Jammu & Kashmir tests Hindu resolve – 3
by Radha Rajan on 09 Dec 2009 11 Comments

Reclaiming the Hindu nation in Kashmir

Gandhi’s megalomaniac presumption that his definition of this nation and sense of nationhood was binding upon the INC and would prevail uncontested, is the one single cause lying beneath Indian polity’s continued pampering of Muslims and Christians in ways that pose the biggest threat to the territory of the Hindu nation.

 

Gandhi parroted ‘Ramanama’ as the palliative for all ills, including malaria, even while he rejected the historicity of Srirama. It is not without reason that Hindu ithihasas are chronicles of the mightiest kings as protectors of dharma prevailing over equally mighty offenders of dharma; this is in civilisational contrast to western history which is only a record of invasions and conquests by their kings and by their church, leaving in their wake untold narratives of irreversible destruction. The Ramayana, Mahabharata and our dharmasutras, which record in the minutest detail the dharma of the King and the citizen, inspired Kautilya’s Arthasastra, the Hindu nation’s authoritative treatise on statecraft.

 

When Gandhi rejected the historicity of Srirama and the Mahabharata, he in fact rejected the Hindu nation, its nationhood and the exhilarating tradition of rajadharma. The Ramayana and Mahabharata constitute the best in the history of the Hindu nation, because they emphasize that the ultimate duty of the King is to protect the Hindu nation by enforcing dharma as the ordering principle of life. Hindu dharma or Hinduism and the Hindu nation are therefore an indivisible whole. When they have been torn apart from each other, the Hindu nation has lost territory.

 

Islam and Christianity are inherently antithetic to dharma because at the core of these two religions is the predatory intent to conquer territory not their own, and to annihilate other religions, cultures and peoples who do not submit to their jealous god. They are antithetic to dharma because diversity is the essence of dharma; and these two monotheisms homogenize all human life within a single intolerant paradigm.

 

The God of the Muslims and the Christians has an avaricious appetite for territory. Islam and Christianity are therefore inimical to the Hindu nation and the dharma which permeates this nation. This has to be kept firmly in mind when the Hindu nation will finally summons the resolve to deal with J&K in a manner that fulfills the objectives of rajadharma and rashtradharma.

 

Nation is both territory and people, said Kautilya; it follows therefore that the king or the state must protect not only the nation’s frontiers to safeguard the territory from external aggressors, but also ensure that the people inhabiting the nation do not pose a threat to its territory or to its nationhood. The Hindu nation is paying the price of Gandhi’s description of this nation when he declared that this nation belonged equally to Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsees and Beni-Israelis; and Nehru’s megalomania which made J&K his private dunghill. When and if the religious tenets of Muslims and Christians, Sikhs, Parsees and Beni-Israelis pose a threat to the territory and nationhood of the Hindu nation, it behooves the king or the state to annihilate the threat.

 

Kautilya’s definition of nation as being both territory and the people of that territory is the most accurate and concise so far. The Abrahamic religions spread their tentacles across the globe conquering continent after continent not only by conquering territory by the sword, but also by converting non-Abrahamic peoples to their faiths, also by the sword. They posed a threat to the nation not only by threatening the territory, but also the nationhood by de-rooting the people from their civilisational, dharmic roots.

 

This is how Hindu Kashmir became Muslim-majority Kashmir; the change to the religious demography was effected not only when Kashmir’s rulers became Muslim through the agency of Muslim queens and concubines, but also by the Sufi cancer. What Islam was doing to Hindu Kashmir, it was doing to Hindu and Buddhist Indonesia and around the same time.

 

The challenge posed to the Hindu nation in Kashmir is the state’s Muslim population. If Hindu leaders would only pay heed to Kautilya, they will know that at the core of resolving the problem of J&K is to dilute its Muslim identity. If the leaders will summon the will to move in this direction, the road to our objective will reveal itself.

