UP Govt's Anti-Conversion Law and Love Jihad

Today Uttar Pradesh Governor promulgates UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020. Most media outlets have referred to it as an ordinance against 'love jihad,' but the UP government maintains that it is tackling the forceful conversion and not just the alleged phenomenon of 'love jihad.'

On this point, the State Government has to say that “The way in which religious conversions take place by means of deceit, lies, force and dishonesty is heart wrenching, and it was necessary to have a law in this regard." Therefore we have adopted an effective law to check conversion with some specific punitive provisions against individuals and organizations if found to have committed conversion, by demonstrating the use of force deception by luring marriage or some other improper way.

What does the law say?

According to the law, 

• The Unlawful conversion for getting married by force, deceit, undue pressure or by way of alluring into marriage will now be a non-bailable offence.

• Such marriages would lead to imprisonment of a maximum of 10 years and penalty of 50 thousand rupees.

• The ordinance further recommends 1 year to 5 years of imprisonment if the accused fails to prove that the conversion of the woman was not unlawful.

• The jail sentence for the offence against the woman from the Scheduled cast, Scheduled Tribe community would be of 3-10 years.

• It the case is of mass conversion, similar provision of 3-10 year imprisonment has been prescribed. Also, the registration of the organisation involving into mass conversion would be cancelled.

• The ordinance would declare the unlawful marriages null and void.

• Further, if any couple wants to marry after converting into any other religion, they need to take permission from the relevant district magistrate two months prior to the marriage.

Is Uttar Pradesh the first state to enact an anti-conversion law?

No, In 1967-68, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh enacted local laws called the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act 1967 and the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam 1968. Chattisgarh inherited the law when it was carved out of Madhya Pradesh.

The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978 was enacted to prohibit the conversion from one religious faith to any other by use of force or inducement. As the state has not formulated rules, the law is yet to be implemented in the State.

The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Ordinance was promulgated by the Governor on October 5, 2002 and subsequently adopted by the State Assembly. However, this law was repealed in 2004.

The Rajasthan Assembly passed an Act in 2006, however, the Presidential assent is still awaited.

A new generation of anti-conversion laws started in 2018 under the Narendra Modi government, Both Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh added the word ‘marriage’ to their acts — Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act and Himachal Freedom of Religion Act — and said that even if conversion is done for marriage, it has to be notified.

In Uttarakhand, the law empowered the parents and siblings of the individual being converted with the right to go and complain to the district magistrate if they feel a conversion is taking place without following the regular process.

Recently Allahabad high court said in a verdict (Salamat Ansari-Priyanka Kharwar case) that the right to choose a partner or live with a person of choice was part of a citizen’s fundamental right to life and liberty.

The verdict also said earlier court rulings that ‘religious conversion for marriage was unacceptable’ was not good in law.

History of “Love Jihad”

Allegations of Love Jihad first rose to national awareness in September 2009. Love Jihad was initially alleged to be conducted in Kerala and Mangalore in the coastal Karnataka region. According to the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council, by October 2009 up to 4,500 girls in Kerala had been targeted, whereas Hindu Janajagruti Samiti claimed that 30,000 girls had been converted in Karnataka alone.

The then Congress CM in Kerala, Oommen Chandy, admitted in the assembly that between 2006-2012, 2,667 women from other faiths had been converted to Islam because they married Muslim men.

“The Global Council of Indian Christians came up with the insinuation that a global Islamist project was being implemented in Kerala,” This caught spark after a Christian girl who had converted to Islam was arrested for supplying SIM cards to Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives.

“In Kerala some of this movement against a kind of love-jihad also came up from the Left — V.S. Achuthanandan (former chief minister of Kerala) said that Muslims were converting girls of other religions,”

The Protectors of Fundamental Rights themselves are violating the Fundamental Rights

Yesterday the Supreme Court has not only granted bail to Arnab Goswami but has also declared that the Mumbai High Court erred in denying him bail and thus it violated individual liberty. What action is being taken against the HC judge? Does he get to violate liberty yet continue to resume work as usual? At the minimum, he must be suspended from work for a period of one year and demoted. How else can we hold the judges accountable? How do we stop them from becoming rottweilers of corrupt local politicians?

 

The main problem is that the judiciary will take no action against the judiciary.  And the executive has no power to take any action on the judiciary for wrong judgments.  Even most politicians employ the system to do their dirty work. Ultimately it is a common man and the whistle blower and the honest man who suffers at the hands of the system.

 

Nobody wants to utter a single word against the judiciary not because they have trust upon them, but because of the fear of contempt proceedings. Sorry to say colonial laws are still prevailing in our society which are making us feel so helpless.

“The Protectors of Fundamental Rights themselves are violating the Fundamental rights of citizens”.

 

The judiciary is the only institution in the country which remains totally unaccountable. There is no institution with disciplinary powers over the judiciary. In order to provide for their independence, the Constitution made judges of the superior courts immune from removal except by impeachment. The Ramaswami case and subsequent attempts to impeach judges have demonstrated the total impracticality of that instrument to discipline judges. There has thereafter been persistent talk of setting up an independent National Judicial Commission, but it has been a non starter with the judiciary firmly opposing any outside body with disciplinary powers over them. However, the self disciplining mechanism suggested by the judiciary itself by way of an "In house committee" of judges to enforce a code of conduct nominally adopted by the judiciary in 1999, has also been a non starter in the face of a reluctance on the part of judges to inquire into the conduct of their own brethren. That is one of the reasons why the Parliamentary Standing Committee has rejected the government’s draft of the Judicial Inquiry amendment bill which proposes an "in house Judicial Council" of sitting judges to inquire into judicial misconduct. The bill would in fact make the removal of judges even more difficult than at present.

Compounding the problem further is the Supreme Court’s decree that no judge can be investigated for even criminal offences without the written consent of the Chief Justice of India. In the last 16 years since that judgement, no sitting judge in India has been subjected to a criminal investigation. And not because people have not tried. In a case, former Chief Justice of India refused to accord permission to register an FIR against the senior judge of Lucknow who had purchased land worth 7 Crores for 5 lacs from well known members of a land mafia in the name of his wife.

 

Independence of judiciary is "sacrosanct", and unless there are clear-cut allegations of misconduct, the gratification of any kind and extraneous influences, disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely on the ground that a wrong order has been passed by a judicial officer.

The Farm bills is a revolution towards making farmers Atmanirbhar

 “Revolutions are never created by poor people. They are actually created by middle-class people. They are created by people who are educated to have opportunities. But these opportunities are blocked by the political or economic system.” – Fukuyama

Recently Modi govt has succeeded in passing three farm Bills in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The bills was passed in the current session of Parliament.

Agriculture in India is highly fragmented because of its small holding sizes. It highly depends on weather. There also exists production uncertainties and market unpredictability. Thus, agriculture is highly risky here and inefficient in input & output management. Thus, these bills has been introduced in order to transfer the risk of market unpredictability from the farmer to the sponsor.

What are the Newly Passed Agriculture Ordinance in 2020?

Bill 1 - Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020

This farm bill 2020 let the intra and interstate farmers produce even outside the premises of APMC markets without paying any extra market free, cess or levy as State governments are prohibited from levying any of those.

How does it help?

• Removal of barriers for Intra/ inter-state business of agricultural products.
• Farmers can sell their product to anyone coming from anywhere.
• Seamless electronic trade is supported here.
• Encourages ending the monopoly of traders.
• Increased competition among consumers or buyers.
• Farmers get better and return thus increasing income rate.
• Free movement of agro products from surplus to deficit regions.
• This farm bill 2020 creates a national market.
• End consumer gets better items at cheaper prices.

 

Bill 2 - Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill 2020

This farmers bill 2020 aims for framing contractual farming between a buyer and farmer, through an agreement. This should be done before the production of any agro product. Three-tier dispute settlement framework is provided here – Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the conciliation board and Appellate Authority.

How does it help?

• This agriculture reform bill opens the window for farmers to enter into agreements with large buyers, retailers and exporters.
• Farmers get to know the price before starting sowing.
• The market risk gets transferred to sponsor from farmers.
• High-quality seeds, pesticides and fertilisers can be availed by the farmers.
• Private investors will be interested in farming.
• A door to the global market.

 

Bill 3 - The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill

This agriculture ordinance 2020 empowers the Government of India to control the supply of particular agro-food products under unusual situations like war. In case of a steep hike of price, stock limits can be applied on farm products.

How does it help?

• Many agro foods like pulses, onion, potatoes, oilseeds, cereals, and edible oils are removed from the essential commodities list by this farm bill 2020.
• Except under unusual circumstances, this newly passed agriculture bill does away with the imposition of stock limit.
• Business and traders get rid of harassment.
• With the improvement of storage facilities, the wastage rate is likely to get reduced.
• This latest agriculture policy aims for a stable price which will eventually help in raising farm incomes.

The bills are aimed at transforming agriculture in the country and raising farmers’ income and is to make way for creating the "One India, One Agriculture Market’. Also the law intends to end the monopoly of Agriculture Produce Market Committees (APMCs) in carrying out the trade of farm produce in the country.

