवस जरुर उगवेल किं समग्र मनुष्यजातीस ह्या शक्तीस (हिंदुत्व) तोंड द्यावे लागेल .हिंदुस्थानाला पितृभूमी व पुण्यभूमी मानणारे, असा इतिहास असणारे व समान रक्त व संस्कृती ह्यांनी बांधलेले कोट्यावधी लोक सर्व जगाला आपले म्हणणे अधिकारवाणीने सांगू शकतील. स्वातंत्र्यवीर एका आंतरिक अभिमानाने सांगतात की ज्यावेळी हिंदू लोक जगाला काही सांगण्याच्या स्थितीत असतात तेव्हा त्यांचे सांगणे गीतेच्या वा बुध्दाच्या उपदेशाहून फार वेगळे असत नाही हेही तितकेच खरे आहे. हिंदू जेव्हा हिंदू राहत नाही तेव्हा तो अत्यंत उत्कटपणे हिंदू असतो व शंकराप्रमाणे सर्व पृथ्वी वाराणसी मानतो. वाराणसी मेदिनी ! मानतो किंवा तुकारामाप्रमाणे 'आमुचा स्वदेश ! भुवनत्रयामध्ये वास ! ' असे उद्गारतो. हे बंधूंनो ! विश्वाच्या मर्यादा - तेथे माझ्या देशाच्या सीमा आहेत !

हिंदुस्थानात सुखाने नांदत असणार्‍या अनेक - नानाविध धर्मांविषयी बोलताना सावरकरांचा कंठ भरुन येत असे. त्यावेळी त्यांच्या चेहर्‍यावर एक अलौकीक असे तेज, एक समाधान पाहायला मिळे. विश्व हिंदु परिषदेच्या एका सभेत बोलताना स्वातंत्र्यवीर म्हणाले होते.

"बहुसंख्य हिंदूंच्या धर्माला सनातन धर्म किंवा श्रुति-स्मृति-पुराणोक्त धर्म अथवा वैदिक धर्म ह्या प्राचीन व मान्य संज्ञांनी संबोधिता येते. इतर हिंदूंच्या धर्मांना त्यांच्या त्यांच्या मान्य नावांनी जसे शीख धर्म किंवा आर्यधर्म किंवा जैन धर्म किंवा बुध्द धर्म संबोधिता येईल. जेव्हा ह्या सर्व धर्मांना एकत्रित नाव देण्याची आवश्यकता येईल तेव्हा हिंदुधर्म असे व्यापक नाव देणे उचित होईल. ह्यामुळे अर्थहानी होणार नाहीच, परंतु तो अधिक अचूक व नि:संदिग्ध होईल व आपल्या लहान समाजातील संशय व मोठया समाजातील राग दूर करुन आपला समान वंश व समान संस्कृती दर्शविणार्‍या आपल्या प्राचीन ध्वजाखाली पुन्हा एकदा सर्व हिंदूंना एकत्र करील..

इतर धर्मांप्रमाणे (उदा. मुस्लिम - कुराण, ईसाई- बायबल) हिंदुधर्माचे एक धर्मपुस्तक नाही हे चांगलेच आहे. कारण यामुळे आपला धर्मविकास थांबला नाही. आमचे धर्मतत्वही कोणत्या पुस्तकाच्या दोन पुठ्ठयात सामावू शकणार नाही. ह्या विश्वाच्या दोन पुठ्ठयांमध्ये जितके सत्य नि ज्ञान विस्तृत पसरलेले आहे तितके आमचे धर्मपुस्तक विस्तृत होईल.

हिंदुधर्म क्लैब्याची गाथा नाही. हिंदुधर्म नि:संशय सात्विक, क्षमाशील आहे. हिंदुधर्म क्रोधशीलही आहे. 'क्लैब्यं मा स्म गम: पार्थ' ही हिंदुधर्माची गर्जना आहे. 'अहिंसा परम धर्म:' ही ज्या हिंदुधर्माची व्याख्या आहे त्याच हिंदुधर्माची अगत्याची व तेजस्वी आज्ञा आहे की 'आततायिनमायान्तं हन्यादेवाविचारयन्' आणि त्या दोन्ही आज्ञांचा समन्वय, हिंदुधर्मच उत्तम प्रकारे लावू शकतो काही झाले तरी बुध्दिवादाच्या दृष्टीनेही एकंदरीत पाहता धर्मांत ग्राह्यतम धर्म असेल तर तो हिंदुधर्म होय !"

आपल्या हिंदुत्वाच्या कल्पनेबाबतीत सावरकर अतिशय स्पष्ट आहेत. योग्य ते बदल स्विकारण्याची त्यांची तयारी आहे. त्यासाठी प्रसंगी आपली रुढी-परंपरा यांच्या चौकटी मोडायला देखील ते तयार असत हे त्यांच्या आचार विचारातुन ठामपणे स्पष्ट होत असे. रत्नागिरीतील पतित पावन मंदीर हे याचे स्पष्ट उदाहरण आहे. मानवाच्या, मानव्याच्या भल्यासाठी आपल्या रुढी परंपरा मोडायची, चौकटी तोडायची त्यांची नेहेमीच तयारी असे. धर्म आणि राष्ट्रधर्म या संकल्पना स्पष्ट करताना सावरकर सांगतात किं हिंदीधर्म हा कुठल्याही रुढी परंपरांमध्ये, तथाकथीत चौकटीत अडकुन राहणारा नाही. बदलत्या समाजाला पोषक होइल अशा पद्धतीने आपले स्वरुप बदलत राहणे हा हिंदुधर्माचा स्वभावच आहे. पण फक्त तुम्ही आमच्याकडुनच जर बदलण्याची अपेक्षा करत असाल तर ते सर्वस्वी चुकीचे आहे. जर मुस्लिम , ख्रिश्चन वा इतर बांधव त्यांची मुसलमानत्व, ख्रिश्चनत्व इत्यादी 'त्वे' सोडीत असतील तर माझे हिंदुत्वही मानुषकेत विलय पावेल.
अगदी याच पद्धतीने माझे राष्ट्रीयत्वही - हिंदीपणही मानवराष्ट्रात तेव्हा विलय पावेल जेव्हा इंग्लिशपण, जर्मनपण इत्यादीपणा लुप्त होऊन फक्त मानवता, मनुष्यपणा तेवढा जगात, मनुष्यमात्रात सुखेनैव नांदू लागेल ! आज देखील जो खरा मनुष्यवादी (humanitarian) असेल त्याच्यापुरते त्याच्याशी देखील मी सर्व भेदभाव सोडून वागेन.

स्वातंत्रवीर सावरकरांनी भविष्यकाळाचाही विचार करुन ठेवलेला आहे. ते म्हणतात कि एखाद्या भविष्यकाळी हिंदू हा शब्द केवळ हिंदुस्थानचा नागरिक वाचक होऊ शकेल. जेव्हा सर्व सांस्कृतिक व धार्मिक दुराग्रह आक्रमक गर्विष्ठपणाशी वचनबध्द असलेल्या शक्तीचे विसर्जन करतील व धर्म 'वाद' म्हणून न राहता ज्या समान पायावर मानवी राज्य ऐश्वर्याने व दृढपणे उभे राहील अशा पायाच्या मुळाशी असलेल्या चिरंतन तत्वांचा केवळ समान संचय म्हणून राहतील, तेव्हा हा दिवस उगवेल. भक्तिभावाने इच्छा करावी अशा ह्या सिध्दीची पहिली रेखासुध्दा क्षितिजावर दिसत नसताना कठोर वस्तुस्थितीकडे दुर्लक्ष करणे मूर्खपणाचे ठरेल. जोपर्यंत धोकादायक युध्दघोषणांकडे झुकणार्‍या मतांचा त्याग इतर प्रत्येक वादाने केलेला नाही तोपर्यंत एकजीवता व सामर्थ्य निर्माण करणारी बंधने विशेषत: समान नाव व समान ध्वज ही बंधने शिथिल करणे कोणत्याही सांस्कृतिक वा राष्ट्रीय एकांकाला परवडणार नाही.

"हिंदुस्थान" या नावाबद्दल स्वातंत्र्यवीर सावरकरांना अतिव आदर, अभिमान होता. ते अभिमानाने सांगत की आपल्या देशाचे सर्वात प्राचीन नाव, ज्याविषयी आपणापाशी आधार आहे, ते सप्तसिंधू वा सिंधू आहे. भारतवर्ष हे नावसुध्दा नंतरचे अभिधान आहे. आणि त्याचे आवाहन व्यक्तिविषयक आहे. मनुष्य कितीही महान् असो, जसजसा काळ जातो तसतसा त्याचा गौरव कमी कमी होत जातो.संस्कृतमधील सिंधू शब्दाने सिंधू नदीचाच नव्हे तर समुद्राचाही ,दक्षिण द्वीपकल्पाला परिवेष्टणार्‍या समुद्ररशनेचा बोध होत असल्यामुळे हा एक शब्द आपल्या देशाच्या जवळ जवळ सर्व सीमा दर्शवितो. हिंदुस्थान ह्या शब्दाने मुख्य राजकीय व सांस्कृतिक विधेय जितके वक्तृत्वपूर्णपणे प्रकट होते तितके आर्यावर्त, दक्षिणापथ, जंबुद्वीप आणि भारतवर्ष ह्या शब्दांनी होऊ शकत नव्हते.

