“Nations debilitate not by dint of their past but rather

by how they are taught it”.

For the last 75 years, we have been taught to airbrush
our history and forget historical injustices, from
Somnath to Kashi Vishwanath, from Babarpur to
Bakhtiyarpur, and from Allahabad to Aurangabad.
These injustices have somehow wantonly been made
discernible, as though to aggrandize the debasement and
celebrate the mortification. Why? Today we know more
about the Mughals than about Shivrai, Rana Pratap,
and Prithviraj Chauhan. Why? Because history written
by the conquistadors is peddled by the pulverized and
we have been thoroughly pulverized.
We have to accept that this is a country where people
still go and pray at the sepulcher of the Brobdingnagian
Aurangzeb. The same Aurangzeb who decapitated Guru
Teg Bahadur, tormented Sambhaji Maharaj, put the
kibosh on Kashi Vishwanath, dismantled over 1 million
temples, and liquidated 4.6 million Indics.

1|Page
This is a country where Guru Arjan Dev was coerced to
sit on a sweltering plate and cooked alive by the Mughal
potentate Jahangir and what do we do? We immortalize
Jahangir in our films as that affable feather towing
lovey-dovey Salim.
This is the country where the altruistic man who ever
sojourned on the surface of Earth called Shivaji and
Rana Pratap as misconceived jingoes and where Bhagat
Singh was given the nom de plume of a “terrorist”. This
is the country where proponents of the Babri Masjid
espoused by the Muslim community were nescient of
Farsi and in the court proceedings mentioned that they
found it impenetrable to transliterate the Farsi texts and
put them before the court in a familiar vernacular. This
is the country where the executioners of the Jallianwala
Bagh massacre were venerated and proselytized for such
meritorious actions. This is the country where the talk
about the Nazi holocaust or Japanese holocaust might
seem magnanimous but the talk of the Hindu holocaust
is believed to be callous. This is the country where a
High Court judge was repudiated a seat in the Supreme
Court by Indira Gandhi just because he attended the
obsequies of Gowalkar.
2|Page
This is the country where a celebrated historian or at
least a stated historian Ramachandra Guha did not want
Delhi roads to be baptized after Chhatrapati Shivaji
Maharaj, the man who gave birth to a confederation
stretching from Peshawar to Plassey because in Guha's
words - “The black man was a little-known regional
figure and a feudal Lord who endorsed cast hierarchy”.
This is the country where Kareena Kapoor and Saif Ali
Khan take contentment in baptizing their son ‘Taimur’,
and where Akhilesh Yadav takes gratification in having
the diminutive ‘Tipu’ or ‘Tipu Sultan’. The same Tipu
Sultan who wrote a Manifesto which was a hysterical
proclamation calling for all Muslims to come together
for the sake of metamorphosing infidels and wave Jihad.
Forget about extricating, forget even history. What in
the first place do we mean by history? As a connoisseur
of science, the time scale that allures me is not 100 or
500, or 1000 years but one billion or five billion or even
as the recent staggering James Webb telescope images
have disseminated for us is ‘13.5 billion years.’

3|Page
On this time scale, I am not Indian, I am Ethiopian, and
not the scion of Mahavira but of AL 288-1 or Dinkinesh.
I am not a creation of design but of a conspiracy hatched
by thunder, lightning, water, Ammonia, hydrogen,
carbon, methane, and dust.
Let religion and its mesmerizing literature not
hornswoggle you into weening you were concocted by
someone who wasn't a product of the RNA world. The
amalgamated efforts of the human imagination have
endowed Intergalactic aliens with two eyes, two ears, one
nose, four Limbs, and one brain. Yes! We think that
Darwinism beats with us and that an alien worthy of
being our antagonist has to look and think like us. Of
course, it does. After all, we are the masters of the
universe. We sit at the top of the tree of life and what we
contemplate from that wantage is beneath us crawling,
writhing, inept, imbecile, and wanting to be us. Nothing
could be further away from the veracity. We the people
are, but a bunch of living and suspiring cells. That's all,
we do not sit at the top of the tree of life.