But many opposition parties including the congress, are opposing the bills. And misleading the farmers by spreading misinformations. Let’s bust their myths with facts –

MYTH - The bill does not provide any price guarantee for farmers. The practice of procuring grains at MSP by central agencies like FCI will end.

FACTS -  The bill ensures a price guarantee for farmers under the agreement and provision for a penalty in case of payment failure. Further, MSP is an independent structure which will not be impacted by the bill.

 MYTH - The commission agents under APMC are verified and payment is secured. The bill doesn't safeguard farmer payments.

FACTS -  The Bill mandates every trader to make payment to the farmer on the same day or within maximum three working days.

MYTH - Farmers will be destroyed by the Government by getting them into contracts with big corporates.

FACTS - Contract farming has been implemented by many states in the past several decades. Other states have also passed separate Contract Farming Acts.

MYTH - The bills are anti-farmer without any protection to them.

FACTS - The safety net of MSP will remain. Also govt increased the MSP price for Rabi Crops. These bills will add to the options the farmers have Farmers will be able to enter into direct agreements for sale of produce with food product companies, etc.

MYTH - The Government wants farmers to sell their lands to capitalists.

FACTS - Farmers have been provided adequate protection in the bills. sale, lease or mortgage of farmers' land is totally prohibited and farmers' land is also protected against any recovery. Also effective dispute resolution mechanism has been provided for with clear timelines for redressal.

MYTH - Farm bills are a conspiracy to phase out the safety net of Minimum Support Price (MSP) to farmers.

FACTS - Farm bills are not going to affect MSP at all. The MSP system will continue. Farm bills are creating additional trading opportunities outside the APMC market yards to help farmers get better prices.

MYTH - The bill invades on the rights of state Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMCS)

FACTS - The bill does not intrude into premises under the APMC Act and the same may continue to operate in the State.  Also the Bill allows for additional trade outside the APMC premises.

MYTH - Agriculture is a state subject & hence, the bill is illegal. Instead of farmers & the rural economy, it will only benefit corporates.

FACTS - The 7th Schedule & The Constitution of India mentions that the Union government can legislate in this domain in the national interest. Farmers under the agreement have multiple advantages including guaranteed higher income.

MYTH - The bill will block states to generate agriculture revenue which will lead to the closure of APMCS, eventually giving corporates monopoly on agriculture trade.

FACTS - The APMC market premises will continue to operate & attract farmers and generate revenue. The bill allows for the development of new mandi infrastructure closer to farm gate improving market access & reducing logistics costs for farmers.

MYTH - Central Government is nullifying the APMC law enacted by the various State Governments.

FACTS - The Farm Bills do not encroach upon in any way the APMC Act, which is an Act of the States.  Trade happening outside agriculture markets will be covered under the new law.

MYTH - The bill will lead to agriculture land acquisition by corporates and farmers will end up becoming labourers.

FACTS - The Bill prohibits sale, lease and mortgage of farmers land and ensures sponsors are prohibited from acquiring ownership rights or making permanent modifications on farmers' land.

MYTH - The bill does not provide a legal safety net for farmers against corporates.

FACTS - The Bill provides for dispute redressal mechanism where farmers can approach the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for deciding any disputes under farming agreement. Also the bill ensures no action is initiated for recovery of any dues against the agricultural land of the farmers.

Conclusion

India has surplus agri-commodities in most of the cases, farmers still are unable to get better prices. It is because of poor investment in storage and processing facilities. The bills has been introduced to pull investment in cold storage and modernization of food supply chain.

Earlier, the farmers in India suffered from various restrictions while marketing their produce. Selling the agri-produce outside the notified APMC market yards were also restricted. They could sell the produce only to registered licenses of the State Governments. Further, flow of agriculture produces between various States under the APMC legislations was not barrier free.

Thus, this bill is a historic-step to unlock the highly regulated agriculture markets in the country. Farmers will be open up to more choices. Also It will empower farmers to engage with processors, wholesalers, aggregators, wholesalers, large retailers, exporters. It will also create a level playing field without fear of exploitation. It will also reduce marketing costs and double the farmers income. The legislation will also act as a catalyst to attract private sector investment for building supply chains. As a result, Farmers will get access to technology and advice for high value agriculture.  Farmers will be engaged in direct marketing.

 

Why many Indigenous languages ​​are on the verge of Extinction?

"If the light of language does not exist, we will be groping in a dark world". – Acharya Dandi

Language is a tool for intellectual and emotional expression. Language is a vehicle for the transmission of culture, scientific knowledge and a worldview across generations. It is the vital, unseen thread that links the past with the present. We must emphasis the importance of protecting and conserving our linguistic heritage. Our languages are a crucial part of our history, our culture and our evolution as a society.

Ours is a multilingual country where more than 19,500 languages or dialects are spoken. However, almost 97 per cent of the population speaks one of the 22 scheduled languages. Modern Indian languages have ancient roots and are derived in some way from the classical languages. There is a rich literary tradition in many languages, especially the ones recognised as classical languages by the Government of India. Sanskrit, of course, is one of the oldest Indo-European languages, dating back to the second millennium BC. Indologist William Jones said in 1786: “The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar.”

Ganesh N Devy (Cultural Activist), who documented 780 Indian languages while conducting the People’s Linguistic Survey of India in 2010, also, shockingly, found that 600 of these languages were dying. He added that more than 250 languages have disappeared in the past 60 years.

When a language dies, “a unique way of looking at the world disappears”.

4,000 of the world's 6,000 languages face a potential threat of extinction, out of which 10 per cent is spoken in India, In other words, 400 Indian languages out of our total 780 languages may get extinct. According to the UN Human Rights four in every ten indigenious languages across the world may disappear or die.

According to UNESCO, any language that is spoken by less than 10,000 people is potentially endangered. In India, after the 1971 census, the government decided that any language spoken by less than 10,000 people need not be included in the official list of languages. In India, therefore, all the languages that are spoken by less than 10,000 people are treated by the state as not worthy of mention and treated by the UNESCO as potentially endangered. 

India has around 196 endangered languages, including about 80 in the Northeast, according to the Unesco Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger 2009.

Examples of such languages would be Wadari, Kolhati, Golla, Gisari. These are languages of nomadic people in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Telangana. Then there several tribal languages as well, such as Pauri, Korku, Haldi, Mavchi. In Assam, there is Moran, Tangsa, Aiton. As we discussed above that more than 250 languages have disappeared in the past 60 years. There used to be languages called Adhuni, Dichi, Ghallu, Helgo, Katagi. The Bo language in Andaman disappeared in 2010 and the Majhi language in Sikkim disappeared in 2015. But we need to remember that it is impossible to show a language dying in the last moment of its life. A language is not a single life system. It is a very large symbolic system. When the symbols collapse they do not do so in a single moment. The collapse is sprayed over a large time.

Table of the number of endangered languages with the states that they are spoken in according to INDIA TODAY.

Indian states	No. of languages	Endangered Languages
Andaman and Nicobar Islands	11	Great Andamanese, Jarawa, Lamongse, Luro, Muot, Onge, Pu, Sanenyo, Sentilese, Shompen and Takahanyilang
Manipur	7	Aimol, Aka, Koiren, Lamgang, Langrong, Purum and Tarao
Himachal Pradesh	4	Baghati, Handuri, Pangvali and Sirmaudi
Odisha	3	Manda, Parji and Pengo
Karnataka	2	Koraga and Kuruba
Andhra Pradesh	2	Gadaba and Naiki
Tamil Nadu	2	Kota and Toda
Arunachal Pradesh	2	Mra and Na
Assam	2	Tai Nora and Tai Rong
Uttarakhand	1	Bangani
Jharkhand	1	Birhor
Maharashtra	1	Nihali
Meghalaya	1	Ruga
West Bengal	1	Toto

Last year, An Indian language went extinct with the death of an 85-year-old in the Andamans, while one apparently extinct tongue was rediscovered as being still spoken by about 1,000 people in a corner of Arunachal Pradesh.

“Koro, a tongue apparently new to the world and which is spoken by just 800 to 1,200 people, could soon face extinction as younger speakers abandon it for more widely used Hindi or English.”

In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Onge is spoken only by 96 people and Shompen by about 200.

Few days later, Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu released a book titled Tangams: An Ethnolinguistic Study Of The Critically Endangered Group of Arunachal Pradesh. “Language loss is the reason for cultural erosion,” CM Khandu had said, emphasising how the book will help the future generations of the Tangam community, which has reportedly 253 speakers concentrated in one small hamlet of Arunachal Pradesh.


Why are the languages at risk?

There are a few major reasons for this. One is that some languages as against other alternate languages in the area gain popularity because of an easier syntax.

Secondly, the social dominance by any group leads to the language of that group becoming more popular in that society. For instance, Sanskrit became popular in ancient India because of social domination by speakers of Sanskrit. Or English has become popular because of the colonial rule.

Thirdly, certain languages face the threat of extinction as they are not used as mediums of instruction in educational institutions, government transactions and the media.


How do we conserve a dying language?

1. We need to create livelihood support for the speakers of the language. If they have livelihood available within their language, nobody would want to switch from their language to any other language.