 

While Gandhi had an un-Hindu and politically flawed understanding of this nation and of who was a national, Nehru had no sense of nationhood. Between them, they led the Hindu nation to vivisection in 1947, which injected the poison of Muslim separatism and Christian aggression into the body politic of post-independence India.

 

As pointed out earlier, the Cabinet Mission document concealed in its cleverly worded proposals not only the ticking bomb of Pakistan, but also the ticking time bomb of J&K. Mountbatten (read London) did not care if Cochin, Bhopal, Hyderabad and Kurundwad acceded to India or to Pakistan, or declared independence. The energy and the seeming sincerity with which Mountbatten applied himself to the task of persuading the rulers to accede to India or Pakistan actually concealed his real interest – the frontier province of J&K, which at its northernmost tip adjoined both Afghanistan and Central Asia.

 

When paramountcy lapsed with transfer of power, imperial London made it abundantly clear that paramountcy would not be passed on to the new governments in India and Pakistan, but would revert to the rulers. Thus the decision to accede to India or Pakistan or declare independence was entirely up to the rulers of the princely states. London could have done nothing to prevent the princely states from declaring independence. At worst, the British government could have refused to recognize these independent entities. Indian rulers declaring independence would have feared Nehru’s antipathy more than distant London. The following points deserve to be reiterated –

 

-          Jinnah’s Muslim League shrewdly favoured independence of princely states as the second option after total constitutional integration, because some of the Muslim states in what would soon be post-independence India were rich beyond belief, and Jinnah wanted nothing better than Muslim thorns and splinters in the bleeding flesh of the body of the vivisected Indian nation

 

-          Nehru’s INC was strongly opposed to independence for precisely this reason, but foolishly favoured accession to India , surrendering only Defence, Communications and External Affairs to the Union government

 

-          The Muslim League, with a far superior understanding of politics and the future implications of such a limited control over the princely states, rejected the idea, and the Instrument of Accession drafted for the princely states by Pakistan was completely different from that which was drafted by India

 

-          The Muslim League insisted on total constitutional integration of the princely states acceding to Pakistan with all sovereignty vesting at the center; therefore none of the princely states acceding to Pakistan had the right to constitute their own constituent assemblies

 

-          Thus all princely states acceding to India, and not just J&K, as envisaged in July 1947, planned their own constituent assemblies which would draft the constitution for each of the princely states as they desired

 

The princely states of Cochin, Mysore and the Union of Saurashtra did indeed constitute their own constituent assemblies, but finally conceded to total constitutional integration with India.

 

All except J&K. Nehru retained the right to handle J&K affairs with him, and the nation may never know what transpired in private between Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah, what deals were struck and what promises were made. We can be certain of one thing though; nothing would have been recorded in writing and this too would have been at Sheikh Abdullah’s behest.

 

Verbal promises made, assurances given and deals struck in private have no witnesses and are not binding; thus Abdullah could and did renege, retract and resile with impunity. What we do know, however, is that Nehru assured Sheikh Abdullah that J&K would receive special treatment. And so while all princely states acceding to India gave up their right to convene their own constituent assemblies, Sheikh Abdullah demanded that J&K would not surrender its right to have a constitution of its own.

 

Why was J&K special and why did Nehru not permit Patel to totally integrate the state constitutionally into the Union?

 

While the Instrument of Accession signed by the rulers of the states was acknowledged to be binding upon the people of the states, why did Nehru allow the people of J&K alone the right to ratify the accession signed by their King?

 

Why were the people of J&K more special than the people of the other princely states? And how is Raj Thackeray’s ‘Marathi Manoos’ exclusivism any different from the Hurriyat and other jihadi claims of Kashmir is for Kashmiris only?

 

Gandhi and Nehru both subscribed to the idea that this was not a Hindu nation; therefore they made common cause with Sheikh Abdullah even after he had issued the ‘Quit Kashmir’ call to the Hindu king. Gandhi and Nehru made common cause with the Muslims of the kingdom against their Hindu ruler. It is not surprising that the Congress cannot and will not set down the coffin of the political legacy of Muslim separatism in J&K bequeathed to them by Gandhi and Nehru; but the Hindu nation is not obliged to carry this coffin.