4|Page
We barely manage to hang on to one of its hundred-odd
branches. We are a cock in this Brobdingnagian
throbbing machine called Evolution, only a minuscule
cock. The contemporary tree of life is humbling to stare
at. It tells us that we are just one of the billions of
animals in Animal Farm.
Such an idea was blasphemous barely a century ago.
Imagine telling all those continent-conquering folks that
their bodies had more bacteria than human cells, that
bugs grapple with us.
Humans survive only because of the exquisite amity we
have struck with the rest of the living beings. No one is
Napoleon in this Animal Farm and so nothing matters,
whether our primogenitors were brilliant or not,
whether our culture is primordial or not, whether our
religion is of the first water or not. We are but a
picayune bunch of cells.
Then why does History matter? It matters because
science has to be forged on an edifice of observation and
brute facts. After all, the meticulous assimilation of it
corroborates us and ameliorates us to persevere with
minute contradistinctions.

5|Page
Scientists like black and white, while historians love the
Great Grey. This grey has given mankind only
despondency. Because of the grey, some people still
believe in religious books or in Mao, Hitler, Tipu,
Rhodes, Churchill, Rhodes, Pol Pot, Gandhi, Sir Syed,
Allama Iqbal, Aurangzeb, and hundreds of men and
women who have perpetrated abominable crimes and
effectuated horrendous atrocities. But the grey has
exonerated them because they also did some good.
Grey is Social Darwinism gone berserk. Grey has
birthed Mephistophelian empires and believers of the
grey have feted them. It becomes germane to remind the
readers that a magnanimous dictator is still a dictator; a
benevolent criminal is still a criminal; a religious book
that sermonizes hate in addition to munificence is still a
malicious religious book.
A believer in grey is a purveyor of hypocrisy and that is
why he doesn’t even see it as hypocrisy. It comes
naturally to him because it stems from the core belief in
the grey – that your veridical and brighter half will be
looked back on and your mendacious and darker half
will be obliterated.

6|Page
Worse, our history has been written by those who
believe in the grey. And as encrypted earlier, these
injustices have somehow wantonly been made
discernible, as though to aggrandize the debasement and
celebrate the mortification.
The derision is that the same people who have taught us
this drilled this self-loathing in us. These same people,
men, and women of Grey, want others to fight historical
injustices around the world. They chastise Barbarians of
the West hitherto worshipped like the Confederate
General Lee, Rhodes, Pizzaro, Murray, Coston, and
Leopold.
They commemorate their roads and buildings being
rechristened and their statues being brought down. But
here in India, the same lot eulogizes Tipu, Aurangzeb,
Babur, and Khilji. They roister the destruction of Kashi
Mathura, Ayodhya, and Martin. Why?
To me, the mark of civilization is this insatiable thirst, to
stipulate egalitarianism for your antecedents, to rectify
historical wrongs. For that, exemplifies a continuity, a
postulation, a reminiscence that can never be expunged,
that is worth scrimmaging and preserving.

7|Page
It makes egalitarianism greater than the summation of
its parts, which is why civilizations are not fugacious like
Empires.
That is why history is medicine. Catharsis is a panacea.
If images could enunciate a million words, it would be
that of the Gyan Vapi Mosque built atop Kashi
Vishwanath obliterated by Aurangzeb. If often stones
could speak and not just mewl, the anecdotes they would
tell of Mathura idols being used as stepping stones in a
mosque. Why? Shouldn't Mathura and Kashi be washed
off the transgressions the tyrants perpetrated on them?
But the Supreme Court has willfully ratified the Places
of worship act that obligates maintaining all religious
places as they were on August 15, 1947. Our Parliament
and our Supreme Court wouldn't have done this, but
they have. Why? Because we are petrified of swotting
our true history. It chills our blood, that's why. That is
why we need to redress and emancipate India from
distorted history.