2. Another suggestion is to introduce these languages in primary schools in areas where they are spoken.

3. The proposed language departments in central universities can set up libraries or museums with audio and video material showing the oral traditions of these languages. Such documentation is expected to help preserve these tongues, and the audiotapes could be used as teaching tools within the communities.

4. The best way to keep a language alive was to prepare instructional material in that language and make it part of studies. For dialects that do not have scripts, then any other Indian scripts may be used when writing.

Conclusion

In every manner without any exception, the language we learn or use is the absolute condition of our narrative of the world and the way we see the world. There is no escape from it. A given language only has a certain kind of ability to narrate the world and the consciousness can enter the world only to the extent that languages can allow it to enter the reality surrounding it. If a language has seven terms for distributing colours, then the speaker of the language will see the world only in those colours. But if there is another language which has more colour terms, then the distribution of the world is more multicoloured. For instance, in Marathi, there is a colour term called Kirmizi that cannot be translated into any English term at all. It is brownish, greenish, bluish, it’s almost like the colour combination we see in a firefly. It is impossible to replicate that perception in the English language. But in the English language, we have navy blue or sky blue and many other languages might not have the exact colour term that translates the same. This is how language allows or disallows us in interpreting the world.

Is the Indian Constitution Anti-Indian ?

India is Hindu, Indian philosophy is Hindu philosophy, Indian nationalism is Hindu nationalism, Hindu culture and tradition is Indian culture and tradition. In another word India is a synonym of Hindu.

India became a nation in 1947, but ceased to be a civilisation. The archaeological record shows that Indian society first emerged in the Sapta-Sindhu (greater Punjab) region at least 9,000 years ago, along the banks of the now-defunct Sarasvati and other rivers of the region. It soon developed into a full-fledged civilization, and by around 5,000 years ago, had grown into the largest ancient civilization the world has ever seen.Until around a thousand years ago, India had a single, highly evolved culture, a single unifying civilizational language (Sanskrit), a very large and powerful economy, and all the other hallmarks of civilization.

After that, came approximately a thousand years of foreign occupation, which was a period of unprecedented and sustained demic and cultural genocide. 100 million deaths is probably an extremely conservative estimate. India’s culture was systematically attacked, weakened and eroded, and foreign cultures were introduced by force and coercion.The millennium of foreign occupation and colonization ended, technically, with Independence in 1947, when India assumed the form of a modern nation-state after the British handed power over to the Congress party.Independence was a priceless opportunity for India to dismantle the edifice of British colonialism and undo the harms and injustices of British occupation. That did not happen.

Instead, India adopted a constitution that is entirely foreign in origin and nature. The people of India were not given the opportunity to either accept or reject this constitution. Also Colonial British laws and institutions remained in place.

the Indian Constitution is ‘Un-Indian’ or ‘Anti-Indian’ because it does not reflect the political traditions and the spirit ofIndia. They said that the foreign nature of the Constitution makes it unsuitable to the Indian situation or unworkable in India. 

In this context,

• K.Hanumanthaiya, a member of the Constituent Assembly, commented : “We wanted the music of Veena or Sitar, but here we have the music of an Englishband. That was because our constitution-makers were educated that way”.

• Similarly, Lokanath Misra, another member of the Constituent Assembly, criticized the constitution as a “slavish imitation of the west, much more – aslavish surrender to the west”. 

• Further, Lakshminarayan Sahu, also amember of the Constituent Assembly, observed : “The ideals on which this draft constitution is framed have no manifest relation to the fundamentalspirit of India. This constitution would not prove suitable and would break down soon after being brought into operation”.

• Also H.V. Kamath declared, "Nothing is Indian in the proposed constitution of India".

Let's understand the un-indianness nature of Indian Constitution on the following grounds:

1. Democracy

The idea of democracy was not alien to India. one can find references of sabha and samiti in the Rig Veda and the Atharv Veda. The The Rig Veda tells us the position of king is not absolute. Kautilya's Arthasastra discusses different forms of republics and citizens' role in decision-making. During the Buddhist period, we find several kingdoms adopting democratic methods to elect their kings, history has it that Vaishali's king Vishal was elected by the people. When Mahatma Gandhi talked about establishing Village Republics' he was only aiming at revival of socio-political structures based on ancient yet robust principles of democracy developed by our forefathers.

But,  Today, we follow the Western model of democracy. Can there be an Indian paradigm? Sri Aurobindo has the answer. He writes :
"It has been said that democracy is based on the rights of man; it has been replied that it should rather take its stand on the duties of man; but both rights and duties are European ideas. Dharma is the Indian conception in which rights and duties lose their artificial antagonism created by a view of the world which makes selfishness the root of action, and regain their deep and eternal unity. Dharma is the basis of democracy which Asia must recognise, for in this lies the distinction between the soul of Asia and the  soul of Europe".

2. Secularism

The word secular was firstly raised by Nehru in a Constituent Assembly. But not added that time, In 1975 at the time of emergency Indira Gandhi deceitly added to this in the Constitution.

The Nehruvian version of secularism, which has done more harm to the polity than good. it has fitted one caste against another and one community against the another and prevented the so called minority communities from integrity with the national mainstream.

The word secular is defined in the dictionaries as "The belief that the state, morals, education, etc. should be independent of religion." But in India it means only one thing — eschewing everything Hindu and espousing everything Islamic.

The most pertinent and crushing critique of Nehruvian secularism was made by K.M MUNSHI. He states :
"In its (secularism) name, anti-religious forces, sponsored by secular humanism or Communism, condemns religious piety, particularly in the majority community. .In its name, again, politicians in power adopt a strange attitude which, while it condones the susceptibilities, religious and social, of the minority communities, is too ready to brand similar susceptibilities in the majority community as communalistic and reactionary. How secularismn sometimes becomes allergic to Hinduism will be apparent from certain episodes relating to the reconstruction of Somnath temple. ...These unfortunate postures have been creating a sense of frustration in the majority community. .If however the misuse of this word 'secularism' continues...if every time there is an inter-communal conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the questions; if our holy places of pilgrimage like Banaras, Mathura and Rishikesh continue to be converted into industrial slums... the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up".

The fears expressed by K.M MUNSHI on the Nehruvian secularism are valid even today. 'More 'secularism" in India will end up feeding what is fights: the so-called 'Hindu fundamentalism'.

3. Constitution in written in Foreign Language

We had the opportunity to written the constitution in our own national language but we frame our Constitution in a alien language, even in free india. Even today we face many difficulties to interpretate the constitution. In this matter Seth Govind Das said:

"the Constitution of this ancient country has been framed in a foreign language even after the attainment of independence. I have always been drawing your attention to this shortcoming. You had assured us, not once, but more than once, that you also desired that our Constitution should be in our national language. In my opinion we would have definitely succeeded in this task if we had made an attempt. We have been sitting here for three years to pass this English draft. I think it would not have been either impossible or even inconvenient to have set for one month more and passed the Hindi constitution. I wish to say that our passing the Constitution in a foreign language after the end of our slavery and attainment of independence would for ever remain a blot on us. This is a badge of slavery a sign of slavery. You may publish the translation by the 26th January, still, I would say frankly that a translation will after all remain a translation. The translation cannot replace the original and whenever any constitutional difficulty arises, whenever any constitutional point arises before our Supreme Coun, High Court or any other Court, we would have before us a Constitution in a foreign language and therefore 1 feel the domination of that foreign language. This will always hurt us and I am thinking of the day, dreaming of the day when our country will form another Constituent Assembly and that Constituent Assembly will place our original Constitution before us in our national language".

Conclusion

The constitution of India is nothing but a vast copy of the provisions of the lengthy government of India act 1935. the constitution was prepared by rich persons for the interest of rich persons only in the name of people. It perpetuates oligarchy of limited person in name of democracy of the people. it could not appraise Indian problems and their solutions in Indian ways. It attempted to find the solution of Indian problem in western constitutionalism. clearly it is a plantation of Euro-American constitution. To put it plainly the constitution is  foreign to the people of India. The Indian Constitution does not include the philosophy and thoughts of India, so we can say without any hesitation that the Indian Constitution is an anti-Indian or un-Indian.

Highlights of Islamic Law ( Shari'a)

Let us take a closer look at the Sharia law. Former Muslim Nonie Darwish, author of Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, in an article titled, Sharia for Dummies highlights a few of those laws. 

1. Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule. 

2. A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force. 

3. A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4. A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

5. It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust. 

6. A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave, and a male.

7. The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam. 

8. A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately. 

9. A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 

1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable. 

10. A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim. 

11. Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave. 

12. Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms 

of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery. 

13. Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam. 

14. It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allâh, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims. 

15. A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim. 

16. Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed. 

17. No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce. 

18. A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority. 

19. Homosexuality is punishable by death.

20. There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9. 

21. Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home. 

22. Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it. 