आपल्या या पितृभुमीबद्दल सावरकर अतिव श्रद्धेने, आदराने स्पष्ट करतात की हिंदुस्थान आमची पितृभुमीच नव्हे तर पुण्यभूमी आहे. ही परम पावन भारतभूमी, हे सिंधुस्थान, सिंधूपासून सिंधूपर्यंतची ही भूमी आमची पुण्यभूमी आहे. ह्या भूमीत आमच्या धर्मविचारांच्या संस्थापकांना व ऋषींना वेदांचा साक्षात्कार झाला; वैदिक ऋषींपासून ते दयानंदापर्यंत, जिनापासून महावीरापर्यंत, बुध्दापासून नागसेनापर्यंत, नानकापासून गोविंदापर्यंत, बंदापासून बसवापर्यंत, चक्रधरापासून चैतन्यापर्यंत, रामदासापासून राममोहनापर्यंत आमच्या गुरुंनी व धार्मिक पुरुषांनी जन्म घेतला व ते वाढले. तिच्या मार्गातील धुळीत आमच्या प्रेषितांचे व गुरुंचे पदरव ऐकू येतात. तिच्या नद्या व तिची उपवने पवित्र आहेत. कारण चंद्रप्रकाशात त्यांच्या घाटावर किंवा सायंकाळच्या छायेत बुध्दाने किंवा शंकराने जीवन, मनुष्य, आत्मा, ईश्वर, ब्रह्म आणि माया ह्यांच्या गहन प्रश्नांवर वाद व चर्चा केली. प्रत्येक डोंगर व प्रत्येक वृक्षाच्छादित खोरे कपिलाच्या, व्यासाच्या, शंकराच्या व रामदासाच्या स्मृतीने भरलेले आहे. येथे भगीरथ राज्य करतो, येथे कुरुक्षेत्र आहे. वनवासाला जाताना रामचंद्राने पहिला विश्राम येथेच घेतला. तेथेच जानकीने सोनेरी हरिण पाहिला व त्याला मारण्याचा आपल्या प्रियकराशी प्रेमाने हट्ट घरला. ज्या बासरीने गोकुळातील प्रत्येक हृदय मोहनिद्रेत असल्याप्रमाणे एका लयीत नाचू लागेल अशी बासरी त्या दैवी गुराख्याने वाजविली. येथे बोधिवृक्ष आहे व येथे मृगवन आहे. येथेच महावीराला निर्वाण प्राप्त झाले. येथेच भक्तांच्या मेळाव्यात बसून 'गगन थाल रविचंद्र दीपक बने' ही नानकाने आपली आरती म्हटली. येथे गोपीचंद राजाने गोपीचंदजोगी होण्याची प्रतिज्ञा केली व भिक्षापात्र घेऊन मूठभर भिक्षेकरिता आपल्या बहिणीचे दार ठोठावले. येथेच हिंदू म्हणून मरण्याच्या अपराधाकरिता बंदा बहादुराच्या मुलाचे वडिलांच्या डोळयांसमोर तुकडे तुकडे करण्यात येऊन त्याचे हृदय वडीलांच्या तोंडात कोंबण्यात आले. येथील प्रत्येक दगड हौतात्म्याची कथा सांगू शकेल. हे माते ! तुझ्या भूमीचा प्रत्येक तसू यज्ञभूमी आहे. जेथे कृष्णसार सापडले तेथेच नव्हे तर काश्मीर ते सिंहल ही ज्ञानयज्ञाने पवित्र झालेली यज्ञीयभूमी आहे. म्हणून प्रत्येक हिंदूला, मग तो साधू असो वा संताळ ही भारतभूमी, हे हिंदुस्थान पितृभू आणि पुण्यभू आहे.

आपली हिंदुत्वाची व्यापक संकल्पना मांडल्यावर ते ठामपणे सांगतात की हिंदुस्थान हा हिंदूंचाच देश आहे. वस्तुत: जो समाज देशात बहुसंख्य असतो त्यांचाच तो देश मानला जाण्याची प्रथा सर्व जगात आहे. या नात्याने तर हिंदुस्थान हिंदूंचा आहेच; पण त्याशिवायही तो हिंदूंचा असल्याचे आणखी एक निश्चित गमक सांगता येईल. ते म्हणजे हिंदुस्थानच्या उध्दाराचा प्रयत्न कोणी केला ते पाहणे, हे होय. या देशाच्या स्वातंत्र्याच्या १८५७ पासून सुरु झालेल्या लढयात कोणी खरा त्याग केला ? - हिंदूंनी का मुसलमानांनी ?

ते पुढे स्पष्ट करतात की हिंदुस्थान ह्या नावाने अहिंदू बांधवांची मानहानी होत नाही, काही नुकसान होत नाही. चीनमध्ये कोटयावधी मुसलमान आहेत. ग्रीस, पॅलेस्टाईन इतकेच काय पण हंगेरी, पोलंडमध्येही त्यांच्या राष्ट्रघटकांत हजारो मुसलमान आहेत पण तेथे ते अल्पसंख्य, केवळ एक जाती आहेत. आणि त्या देशांना त्यांतील मोठया बहुसंख्येने असलेल्या वंशाची वसाहतस्थाने म्हणून रुढ असलेली प्राचीन नावे बदलण्यासाठी तेथे कोणी अल्पसंख्य जातीच्या अस्तित्वाचे कारण पुढे करीत नाही. तेथील मुसलमानांनी ही नावे विकृत केली नाहीत वा करण्यास धजले नाहीत. प्रसंग येताच पोलिश मुसलमान, ग्रीक मुसलमान , किंवा चिनी मुसलमान अशा नावांनी संबोधिले जाण्यात समाधान मानतात. त्याचप्रमाणे आपल्या मुसलमान देशबंधूंनी राष्ट्रीय किंवा प्रादेशिक दृष्टया आपला निर्देश करताना हिंदुस्थानी मुसलमान म्हणून करावा. तसे करण्यात त्यांच्या धार्मिक वा सांस्कृतिक स्वतंत्र अस्तित्वास बाधा येत नाही.

हिंदुस्थान ह्या आपल्या मातृभूमीच्या रुढ नावाने ऋग्वेद काळातील सिंधूपासून आपल्या पिढीतील हिंदू शब्दापर्यंत जी अखंड परंपरा व्यक्त होते तिचा उच्छेद वा तिच्याशी प्रतारणा हिंदूंनी करु नये. जर्मनांचा देश जसा जर्मनी, इंग्रजांचा इंग्लंड, तुर्कांचा तुर्कस्थान नि अफगाणांचा अफगाणिस्थान, त्याचप्रमाणे हिंदूंचा देश म्हणून हिंदुस्थान ह्या नावानेच आपले स्थान जगाच्या नकाशात चिरंतन खोदून ठेविले पाहिजे

आपल्या साहित्यातुन स्वातंत्र्यवीर सावरकरांनी "राष्ट्र आणि हिंदुराष्ट्र" याबद्दलचे आपले विचारही खुप समर्पकपणे आणि पर्खडपणे मांडले आहेत. ते म्हणतात....

"जगातील मानवांनी एक व्हावे हीच आमची सदिच्छा आहे. जगातील मानवांनी एक होऊन त्यांचे एक मानवी राष्ट्र व्हावे असे आम्हांसही वाटते. आमचा वेदान्त तर याही पुढे जाऊन दगड नि मनुष्य हे सारखेच असल्याचे सांगतो. पण आपण परिस्थितीनुरुप व्यवहार केला पाहिजे. राष्ट्रवाद कालबाह्य नाही ,राष्ट्रवाद पाचशे वर्षे तरी जिवंत राहणार आहे. त्यानंतर काय होईल ते सांगता येत नाही. त्यानंतर पृथ्वी एक राष्ट्र होऊन मंगळ हे दुसरे राष्ट्र होईल. सिंधू ह्या शब्दाने व्यक्त होणारी कल्पना राष्ट्रवाचक आहे, केवळ भौगोलिक नाही

'हिंदू'शब्द मूलत: देशवाचक, राष्ट्रवाचक आहे. याचे मुख्य अधिष्ठान आसिंधु सिंधू अशी ही भारतभूमिका आहे. 'आसिंधु सिंधू' अशा त्या भारतभूमिकेत अत्यंत प्राचीन काळापासून ज्यांचे पूर्वज परंपरेने निवसत आले, ज्या राष्ट्रात प्रचलित असलेली सांघिक संस्कृती, घडलेला इतिहास, बोललेल्या भाषा, अनुसरलेले धर्म; ज्यांचे संस्कृती, इतिहास, भाषा, धर्म आहेत ते सारे हिंदु होत. त्या हिंदुराष्ट्राचे घटक होत. -

हिंदू हे केवळ एक राष्ट्र नसून ती एक जाती आहे. उत्पत्ती करणे ह्या अर्थाच्या जन धातूपासून जाती हा शब्द सिध्द झाला असून त्याचा अर्थ बंधुभाव, समान रक्त अंगात खेळत असलेला, एक उगम असलेला वंश असा होतो सप्तसिंधूतील लोक जसजसे हिंदुस्थानभर पसरत गेले तसतसे त्यांच्यात विविध वंशाचे मिश्रण, अनुलोम-प्रतिलोम विवाह इत्यादीमुळे झाले. जाती हा शब्द ह्या अर्थी वापरलेला आहे.राष्ट्रीय व वांशिक दृष्टिकोनातून पाहिले तर आपली तीर्थे सर्व हिंदू जातीचा समान वारसा आहे आपले सण, उत्सव, संस्कार व आचार समान असहेत. हिंदु कोठेही असो मग तो शीख, जैन, ब्राह्मण वा पंचम असे तो दसरा, दिवाळी, रक्षाबंधन आणि होळी ह्यांचे स्वागत करतो.ज्या तीर्थांचे, पर्वतांचे, नगरांचे व नद्यांचे स्मरण हिंदू करतात ती कोणाही एक प्रांतातील नाहीत. तर ती अखिल हिंदुस्थानातील आहेत.शीखांचे अमृतसर, वैदिकांची काशी, बौध्दांची गया ही सारी आम्ही हिंदूंची सामायिक नि सारखीच पुण्यक्षेत्रे होत कलाकृती वा वास्तू, मग त्या वैदिक वा अवैदिक विचारांच्या प्रतिनिधी असोत, आपल्या वंशाचा समान वारसा आहे हिंदू निर्बंध व त्यांची आधारभूत तत्वे ह्यांतील तपशिलांत वा आदेशांत काही ठिकाणी परस्पर विरोध भासत असले तरी त्यांचा इतका एकावयवी विकास झालेला आहे की काल व देश ह्या स्थितीतून ही त्यांची वैशिष्टये टिकून राहिली आहेत

हिंदु धर्मामधील विविध समाजरचना, तसेच वैचित्र्यांबद्दल बोलताना ते विशद करतात......