8|Page
“Hindu Gods and their idols are as dirty as their ugly
and horrible to look at and witnessing the destruction of
Temple idol gives me so much joy” unquote. The person
who said this was the prime mover of the Goa
Inquisition which led to the transmutation,
tormentation, and extermination of multitudinous
Hindus. His name was Saint Xavier. Even our Hindu
Chauvinistic Prime Minister Narendra Modi
panegyrizes him. This is why we need to liberate our
history.
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of historical
examples but just one would pass muster for the positive
time, Tipu Sultan. Peruse his manifesto written in his
own words. And as encrypted earlier, it was a hysterical
proclamation calling for all Muslims to come together to
wave Jihad. Annihilation of the infidels is a sanctified
onus, he writes.

9|Page
The Hindus of Courg weathered a particularly infernal
onslaught, slayed, exasperated, and forced conversions,
even lifeless Hindus were transmogrified by Tipu Sultan.
Tipu vitiated 800 temples, and 27 churches, incarcerated
60,000 Christians, converted 30000, and butchered 1000,
and yet we call him an ideogram of communal harmony.
We have Doordarshan and National shows on it. We
laud when an Indian purchases the Tipu sword. We laud
when the effigy of the nefarious xenophobe King
Leopold of Belgium is toppled, but we memorialize Tipu
Jayanti because despots who butcher Hindus are not
despots. They are luminaries which is why it is germane
to redress this balance.
From the Aryans to Aurangzeb, from Saint Xavier to
Shivaji our historians have chosen what to stash,
contrive and divulge. The singular raison d’etre for this
is this craving for the patronage of an ideology, a
government, an Ecosystem, or a clique. And once our
historians are done with their contortions, we the
Readers sit back and savor the inexorable fallout - the
outing of hypocrisy.

10 | P a g e
The Left outs the hypocrisy of the Right and the Right
outs the hypocrisy of the Left and great column yards
are churned out as a result of such skirmishes. But we
forget – an outing of hypocrisy is a virtue as long as it
doesn't turn one into a whited sepulcher. Well, it does;
every single time.
Villains are made into paragons and paragons are made
into villains. The derision is that we adulate it this way.
Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah - they are to be extolled; they are
to be made into demiurges, into atlases who carry the
weight of our credo and our biases on the nape of their
necks.
History as folklore; folklore as history. It conforms to
what we are - ambivalent of our present and
pusillanimous of our future. The Left-wing does not
want to hear anything about Nehru that might put him
in a bad light; the Right-wing does not want to hear
anything about Gowalkar that might put him in a bad
light. And the Velcro historians don’t want to write
anything about anyone that might put them in cloistered
incarceration, away from all light.

11 | P a g e
Fear and palpitating, this is what this is, and the whole
nation chugs along on this exanimate yet simmering
cold. A journey to nowhere; slowly, limping, enervating;
until you latch on to what the ostentatious plan always is
- to appropriate. How else do we elucidate foreign
pernicious ideologies and their proponents like Karl
Marx, Stalin, Mao, and Leopold?
Do you now understand how scrutinizing a particular
history can languish a nation because when you
panegyrize these monsters like Gandhi, Nehru, Mao,
Churchill, Stalin, and Pol Pot; you also decide to walk on
their path and incapacitate the nation. Do I need to
untangle what the communists did to Bengal? Look what
they did to anything they touched. They marred
anything they touch, and they still aggrandize Stalin and
Mao despite knowing the whole ball of wax about these
monsters.
Mao neutralized 7 crores of his people, 5 crores in 4
years flat. If you might conjecture that I am encrypting
abstract and metaphysical gobbledygook, then recall
who wanted to scuttle the Indo-US nuclear deal. Recall
who was against the Green Revolution.