23. There is no common property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death. 

24. A woman inherits half what a man inherits. 

25. A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous. 

26. The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs. 

27. A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled. 

28. The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man. 

29. A woman loses custody if she remarries. 

30. To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31. A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim. 

32. A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t. 

33. A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.” 

These laws are universally accepted by both Sunnis and Shiites and are the basis of the laws in Islamic countries. The Sharia derives from the Quran and the hadith. These are the laws that Muslims want to bring into the non-Muslim countries.

Islam and Muslim's Backwardness

Although Islam has been a curse to everyone, Muslims are its primary victims. In a 2005 article titled “What Went Wrong,” Dr. Farrukh Saleem, a Pakistani writer,
wrote:
The combined annual GDP of 57 Muslim countries remain under $2 trillion. America, just by herself, produces goods and services worth $10.4 trillion; China $5.7 trillion, Japan $3.5 trillion and Germany $2.1 trillion. Even India’s GDP is estimated at over $3 trillion (purchasing power parity basis).

Oil rich Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait and Qatar collectively produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $430 billion; Netherlands alone has a higher annual GDP while Buddhist Thailand produces goods and services worth $429 billion.

Muslims are 22 percent of the world population and produce less than five percent of global GDP. Even more worrying is that the Muslim countries’ GDP as a percent of the global GDP is going down over time. The Arabs, it seems, are particularly worse off. According to the United Nations’ Arab Development Report: “Half of Arab women cannot read; One in five Arabs live on less than $2 per day; Only1 percent of the Arab population has a personal computer, and only half of 1 percent use the Internet; Fifteen percent of the Arab workforce is unemployed, and this number could double by 2010; The average growth rate of the per capita income during the preceding 20 years in the Arab world was only one-half of 1 percent per annum, worse than anywhere but sub-Saharan Africa.”

The planet’s poorest countries include Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Mozambique. At least six of the poorest of the poor are countries with a Muslim majority.

Conclusion: Muslims of the world are among the poorest of the poor.

Fifty-seven Muslim majority countries have an average of ten universities each for a total of less than 600 universities for 1.4 billion people; India has 8,407 universities, the U.S. has 5,758. From within 1.4 billion Muslims Abdus Salam and Ahmed Zewail are the only two Muslim men who won a Nobel Prize in physics and chemistry (Salam pursued his scientific work in Italy and the UK, Zewail at California Institute of Technology). Dr Salam in his home country is not even considered a Muslim.

Over the past 105 years, 1.4 billion Muslims have produced eight Nobel Laureates while a mere 14 million Jews have produced 167 Nobel Laureates. Of the 1.4 billion Muslims less than 300,000 qualify as ‘scientists’, and that converts to a ratio of 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The United States of America has 1.1 million scientists (4,099 per million); Japan has 700,000 (5,095 per million).

Fact: Of the 1.4 billion Muslims 800 million are illiterate (6 out of 10 Muslims cannot read).

Consider, for instance, that Muslims constitute 22 percent of world population with a 1 percent share of Nobel Prizes. Jews constitute 0.23 percent of world population with a 22 percent share of Nobel Prizes.

What really went wrong? Muslims are poor, illiterate and weak. What went wrong? Arriving at the right diagnosis is extremely critical because the prescription depends on it.

The diagnosis is simple. The problem with Islamic countries is Islam. The more a country becomes Islamic the more backward it becomes.

BROTHERHOOD OF BANDITS by Sitaram Goel

One pretension of Islam is that it stands for human brotherhood and social equality as contrasted with the caste divisions and class hierarchies rampant in other societies, particularly the Hindu society. Many people with socialist preferences or pretensions are duped by what they describe as the social progressivism of Islam. We have in this country a whole battalion of Hindu-baiters who have no use for Allah or for Muhammad but who strongly recommend Islam on the rebound because they have come to believe that Islam stands for better social values. And there is no dearth of Hindus, who, while they love their own religion and culture, admit at the same time that Hindu society has a lot to learn from Islam in matters of brotherhood and equality.

Islam had never put forward these claims before the rise of democracy and socialism in modern times. The old theologians of Islam were meticulous in placing various people in their proper places. The mumins (believers) constituted the master class (millat) entrusted with the mission of imposing the faith and law of the Prophet on all mankind. The kãfirs were the scum of the earth who were to be consigned to eternal hell-fire whenever they could not be killed or converted outright. The zimmîs were people who accepted the supremacy of the Islamic state and agreed to live as non-citizens under severe disabilities. The slaves were mere merchandise who could be bought and sold in the bazar, and killed without any compunction if they tried to escape into freedom. And the women (zan) were mens personal property comparable to gold and silver (zar) and land (zamin), to be kept veiled and hidden in the harem if they happened to be legal wives, or to be presented as gifts if they happened to be newly captured beauties, or to be circulated among friends if they happened to be concubines. Within the millat itself, the Quraish had primacy over the plain Arabs at the start of Islamic imperialism. The civil list devised by Caliph Umar for monetary grants given to Arab families out of the booty obtained in wars, reflects this class hierarchy in Arab society. As the Arab empire expanded east and west, the non-Arabs everywhere were treated as inferior people, in law as well as in practice, even when the latter became mumins. Later on, the Turks took over the Arab legacy of being a master race. Islam has never known any brotherhood or equality even within its millat.

But the theologians of Islam look the other way when Islam gets sold in a new garb, and that too by people who do not profess Islam. They are also prepared to participate in the crudest casuistry in interpreting the Quran in line with the latest demagogies of social philosophy. The only true faith has to be served even if it means a fraud on the hallowed scripture.

The Quran is quite frank and straight-forward on the subject of human brotherhood and social equality. It says: He who seeks a faith other than Islam will never be accepted (3.85). You fight them till not a trace of unbelief is left (8.39). When you meet the kãfirs, cut their throats until you have made a great slaughter amongst them, and when you have defeated them, take them prisoners so that you may earn ransom. Fight them till they surrender (47.4). War is prescribed for you, and you dislike. But it is possible that you dislike what is good for you (2.216). And so on, it all reads like a manual of war on mankind rather than a charter of human brotherhood. It neatly divides humanity into mumins and kãfirs, and leaves not the slightest scope for any mutual understanding or normal morality between the two.

भारत में मुस्लिम साम्राज्य : मिथ्य या सत्य

आज हम यह जानने का प्रयास करेंगे की अलीगढ़ीया इतिहासकार और धर्मनिरपेक्षता की चादर ओढ़े इस्लामी पक्ष मंडक द्वारा लिखे गए इतिहास में कितनी सच्चाई है। इनके अनुसार भारत में इस्लामी साम्राज्य छेह दशकों तक भारत का भोग करता रहा। इसमें कितनी सत्यता है इसका विश्लेषण हम आगे करने का प्रयास करेंगे। इनके द्वारा लिखे गए इतिहास को ‌पढ़ने के बाद कई सारे प्रश्र ध्यान में आते हैं जो इस प्रकार है –

1. क्या हिंदुओं पर आक्रमण कर उनको हराना इतना सरल था जितना की इतिहास हमें बताता है?
2. क्या इस पूरे कालखंड में किसी भी हिंदू राजा ने इस्लामिक आक्रान्ताऔं के खिलाफ हथियार उठाने का प्रयास नहीं किया होगा?
3. क्या भारत में मुस्लिम आक्रमण निर्विरोध जीत थी?
इत्यादि...

इस्लामपरस्त इतिहासकारों का यह भी कहना है की यदि मुस्लिम विजेताओं ने हिंदूऔं और हिंदू धर्म के विरुद्ध  व्यवस्थित, विस्तृत और निरंतर आतंक का व्यवहार किया होता तो यह इतने लंबे मुस्लिम शासन काल के अंत तक हिंदू लोग ऐसी भारी बहुसंख्या के रूप में नहीं बचे होते।
यह तर्क उतना ही खोखला है जितना कि, किसी व्यक्ति पर जानलेवा हमला किया जाता है, लेकिन वह लड़कर  बच जाता है। फिर वह तार्किक रूप से निष्कर्ष देते हैं कि उस व्यक्ति पर कभी जानलेवा हमला हुआ ही नहीं था, अगर हुआ होता तो वह जिंदा कैसे बच गया।

अकादमिक इतिहासकारों की माने तो 12 वीं सदी के अंतिम दशक से 18 वीं सदी के अंत तक भारत मुस्लिम शासकों द्वारा शासित था। इसलिए, इतिहास की सामान्य पाठ्य पुस्तकों में इस्लामिक शासक वन्शों जैसे मामलूक, खिलजी, तुगलक, सैयद, लोदी, सूर, मुगल आदि द्वारा का महिमा मंडक किया जाता है वही दूसरी ओर हिंदू राजाओं जैसे राजपूतों, मराठों और सिखों इत्यादि को क्षुद्र महत्त्वाकांक्षी और निजी स्वार्थ के लिए इस्लामी शासकों के विरुद्ध प्रतिरोध और सामाजिक शांति भंग करने के रूप में प्रदर्शित किया जाता है।

लेकिन तथ्य क्या है? क्या वे इस व्याख्या को प्रमाणित करते हैं कि भारत पूरी तरह और अंतिम रूप से इस्लाम द्वारा जीता जा चुका था, और भारत में मुस्लिम साम्राज्य एक बनी बनाई पोशाक थी, जिसे बाद में ब्रिटिशों ने धोखाधड़ी से चुरा लिया?