कोणताही समाज वा राष्ट्र एकजीव होऊन जे जगते आणि त्यांच्याव्यतिरिक्त एतर समाजांशी होणार्‍या संघर्षातुनही तग धरते त्या लोकांमध्ये आपसात वैषम्य असे मुळीच नसते म्हणून नव्हे. कारण कुटुंब म्हटले की कुटुंबात व्यक्तिवैचित्र्य नि मतभिन्नता असतेच. मग कोटी कोटी व्यक्तींच्या एकजीवी समाजाची वा राष्ट्राची गोष्टच बोलणे नको. एका साच्यात पाडलेल्या गणपतीच्या मूर्तीप्रमाणे त्या कोटी कोटी व्यक्ती एकसाची असणे अशक्यच. परंतु त्या समाजातील पक्षोपक्षांची ही अंतर्गत विषमता इतर कोणत्याही समाजाशी असलेल्या त्यांच्या विषमतेहून अगदी कमी असते. आणि त्या समाजातील अनेक पक्षांना एकजीव करणारी महत्वाची बंधने दुसर्‍या समाजाशी असणार्‍या त्यांच्या संबंधांपेक्षा आत्यंतिक आकर्षक नि बळकट असतात म्हणून ते समाज वा राष्ट्र तसे पृथक नि एकजीव राहू शकते.

हिंदुराष्ट्रातील विविध विभागांचे परस्पर धोरण काय असावे ? यावरही सावरकरांची मते खुप उद्बोधक आणि क्रांतिकारक आहेत.

संख्येचे, भौगोलिक किंवा वांशिक लाभ निसर्गत: व ऐतिहासिक दृष्टया ज्यांना लाभलेले नाहीत असे लोक इतरांबरोबर देवाण घेवाण करण्याचे प्रयत्न करीत आहेत. जन्मसिध्द अधिकारांनी प्राप्त झालेले लाभ ज्यांना माहीत नाहीत व त्याहूनही वाईट म्हणजे त्यांचाच तिरस्कार करतात अशांचा सत्यानाश होवो ! कागदाच्या कपटयांतून किंवा अडचणीत उत्पन्न झालेल्या बंधंनांनी नव्हे तर रक्ताच्या, जातीच्या, संस्कृतीच्या बंधनांनी झालेल्या प्राचीन, नैसर्गिक व एकजीवी एकीकरणापासून फुटणे व त्यालाच नाशिणे हे तुमच्यापैकी जैन समाजी, सनातनी , शीख वा कोणत्याही उपविभागाला परवडणार आहे का? असलेले बंध दृढ करा. ज्या भिंतीची उपयुक्ततता संपली आहे अशा भिंती, जाती, रुढी, विभाग मोडून टाका.आमच्या वैदिक, जैन, बुध्द, शीख, लिंगायत प्रभृती यच्चयावत् हिंदू बंधूंनी आपले मतभेद धार्मिक क्षेत्रापुरते काय ते ठेवून आपणा सर्वांना जी अनेकविध सामाजिक जीवनाची प्रिय बंधने आणि नात्यागोत्याचे स्नेहसंबंध आज शतकोशतके एकजीवी असे एक महान् राष्ट्र बनवीत आले आहेत, त्या स्नेहसंबंधांनाच शक्यतो जोपासीत राहावे, यातच आपल्या सगळयांचे कल्याण आहे

त्यांच्यामते हिंदुस्थानात हिंदू ही 'जात' होऊ शकत नाही. हिंदुस्थानात आम्हांस एक जाती म्हणणे मूर्खपणाचे आहे. जर्मनीत 'जर्मन' हे राष्ट्र आहे आणि ज्यू एक जात आहे. तुर्कस्थानात तुर्क हे एक राष्ट्र आहे. व अरब वा आर्मेनियन अल्पसंख्य जाती आहेत. त्याचप्रमाणे हिंदुस्थानात हिंदू एक राष्ट्र आहेत व अल्पसंख्य मुसलमान वा ख्रिश्चन या एक जाती आहेत

वैदिक काळापासून निदान पाच सहस्त्र वर्षे तरी आपले पूर्वज आपल्या लोकांचा धार्मिक, वांशिक, सांस्कृतिक नि राजकीय दृष्टया एकात्म असा गट घडवून आणीत होते. त्या क्रियेला स्वाभाविकपणे विकास पावता जे फळ आले ते म्हणजेच वैदिक काळातील त्या सिंधूचेच आज सबंध हिंदुस्थानभर पसरलेले आणि हिंदुस्थानालाच आपली एकमेव पितृभू नि पुण्यभू मानीत असलेले असे हिंदुराष्ट्र होय. कदाचित चिनी राष्ट्र वर्ज्य केल्यास जगातील दुसर्‍या कोणत्याही राष्ट्राला आपल्या हिंदुराष्ट्रासारख्या आपल्या जीवनाच्या नि विकासाच्या अखंड सातत्यावर अधिकार सांगता येणार नाही. हिंदुराष्ट्र हे काही पावसाळयातल्या कुत्र्याच्या छत्रीप्रमाणे उगवलेले नाही. ते एखाद्या तहातून उत्पन्न झालेले नाही. ते निव्वळ कागदी खेळणे नाही. किंवा ते एखाद्या मागणीप्रमाणे घडविलेले नाही. अथवा ती एखादी चालचलाऊ सोय नाही. ते ह्याच भूमीतून वर आलेले आहे नि ह्या भूमीतच त्याची मुळे खोल नि दूरवर पसरलेली आहेत. मुसलमानांचा किंवा जगातील अन्य कोणाचा द्वेष करण्याकरिता म्हणून काही तरी लावलेला शोध नाही. तर आपली उत्तर सीमा सांभाळणार्‍या हिमालयाप्रमाणे ते एक भक्कम आणि प्रचंड सत्य आहे.

आपल्या आचारातुन, विचारातुन आपल्या साहित्यातुन स्वा. विनायक दामोदर सावरकर सर्वे हिंदुस्थानवासीयांना एक हृद्य आवाहन करतात.....

"आपल्या पितामहांनी मराठा व शीख हिंदु साम्राज्याच्या पतनाच्या वेळी जो तेथेच सोडून दिला तो आपल्या राष्ट्रीय जीवनाचा धागा आपण हिंदूंनी पुन्हा उचलून हाती धरावा. आत्मविस्मृतीमुळे क्षय झालेल्या आपल्या हिंदुराष्ट्राच्या जीवनाचे आणि विकासाचे आपण पुनरुज्जीवन केले पाहिजे, त्याला समाधीतून पुन्हा उठविले पाहिजे प्रामाणिक व भोळसट अशा हिंदूंच्या हे स्पष्ट ध्यानात आले पाहिजे की सर्वसामान्य राष्ट्रीय जीवनाशी मुसलमानांनी समरस होण्याचे नाकारले म्हणजे नकारात्मक दृष्टीने सुध्दा हिंदूंचे एक राष्ट्र उरते.

राष्ट्राचा मोठेपणा त्याच्या ध्येयातून व्यक्त होतो. राष्ट्राचे स्वरुप त्याने आपल्यापुढे ठेवलेल्या ध्येयावर अवलंबून असते. संकुचित ध्येयाच्या राष्ट्रांनी भूतकाळात चिरंतन मोठेपणा प्राप्त केलेला नाही. राष्ट्राला महानता व वैभव प्राप्त करुन देण्याकरिता उदात्त ध्येय असणे आवश्यक आहे...

माझा हा वारसा मी तुम्हांस देत आहे

वटवृक्षाचे बीज मोहरीहून लहान असते पण त्या बीजात जी स्फूर्ती असते, जी वल्गना असते ती वाढता वाढता तिचा प्रचंड वटवृक्ष बनून त्याखाली गाईची खिल्लारे विसावा घेतात, उन्हाने श्रांत झालेल्यांना तो वटवृक्ष सावली देतो.

मलाही वल्गना करु द्या ! माझे गाणे मला गाऊ द्या !