12 | P a g e
Recall who was against the setting of a blood donation
camp during the 1962 Indo-China war. Recall who
admonished a fellow communist Ashutanandan for
setting up a blood donation camp. Recall who hailed the
Tiananmen Square Bartholomew that extirpated 11,000
innocents. Recall who was against liberalization. These
people and their political parties are still among us in
our societies, in our communities, in our universities,
and even in our own Parliament.
The more we are ignorant of our history, the more we
are taught it erroneous, and the more these sadists come
to power.
Let us now delve into the contemporary aspects of our
history. Here, this paper will only deal with the
ostensible modern India. The damage that our
institutions have done in teaching this part of our history
in expounding various chronicles of it, the damage is
much more. In fact, the damage is catastrophic because
it is shaping not only the next generation but also the
present one.

13 | P a g e
History is an account, but it becomes a weapon if it is
appurtenant in a contemporary setting and it has been
weaponized by Congress and the left to an unfathomable
extent which has enfeebled the nation.
This is to be illustrated with examples because that is the
splendiferous way to explain it. It begins with Mahatma
Gandhi who more than anyone else repudiated us the
truth, disprove us with the ability to think, gainsaid us
the spirit to be critical of religion, and denied us
catharsis itself. The person who wanted us to be critical
only of the people and the things he infatuated with.
This paper issues the animadversion of the Mahatma by
employing a Brahmastra in the shape of a man whom
the Mahatma felt consternated about the most, Dr.
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. Nations are not galvanized
through apportioning ancestral genes, they are not
shown the righteous path through gene pool
commandments. Nations need purity of the mind more
than that of the heart. Nations need Catharsis and our
nation hasn’t got the wind of this catharsis.

14 | P a g e
This is because we choose to follow the grey and not the
black and white. We chose to follow the road traversed
by Mahatma and not Ambedkar. To put it brazenly,
Mahatma Gandhi was a man of grey, Ambedkar of
black and white. History shows that men who plump for
black and white are abhorred by all because this world
runs on grey. Grey authorizes us to wash our
transgressions after we have effectuated them. It permits
us to be exonerated. Grey licenses us to worship and be
worshipped. Grey is religion.
We know everything that Ambedkar said about
Hinduism, but do we have an infinitesimal clue about
what he said about Islam?
From his myriad philippics and multitudinous
pedagogical works, we know Ambedkar as someone who
fought and unearthed the heinous ills of Hinduism, and
we applaud him for it. That Ambedkar left Hinduism
and adopted Buddhism is in itself a stinging appraisal of
the whilom. Knowing him, nothing more needs to be said
as a critique of Hinduism. Such is the credence one can
put in the man.

15 | P a g e
What we don’t know, however, is what he ruminated
about - Islam. Because this facet of Ambedkar has been
camouflaged from our general discourse and textbooks,
it may come as a whammy to most that Ambedkar
thought customarily of Islam and spoke perpetually
about it.
The cold and fiendish India of the adolescent Ambedkar,
that shaped his views on Hinduism and Hindus – and of
which this wordsmith has written hitherto – soon
became the cold and sadistic India of the septuagenarian
Ambedkar, allowing him, through an anatomization of
Islam and Muslims, to make sense of a nation hurtling
towards an excruciating and sanguinary partition.
A distillate of Ambedkar’s thoughts on Islam and
Muslims can be found in Pakistan or The Partition Of
India, a conglomeration of his writings and harangues,
first publicized in 1940, with successive editions in 1945
and 1946. It is a flabbergasting book in its scope and
acuity, and reading it one cottons why no one talks of it,
possessing as it does the potential to turn Ambedkar into
an Islamophobic bigot for his congregants on the Left.

16 | P a g e
Here, then, is Ambedkar’s on Islam:
“Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast, Islam
is said to bind people together. This is only a half-truth.
For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a
close corporation and the distinction that it makes
between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very
positive, and very alienating distinction.”
“The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal
brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for
Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is
confined to those within that corporation. For those who
are outside the corporation, there is nothing but
contempt and enmity.”
“The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social
self-government and is incompatible with local self-
government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not
rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the
faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim 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. In other words, Islam can never allow a
true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and
regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.”