पहले, सिंध पर कथित जीत को देखते हैं।
अरबों ने 634 से 637 ई. तक थाना , ब्रोच और दबाल से होकर पहले समुद्री रास्ते से हमले की कोशिशें की। फिर 650 से 711 ई. के बीच उत्तर पश्चिम में जमीनी मार्ग से कोशिश की। लेकिन काबुल और जाबुल के हिन्दू राजाओं ने खैबर दर्रा तक रोके रखा, जिन्होंने कई बार अरबों को हराया, और अनाक्रमण की संधियाँ करने पर विवश किया। कोकन के जाटों ने बोलन दर्रा तक रोके रखा।

भारत की सीमा पर अरबों के इस रिकॉर्ड की तुलना अब दूसरी जगहों से करें । प्रोफेट की मौत के आठ साल के अंदर उन्होंने फारस , सीरिया और मिस पर कब्जा कर लिया था। 650 ई. तक वे ऑक्सस तथा हिन्दू कुश तक आ चुके थे। 640 से 709 ई. के बीच उन्होंने पूरे उत्तरी अफ्रीका पर नियंत्रण कर लिया। उन्होंने 711 ई. तक स्पेन को जीत लिया था । लेकिन उन्हें भारत की धरती पर पहली बार कोई जगह बनाने में 70 साल लगे ।

वर्ष 712 ई. में मुहम्मद बिन कासिम सिंध के कुछ शहरों पर कब्जा करने मे हुआ। उस के उत्तराधिकारियों ने पंजाब, राजस्थान और सौराष्ट्र पर कुछ छापे मारे । किन्तु वे जल्द ही हार गए, और वापस भगा दिए गए। अरब इतिहासकार स्वीकार करते हैं कि " ऐसी कोई जगह नहीं मिली जहाँ भागकर मुसलमान शरण ले सकते । " 8 वीं सदी के मध्य तक उन्होंने केवल सैनिकों से भरे हुए मुलतान और मंसूरा पर ही नियंत्रण किया।मुलतान में उन की कठिन स्थिति का वर्णन अल कजविन ने फतेह - उल - बिलाद में इन शब्दों में किया है :
" काफिरों का वहाँ एक बड़ा मंदिर , और उस में बड़ी सी मूर्ति है... सेवकों और पुजारियों के घर मंदिर के आस - पास ही हैं, और उस मंदिर क्षेत्र में रहने वालों के सिवा मुलतान में कोई मूर्तिपूजक नहीं है. मुलतान के शासक ने उस मूर्ति को नहीं तोड़ा क्योंकि वह वहाँ आने वाला भारी चड़ावा ले लेता है और जब भारतीय उस शहर पर हमला करते हैं, तो मुसलमान वह मूर्ति निकालते हैं, और जब काफिर देखते हैं कि मैं मूर्ति तोड़ी या जलाई जाने वाली है, वे वापस लौट जाते हैं "
यही था अरबों का एकपंथवाद और सैन्य-ताकत।

इसके कुछ वर्षों बाद, 963 ई. में, तुर्क अल्पतिगीन जाबुल की राजधानी गजनी पर कब्जा करने में सफल हुआ। उसका उत्तराधिकारी सुबुक्तिगीन 997 ई. में मरने से कुछ पहले हिंदू शाहिया राजवंश से काबुल को लेने में सफल रहा। उसके बेटे महमूद गजनवी ने 1000 ई. से 1207 ई. तक भारत पर कई चढ़ाइयाँ की। उसके विध्वंसक और पागलपन के विवरण विश्व कुख्यात हैं।

महमूद के मरने के बाद पंजाब से जाटों और गक्कारों ने सिंध और पंजाब में मुस्लिम कब्जावरो को अंतहीन परेशान किया। जिससे उन्हें भारत पर  दुबारा आक्रमण करने में 150 वर्ष का समय लगा। 1178 ई. में मोहम्मद घूरी गुजरात की और बढ़ा लेकिन चालुक्यों के हाथों बुरी तरह मुंह कि खानी पड़ी और किसी तरह जान बचाकर भागने में सफल रहा। 1191 ई. की तराई की लड़ाई के मैदान से अधमरा उठा कर लाया गया था। फिर जाकर 1192 ई. में वह हिंदुओं के विरुद्ध पहले जीत मिली, क्योंकि उसने एक दूर तरीका अपनाया जैसे वीर राजपूत समझने में विफल रहे।

मोहम्मद घूरी ने पंजाब, सिंध, दिल्ली और कन्नौज तक दोआब जीत लिया। उसके सिपाहसलार ऐबक ने उस जीत को राजस्थान में अजमेर और रणथंभौर, बुंदेलखंड में ग्वालियर, कालिंजर, महोबा और खजुराहो, तथा गंगा के पास कटिहार और बदायूं तक फैलाया। इसी बीच बख्तियार खिलजी ने बिहार और उत्तरी बंगाल और हुगली के पश्चिम क्षेत्र को जीत लिया। असम में बढ़ने की कोशिश में उसकी भारी हार हुई।

जब तक 1206 ई. में गक्करों द्वारा मुहम्मद घूरी की हत्या हुई , और भारत में उस के इलाकों पर ऐबक ने सत्ता संभाली, चंदेलों ने फिर से कालिंजर अपने अधिकार में कर लिया। रणथंभौर ने दिल्ली की अधीनता मानना बंद कर दिया तथा प्रतिहारों ने ग्वालियर को फिर अपने हाथ में ले लिया। गहड़वाल राजा हरिश्चंद्र के अधीन दोआब में फिर से हथियार उठा लिये गए और गंगा के पास कटेहर राजपूतों ने फिर अपनी स्वतंत्रता घोषित कर दी। अलवर के गिर्द यादवभट्टी राजपूतों ने अजमेर तक का शाही रास्ता काट कर बंद कर दिया। ऐबक 1210 ई. में मरने तक इन में से किसी क्षेत्र को फिर से जीत न सका।

ऐबक का उत्तराधिकारी इल्तुतमिश रणथंभौर और ग्वालियर फिर से लेने और अजमेर के पास अपना अधिकार बढ़ाने में सफल रहा। पर उसे नागदा के गहलोत, बूंदी के चौहान, मालवा के परमार, और बुंदेलखंड के चंदेलों के हाथों कई बार हार खानी पड़ी। गंगा के पार कटिहार राजपूतों ने अपनी स्थिति मजबूत कर ली जिसे सुलतान हिला न सका। दोआब से अभी भी कड़ा प्रतिरोध किया जा रहा था। 1236 ई. मैं मरने तक उसकी पकड़ अजमेर पर भी ढीले पड़ने लगी थी।

इल्तुतमिश द्वारा स्थापित शम्शी वंश की सल्तनत रजिया, बहरैन, मसूद और महमूद के शासन कालों में अत्यधिक कमजोर होती गई। हालांकि बलबन ने इस के विघटन को रोका जो 1246 ई. के बाद से प्रभावी रूप से शक्तिशाली हुआ। बंगाल में मुस्लिम स्थिति को हिन्दू उड़ीसा से गंभीर खतरा था। असम पर दूसरा मुस्लिम आक्रमण भी पहले जैसा बुरी तरह विफल रहा जिस में मुस्लिम जेनरल की जान गई और पूरी मुस्लिम फौज खत्म हो गई। अब बिहार में हिन्दू सरदारों ने मुस्लिम सैनिक छावनियों को नुकसान पहुँचाना शुरू कर दिया। दिल्ली के निकट चंदेल मथुरा तक आगे बढ़ आए थे। अलवर के राजपूत हाँसी तक छापे मारने लगे थे, और दिल्ली क्षेत्र के मुसलमानों को भी डर सताने लगा। हिन्दुओं के फिर खड़े होते इस ज्वार के विरुद्ध बलवन को मामूली सफलता ही मिली। उसे कई हानियाँ उठानी पड़ी। 1289 ई. में बलवन के मरने तक सल्तनत एक बार फिर दिल्ली के गिर्द एक छोटे से टुकड़े में सिमट गई थी।

अब तक की स्थिति का सार डॉ . रमेश चंद्र मजूमदार ने इन शब्दों में दिया है :
" 13 वीं सदी में विंध्य पर्वत के दक्षिण में संपूर्णतः हिन्दू शासन था । उसी सदी में उत्तर भारत में भी शक्तिशाली राज्य थे जो मुस्लिम शासन के अधीन न थे , या अपनी स्वतंत्रता के लिए अब भी लड़ रहे थे ... यहाँ तक कि भारत के उस भाग में भी जो मुस्लिम शासन को मानता था , हिन्दुओं के छोटे - बड़े दस्तों द्वारा निरंतर विद्रोह और बहादुरी से प्रतिरोध होता रहता था । इस से एक के बाद एक मुस्लिम शासकों को बार - बार उसी क्षेत्र में सुसज्जित सेनाएं भेजनी पड़ती थी ... वस्तुत : पूरी 13 वीं सदी में उत्तर भारत में मुस्लिम मता अनेक बड़े केंद्रों में सैनिक कब्जे जैसी थी जो कब्जा भी बहुत प्रभावी नहीं था , सारे इलाके का प्रशासन चलाना तो दूर की बात रही । "

