---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: G
I hadn't seen this earlier though you might have. I like the bit about India's historians being liars! Spot on!! Just in case anyone doesn't know, Nirad-babu was a crank, but a well-read one, who had little positive to say about either Bengalis or Hindus and his views are not influenced by what our secularists would instantly deem Hindu bigotry.
G
===============
Q: You have been following whatever has been going on in India: the
incident in Ayodhya, the communal riots and so forth.
A: There must be a complete recognition of the historical responsibility
on both sides. They must not try to avoid it. All Hindu historians are
liars. From 1907 onwards we became aware of the Hindu-Muslim problems as
regards the nationalist movement. From that date until 1946 every fellow
Bengali I have asked and every other Indian too had only one standard
argument: The Hindu-Muslim problem does not exist. It has been created
by the British.
My point is that it is the very nature of things. That what happened in
Ayodhya should not have happened is another matter. But I say that the
Muslims do not have the slightest right to complain about the
desecration of one mosque. From 1000 AD every Hindu temple from
Kathiawar to Bihar, from Himalayas to the Vindhyas has been sacked and
ruined. Not one temple was left standing all over northern India. At the
beginning of the 18th century the Jesuit priest and mathematician
Tippenthaler noticed in the evenings as he traveled from Malwa the
flickering flames of tiny earthen lamps placed by the villagers at some
risk to themselves. Temples escaped destruction only where Muslim power
did not gain access to them for reasons such as dense forests. Otherwise
it was a continuous spell of vandalism. No nation with any self-respect
will forgive this. They took over our women. And they imposed the jizya,
the tax. Why should we forget and forgive all that? What happened in
Ayodhya would not have happened had the Muslims acknowledge this
historical argument even once. Then we could have said: Alright, let the
past remain in the past and let us see how best we can solve this
problem.
From the 18th century onwards the Hindus took the offensive. They would
not allow the Muslims to lead their way of life. In the '30s I wrote
several articles on the subject. The last one is in 1939. I have not
changed my views from the ones I expressed then. The gist of the
argument is that the Hindu view of life and the Muslim view of life are
completely oriented towards a clash. The Muslims were the first to
invent the theory of permanent revolution. The communist took over from
them. No Muslims can live under the political domination of
non-Muslims. Secondly, Muslims divide the world into two; regions of
peace and regions of conflict. It is the duty of every Muslim to bring
the latter within the fold of Islam. The Arab equivalent of the caliph
is "Commander of the Faithful". And his obligation is jihad (holy war).
Where do you think the word mujahedin comes from? Mu in Arabic means 'to
be with'. Mujahid is to be with the jihad and Mujahedin is its plural.
Why, I ask the English people, do you call them fundamentalists in Kabul
and nowhere in England? The reason is that the English people have
become completely ignorant. What is more, like us, they have cannot
face reality.
European civilisation is going down. So too is Indian civilisation. We
became independent after 700 years. We should have had a new life. Like
the Japanese. But we did not."
Nirad Chaudhari in an interview by Dileep Padgaonkar to The Times of
India August 8, 1993
===============
Q: You have been following whatever has been going on in India: the
incident in Ayodhya, the communal riots and so forth.
A: There must be a complete recognition of the historical responsibility
on both sides. They must not try to avoid it. All Hindu historians are
liars. From 1907 onwards we became aware of the Hindu-Muslim problems as
regards the nationalist movement. From that date until 1946 every fellow
Bengali I have asked and every other Indian too had only one standard
argument: The Hindu-Muslim problem does not exist. It has been created
by the British.
My point is that it is the very nature of things. That what happened in
Ayodhya should not have happened is another matter. But I say that the
Muslims do not have the slightest right to complain about the
desecration of one mosque. From 1000 AD every Hindu temple from
Kathiawar to Bihar, from Himalayas to the Vindhyas has been sacked and
ruined. Not one temple was left standing all over northern India. At the
beginning of the 18th century the Jesuit priest and mathematician
Tippenthaler noticed in the evenings as he traveled from Malwa the
flickering flames of tiny earthen lamps placed by the villagers at some
risk to themselves. Temples escaped destruction only where Muslim power
did not gain access to them for reasons such as dense forests. Otherwise
it was a continuous spell of vandalism. No nation with any self-respect
will forgive this. They took over our women. And they imposed the jizya,
the tax. Why should we forget and forgive all that? What happened in
Ayodhya would not have happened had the Muslims acknowledge this
historical argument even once. Then we could have said: Alright, let the
past remain in the past and let us see how best we can solve this
problem.
From the 18th century onwards the Hindus took the offensive. They would
not allow the Muslims to lead their way of life. In the '30s I wrote
several articles on the subject. The last one is in 1939. I have not
changed my views from the ones I expressed then. The gist of the
argument is that the Hindu view of life and the Muslim view of life are
completely oriented towards a clash. The Muslims were the first to
invent the theory of permanent revolution. The communist took over from
them. No Muslims can live under the political domination of
non-Muslims. Secondly, Muslims divide the world into two; regions of
peace and regions of conflict. It is the duty of every Muslim to bring
the latter within the fold of Islam. The Arab equivalent of the caliph
is "Commander of the Faithful". And his obligation is jihad (holy war).
Where do you think the word mujahedin comes from? Mu in Arabic means 'to
be with'. Mujahid is to be with the jihad and Mujahedin is its plural.
Why, I ask the English people, do you call them fundamentalists in Kabul
and nowhere in England? The reason is that the English people have
become completely ignorant. What is more, like us, they have cannot
face reality.
European civilisation is going down. So too is Indian civilisation. We
became independent after 700 years. We should have had a new life. Like
the Japanese. But we did not."
Nirad Chaudhari in an interview by Dileep Padgaonkar to The Times of
India August 8, 1993
No comments:
Post a Comment