17 | P a g e
This scathing indictment by Ambedkar of Islam never
finds a mention in our history books. Indeed, even in
Ambedkar.org, a primary resource site for Ambedkar,
the chapter that contains this tempestuous passage is
hyperlinked and, unlike other prevenient chapters, not
nimbly discernible as a protraction under the sub-
heading Part IV. The idea is to skip it, not click it.
But then this is India – a beau idea must not be adjudged
as a Villain even though the fool’s neorxnawang is
entirely of our making. Well, we know a cut above; he
didn’t mean to say those things about Islam; perhaps he
was fallacious; let us look at the milieu; damn, no, that’s
not of any help here; tell you what, let us gag him; for
the greater good; for societal consonance; for the sake of
IPC Section 295A and our reposeful future.
Selective reading of Ambedkar, which is meant reading
only his damnatory (and entirely substantiated)
animadversion of Hinduism, has led to a ubiquitous view
that only Hinduism is laden with cultural and religious
ills. One can see this even today when the Left and its
ideologues point selectively to the social and religious
evils of Hinduism.

18 | P a g e
As a concomitant, someone who isn’t acquainted with
India may get the intuition that it is only Hinduism and
Hindus who are to censure for every ill and parochialism
that plagues us. The veracity, of course, is that social and
religious dogmatism runs in our veins, it always has and
it always will, for none other than the consecrated
scriptures of all religions have eulogized it. It is
Ambedkar himself who, clairvoyantly and fiercely,
points to this sanctimony.
“The social evils which characterize the Hindu Society,
have been well known. The publication of ‘Mother
India’ by Miss Mayo gave these evils the widest
publicity. But while ‘Mother India’ served the purpose
of exposing the evils and calling their authors at the bar
of the world to answer for their sins, it created the
unfortunate impression throughout the world that while
the Hindus were groveling in the mud of these social
evils and were conservative, the Muslims in India were
free from them, and as compared to the Hindus, were a
progressive people. That, such an impression should
prevail, is surprising to those who know the Muslim
Society in India at close quarters.”

19 | P a g e
Ambedkar then proceeds to talk in scathing terms of
child marriage, partisanship, chauvinistic adherence to
faith, the position of women, polygamy, and other such
practices in vogue among proselytes of Islam. On the
subject of caste, Ambedkar goes into great detail, and no
punches are pulled.
“Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood.
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 derived
from Islam and Islamic countries. But if slavery has
gone, caste among Musalmans has remained. There can
thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in
India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the
Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social
evils of the Hindus and something more. That something
more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim
women.”

20 | P a g e
Those who rightly anathematize Ambedkar for leaving
the fold of Hinduism, never ask why he transmogrified
to Buddhism and not Islam. It is because he adjudged
Islam as no better than Hinduism. And keeping the
political and cultural aspects in mind, he had this to say:
“Conversion to Islam or Christianity will denationalize
the Depressed Classes. If they go to Islam the number of
Muslims will be doubled and the danger of Muslim
domination also becomes real.”
On Muslim politics, Ambedkar is mordacious, even
contumelious.
“There is thus a stagnation not only in the social life but
also in the political life of the Muslim community of
India. The Muslims have no interest in politics as such.
Their predominant interest is religion. This can be easily
seen by the terms and conditions that a Muslim
constituency makes for its support to a candidate
fighting for a seat.”