या जगात आपणाला जर हिंदुत्वाचे मानाचे राष्ट्र म्हणून जगावयाचे असेल तर तसा आपला अधिकार आहे आणि ते राष्ट्र हिंदुध्वजाखालीच स्थापन झाले पाहिजे. या नाही तरी पुढल्या पिढीत ही वल्गना खरी ठरेल.

माझी वल्गना खोटी ठरली तर मी वेडा ठरेन. माझी ही वल्गना खरी ठरली तर मी प्रॉफेट ठरेन. माझा हा वारसा मी तुम्हाला देत आहे!

त्या महान द्वेष्ट्या समाजसुधारकाला, महान तत्वचिंतकाला, हिंदुत्वाचा खरा खुरा अर्थ समजलेल्या त्या महान देशभक्ताला माझे लाखो प्रणाम!

जय हिंद !

विशाल कुलकर्णी

संदर्भ : १. सहा सोनेरी पाने : स्वा. सावरकर
२. हिंदुत्व : स्वा. सावरकर
३. Savarkar & Hindutva : The Godse Connection by A.G. Durrani
४. www.savarkar.org

विषय: 
इतिहास
धर्म
Groups audience: 
धार्मिक
Group content visibility: 
Private - accessible only to group members
शेअर करा

>>> याबाबतीत संघाची अधिकृत भूमिका सांगणारी लिंक आहे का? >>> ही सशाची शिंगे, कुठे मिळतात ते एकदा कळू द्याच!

www.rss.org

Submitted by मास्तुरे on 31 October, 2011 - 13:06

>>> ( ज्याचं मत पटत नाही, त्याला एक तर विष्णूचा अवतार ठरवून मोकळं व्हायचं नाहीतर वेडा/ मनोरुग्ण तरी ठरवायचं.. हिंदुत्ववाद्यांची स्ट्रॅटेजीच आहे

आम्ही तुम्हाला विष्णूचा अवतार अजिबात समजत नाही. पण तुमची सर्वच मते आम्हाला पटत नाहीत असे नाही. मग आता काय ठरवू तुम्हाला? Rofl

Submitted by मास्तुरे on 31 October, 2011 - 13:09

मास्तुरे Rofl

Submitted by मंदार-जोशी on 31 October, 2011 - 13:16

मला आधीच मनोरुग्ण ठरवलेले आहे.. आता पुन्हा अवतार मानण्याचा प्रश्न येतोच कुठे?

Submitted by जागोमोहनप्यारे on 31 October, 2011 - 13:17

> www.rss.org

मी ही साईट पहिल्यांदाच पाहिली. तिथे मला "संघाची स्थापना कां करण्यात आली? किंवा ह्या संस्थेचे
उद्दिष्ट, ध्येय काय?" हे सहज सापडले नाही. पुस्तकांची यादी/लेखांच्या लिंक्स सापडल्या, मी टाईमलाईन/
FAQ पण चेक केलेत . ....

Submitted by anudon on 31 October, 2011 - 13:28

VEER SAVARKAR VINDICATED A reply to a Marxist Calumny
J. D. Joglekar
INTRODUCTION

Frontline published an article under caption "Far from Heroism : The tale of Veer Savarkar' "in its issue of April 7,1995 vilifying Veer Savarkar Shri J.D. Joglekar prepared a rejoinder to it refuting all allegations made in it and showing its hallowness. There after we sent it to Frontline hoping it would be published. Prof. Awadhoot Shastri editor of Dharmabhaskar monthly felt that it was better not to depend on Frontline for publication, but to publish it ourselves for vindicating Veer Savarkar Accordingly he published the reply in English in the May 1995 issue of Dharmabhaskar and its Marathi version is being published in June 1995 issue. We strongly felt that in future students and researchers would find this letter a good and easy reference work about the life of Veer Savarkar and decided to publish it in book-let.

We are thankful to Prof. Awadhoot Shastri for undertaking the printing work of this book-let. We hope that devotees of Savarkar school of thought will find the book-let useful
22nd May 1995.

Pandit Bakhale Secretary, Swatantryaveer Savarkar Rashtriya Smarak, Mumbai- 400 028
Veer Savarkar Vindicated

The Editor, Frontline, Kasturi Buildings, Madras 600 002

Sir,
This refers to the article under the caption 'Far from heroism : The tale of Veer Savarkar', written by Messrs Dubey and Ramakrishnan, which appeared ill the column 'Reappraisal' of Frontline dated April 7, 1995.
The article is an attempt to denigrate Savarkar and thereby condemn Hindutva. It therefore calls for a rejoinder
After Veer Savarkar's death, a great many leaders issued condolence messages about him. Mrs. Gandhi, the late Prime Minister of India, said 'Savarkar's death removes a great figure of contemporary India. Describing his name-as a by-word for daring and patriotism, she further said that he was cast in the mould of a classic revolutionary and countless people drew inspiration from him." (Keer - Veer Savarkar- p 548)

I think these few lines are sufficient refutation of three-page colossal effort of your research scholars to denigrate Savarkar.

But for enlightenment of your readers I will give information about Savarkar which throws light upon his life and shows how illustrious it was.

The authors have quoted Savarkar's letters to show how unnerved he became, how his spirit was broken, and how he made an abject surrender. If this was really the position, revolutionaries themselves would have turned their backs on him. This does not seem to be the case. Mr Sanyal, Mr Parmanand, Mr Aiyar, Bhagatsingh, Rajguru and others, socially came to see him in Ratnagiri where he was interned. The authors of the article are not aware that his two followers, who remained devoted to him till the end, were invoiced in terrorist activities. One was Mr Wamanrao Chavan, who shot at a sergent in Dhobi Talao, and was jailed for 7 years. It is to be noted that after this shooting incident, Savarkar was detained in jail for two weeks as Mr Chavan hailed from Ratnagiri. The other was Mr. Gogate who shot at the Acting Governor of Bombay Mr. Hotson. Mr. Gogate was sentenced to imprisonment of 8 years.

Bhai Parmanand was sentenced to death. But later his sentence was committed and he was sent to the Andamans. Mr Ashutosh Lahiri was also sent to the Andamans. Both were in the Andamans at the time Savarkar was there. Your readers would be interested to know that Bhai Parmanand became the president of size Hindu Mahasabha and Lahiri was its General Secretary and both were valued colleagues of Savarkar during the period of his Hindu Mahasabha Presidency from 1937 to 1943.

Incidentally Mr Achyut Patwardhan of '1942 Quit India' fame and Mr S. M. Joshi, leader of the Socialist Party, met Savarkar, when he was released from his internment in Ratnagiri in 1937 and requested him to join their Socialist Party. Strange that Patwardhan and Joshi should have felt that Savarkar, whose spirit, as your beamed authors say, was broken, should join their party!

Your authors have made wonderful discovery. They write, 'One warning from the Government, and his concern for the so-called welfare of the Hindus had disappeared into thin air.' Your readers should read the chapter 'Social Revolution' from Keer's biography of Savarkar or Balarao Savarkar's volume Hindu Samaj Sanrakshak Swa. Veer V. D. Savarkar (Ratnagiri Parva) to find out for themselves what tremendous social transformation he effected in Ratnagiri during his internment there and thereby earned encomiums from several reformers of Maharashtra. The great Social Reformer Mr. Shinde was moved to say that God should give the remaining years of his life to Savarkar And be it noted that Gandhiji, always hard- pressed for tune found it worthwhile to meet Savarkar to discuss social problems with him in 1927 when he was on a tour of Ratnagiri. He also praised Savarkar's sacrifice and patriotism. And yet your authors hare the temerity to pen the above words. Only blind hatred could have produced these words.

In the same article, in a box item, under the caption 'Contrasting approaches.' the authors have mentioned Motilal Nehru's six months sentence. This should not have been done. No one denies Motilal's sacrifice. But can six months jail in 1930 be compared with 50 years' sentence in 1911? In 1930 the Government had become mellow. Provincial autonomy was 7 years away and Swarajya was 17 years away. But in 1911 the British Indian Government was harsh. When Savarkar was jailed, Gandhiji was in South Africa, Jawaharlal Nehru was in London. Motilal Nehru was more with the liberals than with the extremists in the Congress. What kind of life Savarkar had to face in the jail in lice Andamans? History ticket of Savarkar tells the story. Here are few notings :
(I) 6 months solitary confinement; (II) Seven days standing handcuffs (III)Absolutely refusing to work, Ten days cross bar fetters imposed.
(Source material for a history of the freedom movement in India Vol. II,. Bombay Government publication : pp- 478/479)
How many top leaders of the Congress had to suffer such punishments?
There is a following noting on page 464 of the above book. (Xerox copy attached)
'He is always suave and polite but like brother, he has never shown any disposition to actively assist Government. It is impossible to say what his real political views are at the present time.'
Your authors write, 'What is clear from a study of these documents, many of them available with the National Archives, New Delhi, is that Savarkar sought his release from British prisons not merely by giving an undertaking not to engage in political activity but also by acknowledging that he had had a fair trial and a just sentence.' Now, one does not have to go to the archives to read the contents of these letters. Savarkar in his book 'My Transportation', has narrated on various pages what talks he had with Sir Reginald Craddock in 1913, with members of Jail Commission, and with the Governor and what restrictions he would accept for his release from the Jail. (Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya, Vol 1,-pp 448/620,690).
Savarkar did not believe in Satyagraha. So jail going was not an important pall of his political activities. If he was caught, he thought it legitimate to give any undertaking to secure his release. He was a disciple of Shivaji. One should read Shivaji's letter to Aurangzeb. To secure his release, Shivaji made many promises in that letter But when he escaped these promises evaporated in thin air (Xerox copy attached).
Why judge Savarkar by Gandhian principles? We may, if we want, judge him by Leninist standards. Did not Lenin accept the offer of 'Sealed Car' from the Kaiser's German Government- a capitalist government? He came in that train to lead the Bolshevik Party and to seize power in Russia. Stalin made a pact with Hitler, his arch enemy. But what is laudable in Lenin and Stalin becomes condemnable in Savarkar. To a jaundiced eye everything looks yellow.