जलालुद्दीन खिलजी पिछले शासनों में छिन गए इलाकों में किसी को भी फिर लेने में सफल न रहा। उस से बहुत अधिक अलाउद्दीन खिलजी सफल रहा। उस के जनरल उलूघ खान और नुसरत खान ने 1298 ई . में गुजरात पर फिर कब्जा किया । लेकिन वे रणथंभौर से हराकर वापस भेज दिए गए, जिसे अलाउद्दीन फिर 1301 ई. में नियंत्रण में ले सका । 1303 ई . में उस की चित्तौड़ विजय अल्प - जीवी रही क्योंकि 1316 ई. में उस की मौत के बाद सिसोदियाओं ने उसे वापस छीन लिया । राजस्थान में उस की जालौर विजय का भी वही हश्र हुआ। उस के साथ मलिक कफूर के महाराष्ट्र में देवगिरि, आंध्र प्रदेश में वारांगल , कर्नाटक में देवसमुद्र ,और तमिलनाडु में मदुराई के विरुद्ध अभियान भी तात्कालिक छापे से अधिक कुछ न साबित हुए । क्योंकि आक्रमणकारियों के जाते ही इन सभी राजधानियों में हिन्दू राजाओं ने अपना स्वतंत्रता पुनः घोषित कर दी। और 1316 ई. में अलाउद्दीन के मरते ही खिलजी साम्राज्य ध्वस्त हो गया।

गयासुद्दीन तुगलक के बेटे जीना खान को 1321, 1323, 1324 ई. में हरा कर भगा दिया गया। वह अधिक सफल तब हुआ जब उसने मोहम्मद तुगलक के नाम से सत्ता संभाली। लेकिन सत्ता के बिल्कुल आरंभ में ही उसे मेवाड़ के महाराणा हम्मीर से हार खानी पड़ी, बंदी बनाया गया, और तभी छोड़ा गया जब उसने अजमेर, रणथंभौर और नागौर पर अपना सारा दावा छोड़ तथा हर्जाने में 50 हजार रूपए दिए। और विंध्य के दक्षिण में उसका साम्राज्य उसके जीवनकाल में ही दिल्ली के हाथ से निकल गया। 1351 ई. मैं उसके मरते ही उत्तर के सभी बड़े हिस्से में भी दिल्ली की पकड़ लुप्त हो गई। कुछ समय तक बचे कुछ इलाके को बचाए रखने में फिरोज शाह तुगलक सफल रहा लेकिन 1399 ई. में तैमूर के हमले के बाद पूरी तरह खत्म हो गया। इसी बीच, कृष्णा नदी के दक्षिण में विजयनगर साम्राज्य ने हिंदू शक्ति धारण कर ली और राजस्थान में मेवाड़ के अभिमानी राजपूतों का शासन फिर से स्थापित हुआ।

तुगलकों के बाद 1414 ई. मैं सैयदों का शासक वंश शुरू हुआ जिनकी पकड़ केवल पूरब में इटावा (उत्तर प्रदेश) दक्षिण में मेवात (हरियाणा) तक हि सिमटी रही और सैयदों को 1451 ई. मैं लोदियों ने बेदखल कर दिया। लेकिन लोदियों का शासक भी ज्यादा दिनों तक टिक ना सका और इब्राहिम लोदी के अंतर्गत लोदी साम्राज्य लगभग टूट गया। तब तक उत्तर में राणा सांगा के अंतर्गत मेवाड़ सबसे शक्तिशाली राज्य के रूप में उभर चुका था। हिंदू उड़ीसा उत्तर में मुस्लिम बंगाल और दक्षिण में बहमनियों के विरुद्ध मजबूती से जमा रहा। विजयनगर की शक्ति कृष्णदेवराय( 1505- 1530 ई.) के दिनो अपने उत्कर्ष तक पहुंच गई थी।

14 वीं और 15 वीं शताब्दियों के बीच की स्थिति का सार डॉ . रमेश चन्द्र मजूमदार ने इन शब्दों में दिया है : " खिलजी साम्राज्य बीस वर्षों ( 1300 1320 ई . ) की संक्षिप्त अवधि में उठा और गिर गया । मुहम्मद बिन तुगलक का साम्राज्य .. उस के सत्ता संभालने ( 1325 ई . ) के दस वर्ष के अंदर टूट गया , और अगला दशक समाप्त होने से पहले तुर्क साम्राज्य सदा के लिए खत्म हो गया... इस प्रकार, खिलजी और मुहम्मद बिन तुगलक के दो अत्यंत संक्षिप्त साम्राज्य को छोड़कर भारत में कोई तुर्क साम्राज्य नहीं था। यह स्थिति लगभग ढाई सदियों तक रही, जब तक कि 16वीं शताब्दी के उत्तरार्ध में मुगलों ने एक स्थिर और लंबा साम्राज्य नहीं स्थापित कर लिया "

बाबर ने कुछ प्रसिद्ध लड़ाई जीती पर शायद ही कोई साम्राज्य बना पाया हो। उसके बेटे हुमायूं शेरशाह सूरी कई बार हारा और बाबर के जीते हुए राज्यों को भी वापस लेने में असफल रहा। शूर साम्राज्य केवल 5 वर्ष ( 1540-1545 ई.) की संक्षिप्त अवधि तक रहा। और दूसरी तरफ हिंदू सेनापति हेमू ने 1556 ई. मैं दिल्ली में हेमचंद्र विक्रमादित्य के रूप में अपना अभिषेक कराया।

अकबर द्वारा 1556 ई. मैं स्थापित मुगल साम्राज्य 150 वर्षों तक चला। 17वीं सदी के अंत तक यह दक्षिण धुर को छोड़कर संपूर्ण भारत में फैला। किंतु मुगल साम्राज्य की सफलता का श्रेय अकबर की बुद्धिमत्ता को जाता है जिससे उसने राजपूतों को आपस में लड़वा दीया और उसकी सेना में राजपूत जर्नल और सैनिक ही थे जिन्होंने वे कई लड़ाइयां जीती जिनका श्रेय मुगलों ने लिया। मैं राजपूत राज्यों में राजस्थान और बुंदेलखंड केवल नाम को ही मुगल बादशाह के अधीन थे। व्यवहारिक रूप में वे मुगलों के बराबर के सहयोगी जैसे थे जिनके साथ मुगलों का सद्भाव बना कर रखना आवश्यक था। और मेवाड़ ने तो प्रभावी मुगल काल के संपूर्ण दौर में भी हिंदू प्रतिरोध की ध्वजा लहराए रखी।

औरंगजेब के आते ही उसकी बर्बरता और पागलपन के कारण मुगल साम्राज्य तेजी से बिखरने लगा। औरंगजेब के जीवन काल में ही राजस्थान और बुंदेलखंड ने अपनी स्वतंत्रता घोषित कर दी। वहीं भरतपुर और मथुरा के जाटों ने भी किया। और मराठों ने तो औरंगजेब की कब्र खोद दी। इसी हिंदू विद्रोह ने औरंगजेब की 1707 ई. में मौत के दो दशक के अंदर मुगल साम्राज्य को तोड़ डाला।

निष्कर्ष
संपूर्णता आकलन करें तो, 12 वीं सदी के अंतिम दशक से 18 वीं सदी की पहली चौथाई तक– वह अवधि जिसे भारत में मुस्लिम शासन काल कहा जाता है– मुस्लिम आक्रमणकारियों और हिंदू स्वतंत्रता सेनानियों के बीच लंबे खींचे युद्ध के काल से अधिक कुछ नहीं है। हिंदुओं ने कई लड़ाइयां हारी और बार-बार पीछे हटे। लेकिन हर बार वे फिर उठे, और लड़ाई फिर शुरू की जिस से अंततः शत्रु थक, हार गया, और अंतिम दौर में बिल्कुल बिखर गया जो शिवाजी के उदय से शुरू हुआ था।

इसलिए , यह कहना सच्चाई को विकृत करना है कि इस्लाम ने छ : सदियों तक भारत में साम्राज्य भोगा। वास्तव में इस्लाम छः सदियों तक भारत पर स्थाई कब्जे के लिए लड़ता रहा, किन्तु हिन्दुओं के कड़े और निरंतर प्रतिरोध के सामने अंतिम दौर में हार गया । शायर हाली ने बिलकुल सटीक लिखा था कि हिजाज का अपराजेय जंगी बेड़ा, जिस ने कई सागरों और नदियों पर जीत हासिल की, वह गंगा के दहाने में आकर डूब गया। इकबाल ने भी गमजदा होकर अपने शिकवा में उसी विफलता की याद की है। वस्तुतः, ऐसे मुस्लिम कवियों और नेताओं की कोई कमी नहीं जो अतीत में भारत में इस्लाम की हार का रोना रोते हैं , और जो भविष्य में भारत को फिर जीतने की उम्मीद रखते हैं ।

हिन्दू अपनी मातृभूमि में बहुसंख्यक बन कर जीवित रहे , तो इसलिए नहीं कि इस्लाम ने उन्हें जीतने और धर्मातरित कराने में कोई कसर छोड़ी थी । बल्कि इसलिए कि इस्लामी क्रूरता को स्वतंत्रता के लिए हिन्दू जीवट में अपने से अधिक शक्तिशाली विरोधी मिला । न ही यह कहीं भी सच के निकट है , कि ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य ने भारत में मुस्लिम साम्राज्य की जगह ली । भारत की राजनीतिक शक्ति पहले ही राजपूतों, मराठों, जाटों, सिखों के हाथ आ चुकी थी जब ब्रिटिशों ने यहाँ अपना साम्राज्यी खेल आरंभ किया।

Is Nehruvian secularism morally bankrupt?

