AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        As I was watching the TV this morning, I heard the news that two people were killed and several injured on Thursday when groups of Hindus and Muslims clashed over prayers at a Hindu temple near Aligarh town in Uttar Pradesh. It is reported that the trouble started after Muslims objected to the use of loudspeakers overnight by Hindus, who were celebrating the birthday of the Hindu God Rama. Knives, bricks and bamboo sticks were used in the fighting, and police reported gunshots being fired. Eight of the injured are reported to be in a critical condition. I do expect the government of Uttar Pradesh (ably abetted by the UPA government only in respect of this matter concerning Muslims!) to appoint another Chatterjee or Mukherjee Commission, totally devoid of any positive energy animated by any valid principle or theme to create yet another 'accident' out of this rabid communal incident taking place under the umbrella of minority rights! Aligarh, which has a large Muslim population, has seen frequent clashes between Hindus and Muslims in the past. India's most-populous State Uttar Pradesh, which has a 17 per cent Muslim minority, has a history of communal violence. Incidentally, it will not be irrelevant to mention that eighteen people were killed and dozens were injured last month by bomb blasts, carried out by Islamic militants, in Uttar Pradesh's holy Hindu town of Varanasi. It is positively disgusting to see that in our own country where Hindus are in majority are not in a position to offer their prayers in their own temple even on Ramanavami Day.

        Prafull Goradia, former Member of Parliament and an eminent writer on the most shunned subject in India called 'Saffronised Hinduism' or 'Saffronised Hindutva', writes with tremendous verve, incisive logic and unsurpassed historical analysis on this sensitive subject. He is particularly sharp and pointed in his reasoning relating to 'entente' between the Hindus and Muslims in India for nearly 1300 years starting from the Arab conquest of Sind in 712 AD. In this context, all the Hindus of India, regardless of their caste, colour and creed, have to pay special attention to his prophetic words in his path-breaking book 'HINDU MASJIDS':

        'Hindu Masjids personify the deep chasm, or the sharp conflict between the Hindu ethos and Muslim zealotry. The conflict must be resolved. Why are we anxious? For the simple reason that without resolution of this problem, India cannot acquire the spirit of collective honour. And without national pride, the country cannot leap forward. Individual citizens may flourish or shine, as they do even now, whether at home or overseas. But the collective performance of the country disappoints'.

        Many great saints and Samaritans have earnestly endeavoured to bridge the chasm between the Hindus and Muslims in our history. No one tried more heroically than Mahatma Gandhi who went to the extent of leading the Khilafat Movement in 1919 whose logical conclusion was anti-national. With all his unrequited love for the Muslims, the partition could not be avoided. Jinnah succeeded in selling his product of two-nation theory to the Muslims and thus Pakistan was born in 1947. Gandhiji failed as a bridge-builder mainly because he did not understand or comprehend the mismatch between the Hindu psyche and the Muslim mind. Every average Hindu believes in the conceptual purpose of self-actualisation. In other words, he tries to fulfill himself by the best of Karma which should eventually lead to Moksha , Mukti or Nirvana. The Hindu universe consists of all living beings including animals, birds, reptiles, etc. Since Hinduism believes in the trans-migration of souls, it enjoins upon all Hindus to eschew all forms of violence.

        On the other hand the 'Judaic traditions' are different in letter and spirit. The Judaic approach, whose most aggressive vanguard is Islam, attempts to divide humanity between Jews and Gentiles, Christians or Heathens, Momins and Kafirs. Quran imposes upon every Muslim the supreme moral duty of converting as many Kafirs as possible to his religion. While doing so, he has to try and dominate whatever and whomever he can at all costs. No wonder 'domination' is the central thrust of Islam, whereas 'accommodation' is the bedrock of Hinduness or Hindutva or Hinduism. The challenge before all of us today is to bridge the gulf between the desire to dominate and the readiness to accommodate. The tragedy is that we do not have great leaders in authority in New Delhi today to meet this challenge with courage, judgement, vision and integrity.