'In contrasting approaches' your authors write, 'The desperate telegram from Hailey in which he explained the old man's determination and character in some detail, forced the issue and Motilal Nehru was released on September 8, 1930- unconditionally. He died five months later, on February 6, 1931 in Lucknow, with Jawaharlal Nehru and Gandhiji at his bedside.' How could Gandhi and Nehru be at his bedside? Because 'On January 25th Viceroy, Lord Irwin, ordered the unconditional release of Gandhi and the members of the Congress Woking Committee, including Nehru.' (Frank Moraes- Jawaharlal Nehru- p 171)
Mr Nehru's wife, Kamala, went to Europe for treatment. Mr Moraes writes 'On September 4, 1935, Nehru was suddenly discharged from Almora, five and half months before his term was to expire ... On the same afternoon he set out by Air for Europe......... On the evening of September 9th he reached Badenweiler.०' [p- 246]

No one grudges this sympathetic treatment to Nehru. One only wishes that people should know that Savarkar brothers met their family members only once in the Andamans. And in this meeting Savarkar's elder brother came to know that his wife had died earlier Here are real contrasting approaches.'
Now how was Savarkar treated in the jail in the Andamans? the following three excerpts show it :-
(I) Bombay Government do not recommend any remission of the sentences passed upon Ganesh Damodar Savarkar and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar [p. 467]

(II) 'Government of India agree that the Savarkar brothers should not be released under the Royal Amnesty.'
This is dated 8th december 1919. P.[469]

(III) 'The Government of Bombay by their letter No. 1106/36, Home Department, dated 29th February 1921, informed the Government of India that the Governor in Council was not in favour of the transfer of the Savarkar brothers from Andamans to a jail in the Bombay Presidency, as that would lead to a recrudescence of agitation in their favour.' (p.477-478)

(Source material for a history of the freedom movement in India.)

Your readers should carefully read the marked lines. They showed the Government's worry and public sympathy for Savarkar.

Your authors have said that Savarkar and his family showed increasing tendency to mollify the British authorities. What was wrong in that? Any family would do that. It is natural; moreover, the British Government was not sympathetic, tender and accommodating to Savarkar brothers, as it was with Gandhi and Nehrus, I will illustrate :

While sentencing Gandhiji in 1922 to six years imprisonment Sir Robert Broomfield observed:
'I should like to say that if the course of events in India should make it possible for the Government to reduce the period and release you, no one will be better pleased than I'. (Tendulkar- Mahatma- Vol II- p 134)
Government on medical advice released Gandhiji in 1924. (Mahatma Vol. II p-163)

The same consideration was extended to Mr Nehru. Mr Moraes writes, 'On the night of August 11th Nehru was brought from Dehra Dun under police escort to Allahabad and there informed that he was to be temporarily released in order to see his ailing wife. He was to be at liberty for eleven days.' (Jawaharlal Nehru p. 237)

Mr Moraes further writes : 'Nehru had given the Government no undertaking when he came out of jail, but he fell it would be improper to engage in political activities during the respite they had allowed him.' (p.238). The Government was sure that he would not take part in politics and hence did not impose condition. However in Savarkar's case, the Government imposed the condition that he should, not engage in political activities. How can it trust a man who jumped the ship at Marseilles?

Your authors have written about Savarkar's surrender, etc, It would have served the cause of history better if they had inquired into what was happening in tile Congress camp. Writing about the settlement, Gandhi- Irwin pact, Mr Moraes writes, 'Glancing at it, Nehru noticed that Gandhi had accepted the principle of self-Government with reservations or safe-guards. He was numbed by the discovery, being literally shocked into silence.'
'As Nehru lay in bed that night, his mind travelled back to the saga and sacrifices of the non-violent movement. Were all these sacrifices to be frittered away in this temporary provisional compromise? How could Gandhi have brought himself to surrender the position when victory seemed within his grasp? ?Were all their brave words and deeds to end in this? Nehru wept. He was distressed beyond measure, and his grief and embitterment found vent in tears (p-181)

Comments are superfluous!
Your authors have laboured hard to show that Savarkar's spirit was broken. They should have read the following paragraph from 'The struggle for Freedom.'
Dr Majumdar writes :

"By that time the individual civil Disobedience 'was dead like a door nail.' Referring to the commencement of the New Year, 1934, the official history of the Congress records : 'The progress of events in the line of Civil Disobedornce was none too satisfactory, The prisoners who were released were fagged. The provincial leaders who had promised at Poona Conference to lead their provinces if Mass Civil Disobedience were given up and individual civil disobedience continues did not carry out their pledges, except in a few cases. Those who were released from jails found themselves unable or unwilling to face another conviction. 'Slowly and silently the movement faded away, and during the upheaval caused by the great earthquake at Bihar on 16 the January, 1934, it passed away unnoticed into the limbo of oblivion."
(Struggle for Freedom : Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Publication -p. 525)

This should show whose spirit was really broken.
In 1937, when all restrictions imposed on Savarkar were removed and Savarkar became free, Subhashchandra Bose, Jawaharlal Nehru and M. N. Roy welcomed him to full freedom. Your authors say, 'Although Savarkar's conditional release was not much of a secret at the time, when it occured it was criticised by sections of the press.' And yet Bose, Nehru and Roy thought it wise to welcome him. Who is more sensible? Bose, Nehru and Roy or your authors?

Your authors have stated - '.........Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who was one of the founders of the Hindu Mahasabha and is considered to be the father of the Anti-Muslim Hindutva ideology....' This statement reveals their colossal ignorance. For Hindu Mahasabha was founded in 1915 when Savarkar was in jail. According to Dr Majumdar - 'The great leaders of Hindu Mahasabha, to begin with, were Swami Shraddhananda, Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and Lala Lajpat Rai. Rajendra Prasad, too, presided over the special session in 1923. Then came Dr B. S. Moonje and Bhai Parmananda, and last of all the great revolutionary, Veer Savarkar, who gave it a militant character. During the whole of this period the Hindu Mahasabha really constituted a political organisation to fight for the interests of the Hindus to which the Congress leaders were indifferent and even hostile.' (- Struggle for Freedom - Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Publication pp - 988/989)

As regards the charge of anti- Muslim Hindutva let me quote a few lines from Savarkar's Hindutva, He says, 'It may be that at some future time the word Hindu may come to indicate a citizen of Hindusthan and nothing else !' Does this not show that Savarkar visualised that a time would come when Muslims would be included in the fold of the Hindus? If this is so, how can Hindutva be anti-Muslim? But when ignorance parades as research, it becomes limitless.

The last heroic thing that Savarkar did was to give up his life voluntarily. No man who has lost his nerves can do this. How many leaders, accept Vinoba Bhave, have shown this courage? Any way, Savarkar has departed from this world in 1966 with his reputation unsullied. No amount of research will tarnish it. He was father of Hindutva-Hindu Nationalism. Now Hindutva has gathered its own momentum. No denigration of Savarkar will stop the growth of Hindutva.

It would have served the cause of National integration better if your authors had made research to find out why Indian nationalism failed and why Pakistan was created and why Muslim separatism still persists.

Submitted by मंदार-जोशी on 31 October, 2011 - 13:32

INDUS CALLING
Deportation of a nation
Tarun Vijay, 16 January 2010, 11:00 PM IST

Nineteen always comes before the twenty-six. But here, in our gloriously decorated
centres of governance, we celebrate January 26 with a blank look at our republic's
bruised soul showcased through January 19, considered the day when the biggest
forced exodus of Kashmiri Hindus from the valley was accelerated.

A republic is merely a signature of the Constitution adopted for governing a people,
who, in turn, constitute a nation. That nation actually represents the continuity of the
civilisational flow of the land and its inhabitants. Ironically, in our case the republic,
instead of nurturing those roots, is trying to overwhelm the memories of the soul of
this nation with decorated mass annihilators. It’s like putting more earth on the
debris to stifle any voices of the living underneath it instead of unearthing and
safeguarding the life underneath.

Kashmir, one of the fountainheads of Indian civilisational memories and a symbol of
the highest achievements in the scholarship that made India a centre of universal
acclaim, is one such example. Everything about its relation with the rest of the
Indian nation’s body is sought to be deleted as if a nation is a computer storage you
can add to or delete from at your whim.

Mercifully, these neo-state-owners are not gods. Hence, the debris, even when put
under mounds of earth, show the facts, however unpalatable they might be to the
Wahhabi variety of secularism. The truth about Kashmir comes out in a miraculous
demonstration of life. The memory of Rishi Kashyap, whose name Kashmir wears,
the history contained in "Raj Tarangini" and the valour of the citizen King Lalitaditya,
the sacred bareness of Kashmir's Meera Lal Dyad, the spiritualism of Muslim fakir
Rishi Nund, victory campaigns of Zoravar Singh, the region's defining glory in
Amarnath, Shankaracharya’s Hill and Mata Vaishno Devi, and Vivekananda’s unique
realisation at Kheer Bhawani. The age-old fountainhead of Hindu wisdom reflected in
Sharada Peeth and the origin of Shri Vidya, Shaiv traditions and the Wazvan,
Samovar amalgamation that looked once inseparable.