On April 16, A Horrifying visuals have emerged in the Palghar lynching incident where a mob of over 100 people killed two Sadhus and their driver even as the Police stood there as mute spectators, just letting the barbaric act unfold.

In the vedio that floated on social media, one of the Sadhus is running to save his life and trying to latch on to the policeman as the cop he releases himself and walks away, leaving the Sadhu to the mob. At around 42 seconds into the video, one could hear one of the bystanders scream “maar, Shoaib, maar”.

Did we hear anything from a libtard or a secularist who tweets on every single issue? Is this Nehruvian secularism? let's look at Nehruvian secularism...

The word secular was firstly raised by Nehru in a Constituent Assembly. But not added that time, In 1975 at the time of emergency Indira Gandhi dexterously added this in the Constitution.

The word secular is defined in the dictionaries as "the belief that the state, morals, education, etc. should be independent of religion." But in India it means only one thing — eschewing everything Hindu and espousing everything Islamic.

The most pertinent and crushing critique of Nehruvian secularism was made by K.M MUNSHI. He states :

"In its (secularism) name, anti-religious forces, sponsored by secular humanism or Communism, condemns religious piety, particularly in the majority community.

He further states:
In its name, again, politicians in power adopt a strange attitude which, while it condones the susceptibilities, religious and social, of the minority communities, is too ready to brand similar susceptibilities in the majority community as communalistic and reactionary. How secularismn sometimes becomes allergic to Hinduism will be apparent from certain episodes relating to the reconstruction of Somnath temple. ...These unfortunate postures have been creating a sense of frustration in the majority community. .If however the misuse of this word 'secularism' continues...
if every time there is an inter-communal conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the questions; if our holy places of pilgrimage like Banaras, Mathura and Rishikesh continue to be converted into industrial slums... the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up".

The fears expressed by K.M MUNSHI on the Nehruvian secularism are valid even today. 'More 'secularism" in India will end up feeding what is fights: the so-called 'Hindu fundamentalism'.

Sitaram goel views on Nehruvian secularism : The concept of Secularism is a gross perversion of the concept which arose in the modern West as a revolt against Christianity and which should mean, in the Indian context, a revolt against Islam as well. The other concept of Secularism, namely, sarva-dharma-samabhava was formulated by Mahatma Gandhi in order to cure Islam and Christianity of their aggressive self-righteousness, and stop them from effecting conversions from the Hindu fold. This second concept was abandoned when the Constitution of India conceded to Islam and Christianity the right to convert as a fundamental right. Those who invoke this concept in order to browbeat the Hindus are either ignorant of the Mahatna's intention, or are deliberately distorting his massage.

The Nehruvian version of secularism, which has done more harm to the polity than good. it has fitted one caste against another and one community against the another and prevented the so called minority communities from integrity with the national mainstream. The nehruvians have considered India not as a Hindu nation but as a multi racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural cockpit. Just like Britishers, they have tried their best to suppress the mainstream society and culture through "minorities", that is,  the colonies crystallized by imperialism. They also tried to divide our society in fragments, and create more "minorities" in this process. In fact, it has always been their full-time occupation to eliminate every expression of Hindu culture, to subvert every symbol of Hindu pride, and persecute every Hindu organisation, in the name of protecting the "minorities".The nehruvian formula is that a Hindu should stand accused in every situation, regardless of the real culprit.

In words of Sitaram goel, if India is to live, Nehruism must die.

What did Ambedkar say about muslims?

American historian Eric Louis Beverly informs us in his book Hyderabad, British India, and the World that the Nizam of Hyderabad had offered Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar Rs. 75 million if he and his community members converted to Islam. He said:  "The brotherhood in Islam is confined to the believers; that is, only to Muslims. It cannot promote universal brotherhood. I will not convert to islam". He saw conversion to Islam as a factor contributing to the 'denationalisation' of Dalits.

According to Dr Ambedkar, the brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man.
"It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is fraternity but its benefit is confined within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.
..... Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was deprived from Islam and Islamic countries".

He argues that Islam can never allow 'a true Muslim' to adopt India as his motherland. He says the religion tells faithful to treat non-Muslims (Kafirs) as enemies. A kafir is inferior and without status. 'That is probably the reason why Maulana Mohammad Ali, a great Indian but a true Muslim, preferred to be buried in Jerusalem rather than in India.'

According to Muslim cannon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Cannon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans-but it cannot be the land of the Hindus and Musalmans living as equals'. Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land become subject to the authority of a non-Muslims power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.

It might also be mentioned that Hijrat is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Cannon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes "incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rules of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The world, being divided into two camps. Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb (abodr the of war), all countries come under one category or the other. Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam. The fact remains that India,  if not exclusively under Muslim rule, is a Dar-ul-Harb and the  Musalmans according to the tenets of Islam are justified in proclaiming a Jihad. Not only can they proclaim jihad but they can call the aid of a foreign Muslim power to make Jihad success, or if the foreign Muslim power intends to proclaim a Jihad, help that power in making its endeavour a success.

In Pakistan and Partition of India, Dr Ambedkar writes:
The existence of social evils among the Muslims is distressing enough . But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organised movement of social reforms among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication . . . they oppose any change in the existing practices.
Islam is a system of social self- government and is incompatible with local self - government , because tie allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in this country which is his but on the faith to which the belongs To the Muslims ibi bene ibi patria ( Where it is well with me, there is my country ) is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country.

Book review: Aavarana- the veil by S.L BHYRAPPA

शुरुआत कुछ मूलभूत प्रशनों से। "हमें इतिहास क्यों पढ़ना चाहिए?"  हमें अपने पूर्वजों के जीवन के बारे में क्यों पढ़ना चाहिए? हमें उन राजाओं के बारे में क्यों पढ़ना चाहिए जिन्होंने हमारे देश पर कई सदियों तक राज किया? जिन्होंने महान स्मारकों का निर्माण किया और विभिन्न रीति-रिवाजों और अनुष्ठानों के प्रवर्तक थे? विश्व के विद्वान पुरुष हमें इसका उत्तर देते है। "इतिहास उन लोगों के लिए अभिशाप बन जाता है जो अपना इतिहास दोहराते हैं।"  खैर, एक बार जब हम इतिहास पढ़ना शुरू करते हैं, क्या हम जो इतिहास हम पढ़ रहे हैं वह प्रमाणिक है बड़ा सवाल ये भी होना चाहिए।

वे कहते हैं कि इतिहास हमेशा विजेताओं द्वारा लिखा जाता है और हारने वालों का इसमें कोई स्थान नहीं। हारने वाले इतिहास में कहीं लुप्त हो जाते हैं।  सच है, मेरे लिए इतिहास विजेताओं की "कहानी" है।  हालाँकि, हमें उन लोगों का क्या करना चाहिए जो अपने और अपने राजनीतिक आकाओं की जरूरत के हिसाब से इतिहास को ‌तोड़ मरोड़ कर जनता के सामने पेश करते हैं?  ऐसे परिदृश्य में जहां एक पक्ष पहले से ही वंचित है और दूसरे पक्ष के बारे में वे अपने वैचारिक जरूरतों के हिसाब से इतिहास को लिखते हैं। ऐसे समय में जो इतिहास पढ़ना चाहते हैं क्या वे इतिहास में हुई घटनाओं की सत्यता जान पाएंगे?