        Jinnah thought that he could bridge the chasm between the Muslims and the Hindus by creating Pakistan. Unfortunately even the creation of Pakistan has not helped in bridging the gap. Almost all Hindu leaders have been at once afraid, hypocritical and opportunistic. Mortal fear of the Muslim has been deep and wide. Since it is embarrassing for many Hindu leaders to openly admit this solid fact they have taken cover behind the political curtains of 'secularism', broadmindedness, compassionate Islam and minority rights. This is nothing but sheer political opportunism out of opportunism. Minority appeasement in order to garner the Muslim votes has become the torchbearer of these leaders.

        An average Muslim in India today is completely unaware of the extent to which his forefathers, including kings, emperors and common men, have continuously hit the Hindu psyche for centuries and hurt it in so deep a manner. The question to be asked is how is he to know? The Hindu historians and the Hindus have done little to tell him. On the contrary, many Hindu political leaders have gone out of their way to patronise and pamper the Muslims for electoral support. No attempt has been made to bridge the communication gap between the Hindus and the Muslims, to be frank and to enable a heart to heart dialogue. Soon after Nelson Mandela became the President of South Africa, a Reconciliation Commission was appointed to hear the grievances of the blacks and the whites. Instead of attempting to do this, the Human Resources Destruction Minister (HRD) of India tries to remove the portions from the school text books relating to the destruction of temples in India by the Muslim invaders and the Muslim Kings in India for 1000 years and more.

        Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who founded the Aligarh Muslim University, did not belong to the Sangh Parivar or the RSS. Therefore, he can be considered as a truly secular authority and not as a pseudo-secular political opportunist like Arjun Singh. In his work 'Asar-us-Sanadid' Sir Syed Ahmed Khan wrote:

        'Quwawat al-Islam Masjid: 'When Qutubu'd-Din the commander-in-Chief of Muizzu'd-Din Sam alias Shihabu'd-Din Ghuri, conquered Delhi in AH 587 corresponding to AD 1191 corresponding to 1248 Bikrani, this idol-house or temple (Rai Pithora) was converted into a mosque. The idol was taken out of the temple. Some of the images sculptured on walls or doors or pillars were effaced completely. Some were defaced. But the structure of the idol-house or temple kept standing as before. Materials from 27 temples, which were worth Rs 5.4 crores were used in the mosque, and an inscription giving the date of conquest and his own name was installed on the eastern gate'.

        A British civil servant called F S Growse of the Bengal Civil Service was Collector of Mathura in the old United Provinces of Agri and Oudh in 1882. In his book called 'Mathura: A District Memoir,' he wrote: 'The neighbourhood is crowded with sacred sites, which for many generations have been reverenced as the traditionary scenes of Krishna's adventures, but thanks to Muslim intolerance, there is not a single building of any antiquity either in the city itself or its environs. Its most famous temple, that dedicated to 'Kesava Deva', was destroyed, as already mentioned, in 1669, the 11th year of the reign of iconoclastic Aurangazib. The mosque erected on its ruins is a building of little architectural value, but the natural advantages of the lofty and isolated position render it a striking feature in the landscape'.

        This solid secular truth must be faced squarely if only bring about Hindu-Muslim unity and to secure the unity of India. Arjun Singh is trying to remove paragraphs of this kind from school textbooks with the same vigour as were displayed by the Muslim invaders of the 12th Century, in the name of pseudo-secularism. I have no doubt that he would even go to the extent of issuing a notification that Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was the earliest precursor of the Sangh Parivar of today, rabid communal, anti-national and definitely anti-Congress and anti-UPA. I imagine that Arjun Singh's only prayer to Allah today could be that F S Growse should be re-created so that he can punish him as he thinks he has punished Dr Rajput, former Director of the NCERT. As a firm believer in Sanathana Dharma and Hinduism and no less educated than Arjun Singh in the pseudo-secular sense, my only prayer to Lord Rama on this Ramanavami Day is to save our nation as also Arjun Singhs and the like from the AIDS of pseudo-secularism!