21 | P a g e
“The Muslim constituency does not care to examine the
program of the candidate. All that the constituency
wants from the candidate is that he should agree to
replace the old lamps of the masjid by supplying new
ones at his cost, to provide a new carpet for the masjid
because the old one is torn, or to repair the masjid
because it has become dilapidated. In some places, a
Muslim constituency is quite satisfied if the candidate
agrees to give a sumptuous feast, and in others, if he
agrees to buy votes for so much a piece.”
“With Muslims, the election is a mere matter of money
and is very seldom a matter of social programs of
general improvement. Muslim politics takes no note of
purely secular categories of life, namely, the differences
between rich and poor, capital and labor, landlord and
tenant, priest, and layman, and reason and superstition.
Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognizes only
one difference, namely, that exists between Hindus and
Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any
place in the politics of the Muslim community and if they
do find a place—and they must because they are
irrepressible—they are subordinated to one and the only
governing principle of the Muslim political universe,
namely, religion.”

22 | P a g e
The psychoanalysis of the Indian Muslim by Ambedkar
is unequivocally plumbly pernicious to those on the Left
who have appropriated him. How they desiderate he had
never written such things. They try their best to dismiss
his writings on Islam and Muslims by taking refuge in
the time-tested excuse of “milieu”. That’s right.
Whenever text troubles you, rake up its milieu.
Except that in the case of Ambedkar, this palliate falls
flat. Ambedkar’s panorama on Islam – in a book with
fourteen chapters that deal unreservedly with Muslims,
the Muslim Pneuma, and the Muslim Condition – are
stand-alone statements robustly buttressed with quotes
and teachings of savants, Muslim leaders, and eggheads.
To him these are maxims. He isn’t writing concoction.
The context is superfluous; in fact, it is insubstantial.
Read the following statements:
“The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal
brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for
Muslims only.”
“There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those
within that corporation. For those who are outside the
corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity.”

23 | P a g e
“The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social
self-government and is incompatible with local self-
government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not
rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the
faith to which he belongs.”
“Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own
country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true
Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a
Hindu as his kith and kin.”
If you are hunting for a milieu to the above statements,
you have just outed yourself as a pessimistic apologist.
Well, you are not unchaperoned. Some of India’s most
exalted hagiographers, scholiasts, writers, and
thumbsuckers, include Ramachandra Guha and
Arundhati Roy – both of whom have written copiously
on Ambedkar, through stand-alone chapters or books
like The Doctor and the Saint; India after Gandhi;
Democrats and Dissenters; Makers of Modern India –
are conspicuously taciturn on Ambedkar’s views on
Islam and the Muslim psyche. This is a story the
apologists do not want to tell.

24 | P a g e
On the allegiance of a Muslim to his motherland [India],
Ambedkar writes:
“Among the tenets, one that calls for notice is the tenet
of Islam which says that in a country which is not under
Muslim rule, wherever there is a conflict between
Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must
prevail over the latter, and a Muslim will be justified in
obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the
land.”
“The only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or
soldier, whether living under a Muslim or a non-Muslim
administration, is commanded by the Koran to
acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to his Prophet, and
those in authority from among the Musalman.”
“This must make anyone wishing for a stable
government very apprehensive. But this is nothing to the
Muslim tenets which prescribe when a country is a
motherland to the Muslims and when it is not.
According to Muslim Canon 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.”

25 | P a g e
“That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India
cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and
the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans—
but it cannot be the land of the ‘Hindus and the
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 becomes subject to the
authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land
of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam, it
becomes Dar-ul-Harb.”
“It must not be supposed that this view is only of
academic interest. For it is capable of becoming an
active force capable of influencing the conduct of the
Muslims. It might also be mentioned that Hijrat
[emigration] is not the only way of escape for Muslims
who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another
injunction of Muslim Canon Law called Jihad (crusade)
by which it becomes incumbent on a Muslim ruler to
extend the rule of Islam until the whole world shall have
been brought under its sway.”