 

When Gandhi did not question Sheikh Abdullah’s call to the Hindu king to ‘Quit Kashmir’, he conceded that the Hindu ruler had no place in Kashmir. By implication, Gandhi also conceded Sheikh Abdullah’s right to give that call; in effect Gandhi conceded Abdullah’s claim to the territory of J&K. Gandhi’s political vacuity and Nehru’s monumental hubris is matched only by the Himalayan greed of contemporary intellectual mercenaries parading as human rights advocates who endorse that J&K is disputed territory and that only the Sunni Muslims of the state can speak for all the people of the state, including the Kashmiri Hindus, Jammu Hindus and Ladakhi Buddhists. 

 

Savarkar’s exposition on who had the right to claim the Hindu nation as his own is brilliant for its clarity. In his Presidential address at the 19th session of the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha in Karnavati (Ahmedabad) in 1937, Savarkar stated in words of one syllable that only they, for whom this bhumi is both punyabhumi and pitrubhumi, can claim the Hindu nation to be their own. Pitrubhumi must be translated as land of our forefathers and ancestors.

So, while a great section of Indian Muslims and Christians can claim this bhumi to be the land of their forefathers, this bhumi is not their punyabhumi or holyland. Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Vatican, Mecca and Medina are the holylands for adherents of these religions and so they cannot claim this bhumi as theirs. While Hindus of Indonesia and Buddhists across the world may consider India their punyabhumi, this nation is however not their pitrubhumi. So while they are our co-religionists, they too cannot claim this Hindu bhumi as their own. The Hindu nation is thus both territory and people – punyabhumi and pitrubhumi. 

 

The Hindu nation cannot be hamstrung by Gandhi, Nehru, Mountbatten, UN or internationalism in any form from reclaiming the Hindu nation in Kashmir. The first step in the direction would be to divide the state into three smaller states – Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmir. Kashmiri Hindus who have been genocided and hounded out of their homeland refuse to live with Kashmiri Muslims again. Kashmiriyat for them has turned sour in their mouths. But they have to go back to their land. The only way this can be done is to carve a portion of the Kashmir Valley for the Kashmiri Pandits as their homeland.

 

While no Muslim, not even the seminar hoppers in India or the Sazawals in the US will offer any solution not in line with Muslim separatism, intellectual mercenaries like Sandeep Pandey, Arundhati Roy, Akhila Raman and Madhu Kishwar will not bat an eyelid before mouthing inanities like self-determination, independence, autonomy, greater autonomy, self-rule, shared-sovereignty and borderless Kashmir. Completely in line with Nehru’s secret parleys with Sheikh Abdullah where the rest of the INC or the nation did not know what was given or conceded, the incumbent Home Minister is engaged in similar secret parleys with the Hurriyat Conference.

 

The Hurriyat is a creature made from the cloth of Bill Clinton’s hubris when Monica Lewinsky was still in the future and Clinton had time on his hands. If Hindu nationalists understand this, then they would know how to deal with this disparate jihadi khichdi with competing claims for the ‘best jihadi’ title in its ranks.

 

If the Muslims of J&K, who constitute just 66.97% of the state population, think they are special and a class apart from the rest of India and are therefore entitled to the Hindu territory in Kashmir, then the 85% of Hindus across India cannot be standing on the sidelines watching Muslims and Christians carving up their bhumi like so many vultures on carrion. If the Hindu nation is not carrion for Islam and the Church, then Hindus must steel themselves to reclaim the Hindu nation in Kashmir, not only for the Hindus of the valley, but also for the Hindus of the Hindu nation. We have to do what we have to do.

 

(Concluded)

The writer is Editor, www.vigilonline.com

User Comments Post a Comment
Comments are free. However, comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. Readers may report abuse at  editorvijayvaani@gmail.com
Post a Comment
Name
E-Mail
Comments

Back to Top