Can there be a Kashmir without these? What happened on January 19 is part of the
efforts to erase all that.

On that day 20 years ago, one of the largest and most painful exoduses of a
community took place. Although, agreeably, it's tough in such circumstances to
pinpoint a single date, this has come to be registered as one such day of mass
escape of the Hindus from the assaults of jihadis in the valley. This was the day
when the mosques blared out a message from their loudspeakers: Pundits leave the
valley, leaving behind your women. We want Pakistan, without Pundits.
The killings were brutal. Famous philosopher-poet Sarvanand Premi and his son.
Their eyes were gouged out before they were killed. Sarla Bhatt. A nurse in a
Srinagar hospital. Mass-raped and killed. Tika Lala Taplu, Lassa Kaul. Prem Nath
Bhatt. H L Khera and Mushirul Haq (their killers were acquitted recently after a 19-
year-long trial). Those were the days when such killings did make some news in
Delhi.

It’s amazing to find a studied silence in the Indian and the foreign media on an
exodus that made the valley‘s cultural vibgyor vanish. It's shocking to see a secular
tribe in the national capital too hospitable to patriotic Indians' slayers like Musharraf
and Yasin Malik, the former being the instigator of the Kargil war and the latter
facing cases of murders including those of Indian Air Force officers. Google and find
out about him. He was the guest of honour at a recently concluded India-Pakistan
dialogue for peace which was conducted without a single participation from refugee
Kashmiri Hindus.

We are about to celebrate yet another day of the republic without willing to see that
this republic hasn’t been able to assure safety to the patriotic people of Kashmir and
has stage-managed an autonomy report that is widely seen as a document of
separation mocking at the resolution of Parliament swearing to guard India's
integrity and take back the land illegally occupied by Pakistan and China.
A resolution passed in December 2009 by Panun Kashmir, an organisation of
Kashmiri Hindus said: "It is a matter of extreme apathy that the exiled Kashmiri
Pandits are forced to live in subhuman conditions and subsistence in so-called
migrant camps in Jammu and elsewhere for the last 20 years. There is no policy for
reversing the genocide and rehabilitating the community in its homeland and the
governments of India as well as the J&K state have treated the holocaust with
bizarre inaptitude and abandonment. In the last 20 years the government has made
empty announcements and piecemeal return formulae, only to further compound the
plight of the community.”

When a people are uprooted, not just the bodies that consume food and procreate
are transferred from one station to another. It’s an entire life cycle and the
reservoirs of collective memory that get dehydrated. It affects and destroys a
language, traditions that weave the fabric of a societal dynamic, songs and beliefs,
religious rituals and places of worship, behaviour and protocols that were created
and nurtured by the elders as far back as a thousand years, oral history and the
patterns of living including homes, food, utensils, methods to greet and calls to
organise for a resistance. It affects the attire, the way children are reared, marriages
solemnised and the dead cremated.

An entire world is lost.

A single citizen of the republic contains in him the entire fabric of the nationhood as
much as a drop of the ocean carries the ocean in itself. Kashmiri Hindus deported
from the valley is like the Indian nation deported from this region. Mere geography
doesn’t constitute nationhood.

Afghanistan was Gandhar. We lost it. We lost Taxila, Bappa Rawal’s Rawalpindi,
Dahar and Jhoolelal’s Sind and Dhakeshwari’s Dhaka with the Ramana Kali temple,
destroyed by Pakistanis in 1971 yet to be rebuilt, as neither Mujib nor Hasina’s
government, so lovingly described as "friendly" allowed its reconstruction. When the
people, representing the spirit of a nation are deported, the nation’s cultural ethos
too gets fragile and finally eliminated. The memory, once a living life force, gets
museum-ised.

Imagine how this will sound: Once upon a time, Kashmiri Hindus lived in the valley.
Now we have our own kith and kin, in our independent republic living as refugees for
the ‘crime’ of being Hindus and loyal to the Indian nationhood, who refused to side
with the pro-Pakistan separatists.

We in our entirety share the sin of forgetting our soul. Our sin is we loved to dine with the killers.

Submitted by मंदार-जोशी on 31 October, 2011 - 13:39

As regards the charge of anti- Muslim Hindutva let me quote a few lines from Savarkar's Hindutva, He says, 'It may be that at some future time the word Hindu may come to indicate a citizen of Hindusthan and nothing else !' Does this not show that Savarkar visualised that a time would come when Muslims would be included in the fold of the Hindus?

यांचं काही कळतच नाही.. कधी म्हणतात हिंदुत्वात मुस्लिम येत नाहीत. कधी म्हनतात हिंदु शब्दात एक दिवस मुस्लिमही येतील... ६० वर्षे झाली. अजून काही नेमकं याना डिफाइन करताच आलं नाही.

Submitted by जागोमोहनप्यारे on 31 October, 2011 - 13:40

INDUS CALLING
The second flag
Tarun Vijay, 26 January 2010, 08:04 AM IST
In our republic, which boasts of one nation, one people and one union, we have two flags.
One for India and the other for Kashmir.

No one asks why?

If the mere picture of a foreign national irks, embarrasses and makes the government
apologetic, should a flag, put on a par, parallel to the flag of our republic for which we
swear to live and die, make us happy and proud?

There is one tricolor, which is our soul. We sing for it, love it, feel thrilled when it's
fluttered on any part of this planet. That's us and our invincible tricolour.

And here is another flag. We hardly know about it. A piece that has to be displayed on
the bonnets of the Ambassador cars the governor, the chief minister, the Union home
minister or even the Prime Minister uses to negotiate a Kashmir road. Suddenly there are
two flags, two people, two lands. And still one republic? Ask Justice Sagheer Ahmad and
hear the "give more autonomy to J&K" call. More, still more, autonomy for what? A
seperate flag and wanting to be more seperate?

Whose flag is it, any way? They say it's Kashmir's flag. So why don’t our rulers hoist it
too in the Republic Day parade in New Delhi? A bit red-faced, they say it’s just for
Kashmir.

So why not Bihar and Uttarakhand and Punjab and, please, Tamilnadu too have their
separate flags?

They say Kashmir is special and other states are NOT.

Really?

Why not every state in India is special?

Why not every Indian citizen is equally special?

We, the Indians, the people of India.

Who gave the Constitution to themselves on January 26, 1950, hence the republic and the
parade for it.

We can’t buy an inch of land in Kashmir because there is a provision in the Indian
Constitution that bars it. That's called Article 370.

It says we are not authorised to be citizens of Kashmir. But we are Indian citizens?

So what?

Article 370 says we are not naturally Kashmiri citizens, even if we are Indians.

If we are Indians, we can be Biharis, Tamilians or Arunachalis. But not Kashmiri.
There was a man whose name was Syama Prasad Mookerjee. He died protesting separate
provisions for Kashmir. The news agency IANS reported recently: "Mukherjee was
imprisoned for entering the state without a proper permit in violation of Article 370. His
entry was in protest against the separate constitution, head of the state and flag of Jammu
and Kashmir.

"Mukherjee wanted that Jammu and Kashmir be declared an integral part of India and
governed like any other state of the country."

Mookerjee (that's how he spelt his name) died mysteriously in a Srinagar jail.
Who cares for such a "mad" man, giving his life for national integration in its truest
sense?

Live peacefully, in your Lutyens' bungalow and offer government constructive
cooperation.

That makes life easy, you know.

Let me reproduce some extracts from the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir? It has a
separate identity from the Indian Constitution and no law that the Indian parliament
passes is applied in J&K unless the J&K assembly passes it too and it has the right to
overrule the Indian parliament and change the contents of the laws passed by the
parliament situated in New Delhi.
The J&K constitution says —
Preamble:
We, the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, having solemnly resolved, in
pursuance of the accession of this State to India which took place on the twenty sixth day
of October, 1947, to further define the existing relationship of the State with the Union of
India as an integral part thereof, and to secure ourselves-
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and opportunity; and to promote among us all;
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this seventeenth day of November, 1956, do
HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
Part II of "The State" of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir:
Relationship of the State with the Union of India - The State of Jammu and Kashmir is
and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.

On April 7, 1958, the Plebiscite Front of Sheikh Abdullah adopted a resolution
specifically citing Article 370, and stated that : "Jammu and Kashmir state has not yet
acceded to any of the two dominions, India and Pakistan. Therefore, it will not be right to
call Pakistani invasion on Jammu and Kashmir as an attack on India.” Using Article 370
Kashmiri Muslim leaders have opposed any family planning and welfare schemes
formulated by the government of India, and the programme was implemented only in the
Hindu majority Jammu. The former chief minister, G M Shah, had said that the aim of
the government family planning programme was to convert the Muslim majority into a
minority. The former external affairs minister M C Chagla had told the United Nations
that the Article was a temporary measure. The two former chief ministers of Jammu and
Kashmir Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and G M Sadiq too wanted this Article to be
repealed.