प्रसिद्ध कन्नड़ लेखक एस. एल भैरप्पा अपनी पुस्तक "आवरण" में स्वयंभू इतिहासकारों और बुद्धिजीवियों के इन कृत्यों को उजागर करने की कोशिश की है।

किताब की शुरुआत एक ऐसी घटना से होती है, रज़िया कुरैशी हंपी में जो भी देखती है न जाने क्यों वे दृश्य उसे अंदर तक झकझोर देता हैं। लेकिन उसे क्या पता था जो वे देख रही है वह तो केवल एक लहर मात्र है उस समुद्र का जो से पार करना है। उसी समय एक बुरी खबर उसका इंतजार कर रही थी जो उसे अंदर तक तोड़ देती है उसके पिता जिनके साथ वे अपने सारे संबंध तोड़ चुकी थी उनका स्वर्गवास हो जाता है लेकिन यह खबर उसके जीवन में सब कुछ बदल देता है

यह खबर सुनते ही वह अपने पैतृक गाँव चली जाती है पिता तो नहीं होते लेकिन वे अपने पिता की निजी लाइब्रेरी में सजी किताबों को पढ़ने लीन हो जाती है।  उसे उन किताबों में क्या मिलता है?  यह उसके जीवन और उसके आसपास के लोगों के जीवन को कैसे प्रभावित करता है? और उन किताबों को पढ़ने के बाद वह क्या करती है?  यह सब जानने के लिए किताब पढ़िए।

यह केवल एक उपन्यास मात्र नहीं है, यह भारत के मुसलमानों के रीति-रिवाजों, प्रथाओं और जीवन की जानकारी के बारे में पाठकों की चेतना को जागृत करने वाली हैं।  यह हमें इतिहास के दूसरे पहलू से अवगत कराती है और हमें एक पूरी तरह से अलग दुनिया में ले जाती, जहाँ मुगलों ने इस राष्ट्र पर प्रभुत्व जमाया था। उनके क्या रीति-रिवाज थे?  उन्होंने अपने रीति-रिवाज मानने वालों के साथ कैसा व्यवहार किया और ना मानने वालों के साथ कैसा। और उन्होंने उन लोगों के साथ कैसा व्यवहार किया, जिन पर उन्होंने विजय प्राप्त की?
आदि...

मुझे पुस्तक में क्या पसंद आया?  वास्तव में बहुत कुछ। इस तरह की किताब को लिखने के लिए पर्याप्त मात्रा में शोध की आवश्यकता पड़ती है, और यह लिखने के लिए विनम्र साहस चाहिए।  हां, यह मुगल शासन के व्यापक रूप से स्वीकृत दृष्टिकोण के खिलाफ जाती है और उस समय के लोगों पर बर्बरता को तथ्यों और आंकड़ों के सामने लाती है।  यह सब साबित करने के लिए वह उस समय के मुगल इतिहासकारों द्वारा लिखी गई पुस्तकों का संदर्भ देते है जो किताब के अन्तिम पृष्ठों में दिए गए हैं।

इस पुस्तक को पढ़ना वास्तव में मेरे लिए एक शिक्षाप्रद अनुभव था।  जैसा कि श्री भैरप्पा स्वयं कहते हैं, "सत्य को छिपाने का कार्य संस्कृत में आवरण कहलाता है, झूठ फैलाने के कार्य को विक्षेप कहते हैं" इस पुस्तक को पढ़ें और समझें कि इस देश के इतिहास को बताते हुए सच्चाई को कैसे छुपाया गया।

किताब पढ़े और दूसरो को भी पढ़ने के लिए प्रोत्साहित करें।

Is the Indian Constitution anti India ?

Our country is one of the six oldest countries of the world, which are India, China, Egypt, Greece, Babylon and Mesopotamia. In so far as Babylon and Mesopotamia are concerned, they do not occupy today any position of importance in the world. If we look at Greece, we find that the ancient Greece can be seen only in its ruins, The culrure and civilisation of ancient Greece is not accepted in the Greece of the present day. Christian Culture and civilisation is now dominant there. In so far as Egypt is concerned, its ancient culture and civilisation is found only in its Pyramids. If one goes to Egypt today, he would hardly find there the ancient culture and civilisation of Egypt. Today the Muslim culture and civilisation are there. In so far as China is concerned we can see a little of the Culture and civilisation of India of the Buddhist age combined it its after effects. But there too we find mostly the effect of the modern age. In this way in five out of those six ancient countries, we do not find their ancient cultures. Only India is one of those six ancient countries where the tradition of its ancient culture and civilisation can be seen in a very field of life.

India is Hindu, Indian philosophy is Hindu philosophy, Indian nationalism is Hindu nationalism, Hindu culture and tradition is Indian culture and tradition. In another word India is a synonym of Hindu.

the Indian Constitution is ‘un-Indian’ or ‘anti-Indian’ because it does not reflect the political traditions and the spirit ofIndia. They said that the foreign nature of the Constitution makes it
unsuitable to the Indian situation or unworkable in India. 

In this context, K.Hanumanthaiya, a member of the Constituent Assembly, commented : “Wewanted the music of Veena or Sitar, but here we have the music of an Englishband. That was because our constitution-makers were educated that way”.

Similarly, Lokanath Misra, another member of the Constituent Assembly, criticized the constitution as a “slavish imitation of the west, much more – aslavish surrender to the west”. 

Further, Lakshminarayan Sahu, also amember of the Constituent Assembly, observed : “The ideals on which this draft constitution is framed have no manifest relation to the fundamentalspirit of India. This constitution would not prove suitable and would break down soon after being brought into operation”.

H.V. Kamath declared, "Nothing is Indian in the proposed constitution of India.

let's understand the un-indianness nature of Indian Constitution on the following grounds:
1. Democracy

The idea of democracy was not alien to India. one can find references of sabha and samiti in the Rig Veda and the Atharv Veda. The The Rig Veda tells us the position of king is not absolute. Kautilya's Arthasastra discusses different forms of republics and citizens' role in decision-making. During the Buddhist period, we find several kingdoms adopting democratic methods to elect their kings, history has it that Vaishali's king Vishal was elected by the people. When Mahatma Gandhi talked about establishing Village Republics' he was only aiming at revival of socio-political structures based on ancient yet robust principles of democracy developed by our forefathers.

But,  Today, we follow the Western model of democracy. Can there be an Indian paradigm? Sri Aurobindo has the answer. He writes :
"It has been said that democracy is based on the rights of man; it has been replied that it should rather take its stand on the duties of man; but both rights and duties are European ideas. Dharma is the Indian conception in which rights and duties lose their artificial antagonism created by a view of the world which makes selfishness the root of action, and regain their deep and eternal unity. Dharma is the basis of democracy which Asia must recognise, for in this lies the distinction between the soul of Asia and the  soul of Europe".

2. Secularism

The word secular was firstly raised by Nehru in a Constituent Assembly. But not added that time, In 1975 at the time of emergency Indira Gandhi deceitly added to this in the Constitution.

The Nehruvian version of secularism, which has done more harm to the polity than good. it has fitted one caste against another and one community against the another and prevented the so called minority communities from integrity with the national mainstream.

The word secular is defined in the dictionaries as "the belief that the state, morals, education, etc. should be independent of religion." But in India it means only one thing — eschewing everything Hindu and espousing everything Islamic.

The most pertinent and crushing critique of Nehruvian secularism was made by K.M MUNSHI. He states :
"In its (secularism) name, anti-religious forces, sponsored by secular humanism or Communism, condemns religious piety, particularly in the majority community. .In its name, again, politicians in power adopt a strange attitude which, while it condones the susceptibilities, religious and social, of the minority communities, is too ready to brand similar susceptibilities in the majority community as communalistic and reactionary. How secularismn sometimes becomes allergic to Hinduism will be apparent from certain episodes relating to the reconstruction of Somnath temple. ...These unfortunate postures have been creating a sense of frustration in the majority community. .If however the misuse of this word 'secularism' continues...if every time there is an inter-communal conflict, the majority is blamed regardless of the merits of the questions; if our holy places of pilgrimage like Banaras, Mathura and Rishikesh continue to be converted into industrial slums... the springs of traditional tolerance will dry up".

The fears expressed by K.M MUNSHI on the Nehruvian secularism are valid even today. 'More 'secularism" in India will end up feeding what is fights: the so-called 'Hindu fundamentalism'.

3. constitution written in foreign language

We had the opportunity to written the constitution in our own national language but we frame our Constitution in a alien language, even in free india. Even today we face many difficulties to interpretate the constitution. In this matter Seth Govind Das said:
"the Constitution of this ancient country has been framed in a foreign language even after the attainment of independence. I have always been drawing your attention to this shortcoming. You had assured us, not once, but more than once, that you also desired that our Constitution should be in our national language. In my opinion we would have definitely succeeded in this task if we had made an attempt. We have been sitting here for three years to pass this English draft. I think it would not have been either impossible or even inconvenient to have set for one month more and passed the Hindi constitution. I wish to say that our passing the Constinuition in a foreign language after the end of our slavery and attainment of independence would for ever remain a blot on us. This is a badge of slavery a sign of slavery. You may publish the translation by the 26th January, still, I would say frankly that a translation will after all remain a translation. The translation cannot replace the original and whenever any constitutional difficulty arises, whenever any constitutional point arises before our Supreme Coun, High Court or any other Court, we would have before us a Constitution in a foreign language and therefore 1 feel the domination of that foreign language. This will always hurt us and I am thinking of the day, dreaming of the day when our country will form another Constituent Assembly and that Constituent Assembly will place our original Constitution before us in our national language".

Conclusion : the constitution of India is nothing but a vast copy of the provisions of the lengthy government of India act 1935. the constitution was prepared by rich persons for the interest of rich persons only in the name of people. It perpetuates oligarchy of limited person in name of democracy of the people. it could not appraise Indian problems and their solutions in Indian ways. It attempted to find the solution of Indian problem in western constitutionalism. clearly it is a plantation of Euro-American constitution. To put it plainly the constitution is  foreign to the people of India.