Articles 3 and 5 of the State constitution of Jammu and Kashmir state that it will remain
an “inseparable” part of India and Parliament should immediately repeal Article 370.
Friends on the internet suggest, "Those Kashmiri Muslims who have declared themselves
to be Pakistanis should be asked to apply for Pakistani citizenship, and if their
applications fail, they should be declared stateless persons and no longer citizens of India,
and therefore no longer citizens of any part of the dominions of the Republic of India."
Article 370 (though originally Article 306-A) drafted by Gopalaswami Ayyengar in close
consultation with Sheikh Mohd Abdullah reads as follows:

"Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir:
1. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,
(a) the provisions of Article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir;
(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to,
(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the
Government of the State are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified
in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of
India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws far
that State; and
(ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the
State, the President may by order specify.
Explanation:
For the purposes of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the
time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on
the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja's
Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948;
(c) the provisions of Article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State;
(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State
subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify:
Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of
Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except
in consultation with the Government of the State:
Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred in
the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that
Government.

2. If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of subclause
(b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given
before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State
is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take
thereon.

3. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may,
by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be
operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may
specify:
Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in
clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 370 the President, on the recommendation
of the Constituent Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, declared that as from
the 17th Day of November, 1952, the said Article 370 shall be operative with the
modification that for the Explanation in Cl. (1) thereof, the following explanation is
substituted namely.

Explanation - For the purpose of this article, the Government of the State means the
person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the
Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadr-i-Riyasat (now Governor) of Jammu and
Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being
in office."

That's our republic. And the second flag. And the two peoples in one land. Viva the flag
hoisters.
Where is the pain and where is the shoulder?

Submitted by मंदार-जोशी on 31 October, 2011 - 13:41

Indus Calling
My name is not Khan, I am Mr Kaul
Tarun Vijay Tuesday December 22, 2009, 08:55 AM

I am not Khan. My name bears a different set of four letters: K A U L. Kaul. As those
who know Indian names would understand I happened to be born in a family which
was called Hindu by others. Hence, we were sure, we would never get a friend like KJ
to make a movie on our humiliations, and the contemptuous and forced exile from
our homeland. It's not fashionable. It's fashionable to get a Khan as a friend and
portray his agony and pains and sufferings when he is asked by a US private to take
off his shoes and show his socks. Natural and quite justifiable that Khan must feel
insulted and enraged. Enough Masala to make a movie.

But unfortunately I am a Kaul. I am not a Khan.

Hence when my sisters and mothers were raped and killed, when six-year-old Seema
was witness to the brutal slaughtering of her brother, mother and father with a
butcher's knife by a Khan, nobody ever came to make a movie on my agony, pain
and anguish, and tears.

No KJ would make a movie on Kashmiri Hindus. Because we are not Khans. We are
Kauls.

When we look at our own selves as Kauls, we also see a macabre dance of leaders
who people Parliament. Some of them were really concerned about us. They got the
bungalows and acres of greenery and had their portraits were worshipped by the
gullible devotees of patriotism.

They made reservations in schools and colleges for us. In many many other states.
But never did they try that we go back to our homes. They have other priorities and
'love your jihadi neighborhood' programmes. They get flabbier and flabbier with the
passing of each year, sit on sacks of sermons; issue instructions to live simply and
follow moral principles delivered by ancestors and kept in documents treated with
time-tested preservatives.

They could play with me because my name is Kaul. And not Mr Khan. I saw the
trailer to this fabulous movie, which must do good business at the box office.
There was not even a hint that terror is bad and it is worse if it is
perpetuated in the name of a religion that means Peace. Peace be
upon all its followers and all other the creatures too.

So you make a movie on the humiliation of taking off shoes to a foreign police force
which has decided not to allow another 9/11.

The humiliation of taking off the shoes and the urge to show that you are innocent is
really too deep. But what about the humiliation of leaving your home and hearth and
the world and the relatives and wife and mother and father? And being forced to live
in shabby tents, at the mercy of nincompoop leaders encashing your misery and
bribe-seeking babus? And seeing your daughters growing up too sudden and finding
no place to hide your shame?

No KJ would ever come forward to make a movie, a telling, spine-chilling narration
on the celluloid, of five-year-old Seema, who saw her parents and brother being
slaughtered by a butcher's knife in Doda. Because her dad was not Mr Khan. He was
one Mr Kaul.

Sorry, Mr Kaul and your entire ilk. I can't help you.

It's not fashionable to side with those who are Kauls. And Rainas. And Bhatts.
Dismissively called KPs. KPs means Kashmiri Pandits. They are a bunch of
communalists. They were the agents of one Mr Jagmohan who planned their exodus
so that Khans can be blamed falsely. In fact, a movie can be made on how these KPs
conspired their own exile to give a bad name to the loving and affectionate Khan
brothers of the valley.

To voice the woes of Kauls is sinful. The right course to get counted in the lists of the
Prime Minister's banquets and the President's parties is to announce from the roof
top: hey, men and ladies, I am Mr Khan.

The biggest apartheid the state observes is to exclude those who cry for Kauls, wear
the colours of Ayodhya, love the wisdom of the civilisational heritage, dare to assert
as Hindus in a land which is known as Hindustan too and struggle to live with
dignity as Kauls. They are out and exiled. You can see any list of honours and invites
to summits and late-evening gala parties to toast a new brand. All that the Kauls are
allowed is a space at Jantar Mantar: shout, weep and go back to your tents after a
tiring demonstration. Mr Kaul, you have got a wrong name.

A dozen KJs would fly to take you atop the glory - posts and gardens of sympathies if
you accept to wear a Khan name and love a Sunita, Pranita, Komal or a Kamini.
Well, here you have a sweetheart in Mandira. That goes well with the story.
And you pegged the movie plot on autism.

I wept. It was too much. I wept as a father of a son who needed a story as an
Indian. Who cares for his autistic son, his relationship with the western world, his
love affair with a young sweet something as a human, as someone whose heart
goes beyond being a Hindu, a Muslim or a proselytizing Vatican-centric aggressive
soul. Not the one who would declare in newspaper interviews: "I think I am an
ambassador for Islam". Shah Rukh is Shah Rukh, not because he is an ambassador
for Islam. If that was true, he could have found a room in Deoband. Fine enough.
But he became a heartthrob and a famousl star because he is a great actor. He owes
everything he has to Indians and not just to Muslims. We love him not because he is
some Mr Khan. We love him because he has portrayed the dreams, aspirations,
pains, anguish and ups and downs of our daily life. As an Indian. As one of us.
If he wants to use our goodwill and love for strengthening his image as an
ambassador for Islam, will we have to think to put up an ambassador for Hindus?
That, at least to me, would be unacceptable because I trust everyone: a Khan or a
Kaul or a Singh or a Victor. Who represents India represents us all too, including
Hindus. My best ambassadorship would be an ambassadorship for the tricolour and
not for anything else because I see my Ram and Dharma in that. I don't think even
an Amitabh or a Hritik would ever think in terms Shah Rukh has chosen for himself.
But shouldn't these big, tall, successful Indians who wear Hindu names make a
movie on why Kauls were ousted? Why Godhra occurred in the first place? Why
nobody, yes, not a single Muslim, comes forward to take up the cause of the exiled
and killed and contemptuously marginalized Kauls whereas every Muslim
complainant would have essentially a Hindu advocate to take on Hindus as fiercely as
he can?

If you are Mr Khan and found dead on the railway tracks, the entire nation would be
shaken. And he was also a Rizwan. May be just a coincidence that our Mr Khan in the
movie is also a Rizwan.

Rizwan's death saw the police commissioner punished and cover stories written by
missionary writers. But if you are a Sharma or a Kaul and happened to love an
Ameena Yusuf in Srinagar, you would soon find your corpse inside the police thana
and NONE, not even a small-time local paper would find it worthwhile to waste a
column on you. No police constable would be asked to explain how a wrongly
detained person was found dead in police custody?

Because the lover found dead inside a police thana was not Mr Khan. No KJ would
ever come forward to make a movie on 'My name is Kaul. And I am terror-struck by
Khans'.

Give me back my identity as an Indian, Mr. Khan and I would have no problem even
wearing your name and appreciating the tender love of an autistic son.

Submitted by मंदार-जोशी on 31 October, 2011 - 13:44

Afghanistan was Gandhar. We lost it.

असं सारखं सारखं रडायचं नाही बाळा.. तुला सांगितलं आहे ना, की सैन्यात भरती हो आणि पाहिजे तो प्राम्त जिंकून आनून भारताला जोड म्हणून... मग ? का तसे करत नाहीस? मायबोलीवर गळा काढ्हून काय मिळणार?

Submitted by जागोमोहनप्यारे on 31 October, 2011 - 13:45

Indus Calling
A love story ‘murdered’ in Srinagar Tarun Vijay Thursday October 15, 2009
Rajneesh was a small trader from Jammu often going on business trips to Srinagar.
He fell in love with a girl and married her.

He wanted to be faithful to his beloved from Srinagar, who was beautiful and had
unflinching trust in her life partner. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to have love bloom
between Jammu and Srinagar. But it was more than that. The boy from Jammu was
a Hindu and the girl from Srinagar, a Muslim. Ameena was her name and she
changed her name to Anchal Sharma after marriage.

A month after the marriage the boy was picked up from his Jammu house by the
Kashmir police and taken to Srinagar for "investigation". The police never registered
his name, Rajneesh Sharma, as the accused who is being taken to Srinagar, but
instead named his brother Pawan Sharma in police records, to confuse and hide the
real identity.

The smell of a plot was there the moment they took the boy hustled in a jeep and
covered with a blanket.

The boy never returned home to celebrate his first Diwali with Anchal nee Ameena.
He was found dead hanging with an iron grill in his Srinagar cell. Police said he
committed "suicide". An inconsolable Anchal alleged that her parents bribed police to
murder her beloved because he dared to marry a Muslim girl from the valley.
Anchal’s father works in Srinagar’s police department, hence the influence was
obvious.

This week Anchal would have been celebrating Diwali with her husband Rajneesh but
for if this ultimate Taliban act. Surprisingly the incident, so brutal and tragic hasn’t
found an echo in the elite human-rightist circles of Delhi and the self-righteous
media which had taken up the Rizwan case of Kolkata at a greater war footing than it
has shown regarding Chinese incursions.

Rajneesh's "murder" in a police post in Srinagar wouldn’t have occurred if Rajneesh
was a "Rizwan" and the girl had remained an Ameena.

The writerati, who declare love’s supremacy whenever the boy is someone else and
the girl is a Hindu (the final test one has to pass to be declared secular in this land of
self-flagellation) are maintaining a studied silence. None has spoken so far. None has
tried to invoke the wrath of the Women’s Commission, none has bothered to take a
delegation of women to Jammu in the name of secularism and its prophets. And
none has found it a deserving case for a heated debate on the sparkling channels
discussing who should win — love or the colour of your faith?

Why?
Because the girl was a Muslim turned Hindu and the boy, unfortunately happened to
be Hindu. Because the culprit in this case is Srinagar, the reservoir of all that is
sacred in secular pantheon and the boy belongs to the Hindu Jammu and hence
anything that would demand a condemnation of the Taliban in Srinagar must be held
back and forgotten?

The girl, Anchal nee Ameena, said sobbingly in Jammu that the Srinagar police
tortured her husband just for his crime of marrying a Muslim girl. The mother of the
girl knew about the affair but insisted the boy convert to Islam, which Rajneesh
refused. Anchal says Rajneesh was tortured in the police custody putting pressure on
him to convert and when he refused consistently, he was murdered. The Jammu
papers have reported quoting the postmortem report that police tortured the boy in
custody, broke his legs, crushed his knee, gave him electric shocks and peeled his
nails before declaring his "suicide". In cold blood.

In Srinagar. In a police post. He was married on August 21, "picked up" without an
arrest warrant on September 29 and was found dead in police custody on October 4.
Though a magisterial inquiry was ordered, no FIR was lodged till yesterday, that is,
October 14, when a chief judicial magistrate in Jammu ordered an inquiry against 11
accused persons in Srinagar.

The Buddhists of Ladakh and the Hindus of Jammu have been complaining for long
that Srinagar has become an alien land for them. It discriminates against them on
the basis of religion. The Amarnath Shrine agitation is a recent pointer to what
Srinagar does to its minorities. The forced exile of half a million Hindus from the
valley is another example of the attitude that the only Muslim-majority state of India
has exhibited towards non-Muslims. For a detailed factsheet regarding Srinagar’s
blatant communal bias against Jammu, please see my column.

A couple of years before, the Buddhist Association of Ladakh gave a memorandum to
the central government. A part of it said:

1. During 1992-99, 24 Buddhist girls from Leh district were converted to Islam and a
majority of them were taken to Kargil and Srinagar.
2. Twelve villages with hamlets of Buddhists, comprising 651 families (numbering
approximately 5,000) located at 40km to 60km from Kargil town were targeted for
conversions. Till 2002, 72 boys and girls were converted to Islam, according to the
survey conducted by the Ladakh Buddhist Association.
3. Muslims of Kargil are not allowing the LBA to repair and reconstruct a 40-year-old
Gompa comprising three rooms and lying in a shambles.
4. Cremation of dead Buddhists is not allowed at Kargil and the body has to be
moved at a remote Buddhist area.
5. No Buddhist sarai is allowed to be constructed at Kargil though there has been a
demand for the last 35 years.
6. Kargil has 20% Buddhist population. Yet (a) only one Buddhist was appointed
patwari out of 24 patwaris, the rest were all Muslims. (b) In 1998, 40 employees for
Class IV were appointed in the education department; out of these only one was
Buddhist, that too after his conversion to Islam.

Similar complaints, with proven statistics were given regarding discrimination against
Buddhists in the area of Kashmir Administrative Services (KAS), admission to
medical and engineering colleges and allocation of development funds received from
the central government.

That’s Srinagar.

So who is going to help Anchal? She seems to be a courageous beloved of her "slain"
husband and has been facing media crews with grit. She has refused an ex gratia
grant by the state government and has demanded a CBI inquiry. The state leaders,
who made a beeline to Shopian, have not bothered to say even a word of sympathy,
leave aside visiting her.

Her only "crime": she loved Rajneesh.

Submitted by मंदार-जोशी on 31 October, 2011 - 13:47

"WHY I KILLED GANDHI!!! - NATHURAM GODSE 'S ADDRESS IN COURT".
Gandhiji Assassin: Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court.

Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinated Gandhiji, based on a F. I.. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the Tughlak Road Police station at Delhi . The trial, which was held in camera, began on 27th May 1948 and concluded on 10th February 1949. He was sentenced to death.
An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find favourable and the sentence was upheld. The statement that you are about to read is the last made by Godse before the Court on the 5th of May 1949.

Such was the power and eloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla, later wrote, "I have, however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought a verdict of 'not Guilty' by an overwhelming majority".

WHY I KILLED GANDHI
Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history, and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchables and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social, and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession.

I publicly used to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Ravana, Chanakya, Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England, France, America, and Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.

All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hinduism and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and program, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.

Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day.

In fact, honour, duty, and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita.. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and
Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna , and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.

In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji, and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to them.

The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very well in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way.

Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him.

He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster, and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus, the
Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible.
Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India . His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.

From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League member’s right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947.
Lord Mount batten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mount batten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state (Pakistan) was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? Whentop leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.
One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan , there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware from experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.

Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty in as much as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty.

He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will, and proved to be powerless. Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost my entire honor, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji.

But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan . People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building.

After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was unfairly favorable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.

I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variance with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered
proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism leveled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.

Submitted by मंदार-जोशी on 31 October, 2011 - 13:52

Rajneesh's "murder" in a police post in Srinagar wouldn’t have occurred if Rajneesh
was a "Rizwan" and the girl had remained an Ameena.

असे प्रकार हिंदुंमध्येही आंतरजातीय लव मॅरेजबाबात होतात.. उगाच मुस्लिमाना नावे कशाला ठेवताय?

आणि मुसलमान पुरुष हिंदु बाईबरोबर लग्न करतो तेंव्हा तो लव जिहाद असतो. असे लग्न करु नका म्हणून हिंदुत्ववादी गळा काढतात.. मग स्वतः मात्र मुसलमान बाईबरोबर लग्न करायला कशाला कडमडायचं? बाजीराव लागून गेला काय ? Proud तुमच्या धर्मात बाया नव्हत्या का?

Submitted by जागोमोहनप्यारे on 31 October, 2011 - 14:13

मुस्लीम हे चतुर राजकारणी आहेत.. गांधिजी नसते तरी त्यानी स्वतःला हवे ते साध्य केलेच असते.. उगाच गांधिजीना का दोषी मानायचं?

Submitted by जागोमोहनप्यारे on 31 October, 2011 - 14:10

हिंदुस्तानी भाषेचा उगम तेराव्या शतकात झाला..

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/266468/Hindustani-language

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Hindustani+language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustani_language

... असल्या भाषेला बास्टर्ड म्हणण्याचं आणि त्याचं (अप्)श्रेय गांधिजीना द्यायचं पातक करनार्‍या वेड्या माणसाबाबत काय लिहिणार? गांधिजीना मारायला १७६० कारनं हे लोक देतात, त्यापैकीच हे एक .. Proud

Submitted by जागोमोहनप्यारे on 31 October, 2011 - 15:00

असं सारखं सारखं रडायचं नाही बाळा.. तुला सांगितलं आहे ना, की सैन्यात भरती हो आणि पाहिजे तो प्राम्त जिंकून आनून भारताला जोड म्हणून... मग ? का तसे करत नाहीस? मायबोलीवर गळा काढ्हून काय मिळणार?>>>>>

Rofl

Rofl

Submitted by बेफ़िकीर on 31 October, 2011 - 15:08

कृपया ९०० पोस्टनंतर काऊण्ट डाऊन सुरू होणार आहे तेव्हा इथे नेहमी पडिक असणार्‍यांनी मला व्यनि करा.
मला या धाग्यांवरच्या शेंडाबुडखा नसणार्‍या असंख्य पोस्टींपेक्षाही महानिरर्थक पोस्ट टाकून हजारी साजरी करायची आहे.
"मी हज्जारावी"असंही किंचाळायचं आहे.

Submitted by साती on 31 October, 2011 - 16:01

मंदार जोशी, अहो एव्हढे सगळे जुने भारुड लिहीलेत त्या ऐवजी पेंट हाउस किंवा प्ले बॉय मधले काहीतरी उद्ध्रुत करायचे. वाचायला आवडले असते.
उग्गाच हज्जार वर्षापूर्वी कोण काय म्हणाले नि पन्नास वर्षापूर्वी काय झाले त्याबद्दल लिहून जागा अडवण्यापेक्षा ते बरे!!
Proud Proud

Submitted by झक्की on 31 October, 2011 - 20:00

साती, इथल्या पोस्टस वाचणे हा एक खरोखर उत्तम एंटरतेनमेंट आहे. लोकाना भरपूर वेळ आहे असं दिसतय एकंदर.

Submitted by नंदिनी on 1 November, 2011 - 00:20

Pages