26 | P a g e
“The world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam
(abode of Islam), and Dar-ul-Harb (abode 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.” And just as there are instances of the Muslims
in India resorting to Hijrat, instances are showing that
they have not hesitated to proclaim Jihad.”
On a Muslim adulating the ascendancy of an elected
government, Ambedkar writes:
“Willingness to render obedience to the authority of the
government is as essential for the stability of the
government as the unity of political parties on the
fundamentals of the state. No sane person can question
the importance of obedience in the maintenance of the
state. To believe in civil disobedience is to believe in
anarchy. How far will Muslims obey the authority of a
government manned and controlled by the Hindus? The
answer to this question need not call for much inquiry.”

27 | P a g e
This view isn’t much disparate from the views of Jinnah
and the Muslim League. Indeed, in the then
preponderate climate, engineered or otherwise, these
views could be seen as legitimate from the point of view
of an apprehensive minority. However, the raison d’etre
that Ambedkar gives for this predilection is not at all
diplomatic but, rather nonplussing, religious. He writes:
“To the Muslims, a Hindu is a Kaffir. A Kaffir is not
worthy of respect. He is low-born and without status.
That is why a country that is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-
Harb to a Musalman. Given this, no further evidence
seems to be necessary to prove that Muslims will not
obey a Hindu government. The basic feelings of
deference and sympathy, which predispose persons to
obey the authority of government, do not simply exist.
But if proof is wanted, there is no dearth of it. It is so
abundant that the problem is what to tender and what to
omit. Amid the Khilafat agitation, when the Hindus were
doing so much to help the Musalmans, the Muslims did
not forget that as compared with them the Hindus were
a low and inferior race.”

28 | P a g e
Ambedkar isn’t done yet. On the paucity of reforms in
the Muslim community, he writes:
“What can that special reason be? It seems to me that
the reason for the absence of the spirit of change in the
Indian Musalman is to be sought in the peculiar position
he occupies in India. He is placed in a social
environment that is predominantly Hindu. That Hindu
environment is always silently but surely encroaching
upon him. He feels that it is de-musalmanazing him. As a
protection against this gradual weaning away he is led to
insist on preserving everything that is Islamic without
caring to examine whether it is helpful or harmful to his
society. Secondly, the Muslims in India are placed in a
political environment that is also predominantly Hindu.
He feels that he will be suppressed and that political
suppression will make Muslims a depressed class. It is
this consciousness that he has to save himself from being
submerged by the Hindus socially and politically, which
to my mind is the primary cause of why the Indian
Muslims as compared with their fellows outside are
backward in the matter of social reform.”

29 | P a g e
“Their energies are directed to maintaining a constant
struggle against the Hindus for seats and posts in which
there is no time, no thought, and no room for questions
relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is all
overweighed and suppressed by the desire, generated by
the pressure of communal tension, to close the ranks and
offers a united front to the menace of the Hindus and
Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious unity at
any cost. The same is the explanation for the political
stagnation in the Muslim community of India.”
“Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories
of life as the basis of their politics because to them it
means the weakening of the community in its fight
against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the
poor Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants
will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the
landlord. Muslim laborers will not join Hindu laborers
in the fight for labor against capital. Why? The answer
is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the
fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting
against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that if he
joins in the campaign against the landlord, he may have
to fight against a Muslim landlord.”

30 | P a g e
“A Muslim laborer feels that if he joins in the onslaught
of labor against capital, he will be injuring a Muslim
mill owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich
Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or a Muslim mill-owner,
is a disservice to the Muslim community, for it is thereby
weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community.”
Then, Ambedkar writes something that would
unequivocally vindicate him as a certified Islamophobe
and a bigot in the jaundiced eyes of those who have
appropriated him.
“How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by
the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political
reforms in the Indian States. The Muslims and their
leaders carried on a great agitation for the introduction
of a representative government in the Hindu State of
Kashmir. The same Muslims and their leaders are
deadly opposed to the introduction of representative
governments in other Muslim States. The reason for this
strange attitude is quite simple. In all matters, the
determining question with the Muslims is how it will
affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. If representative
government can help the Muslims, they will demand it,
and fight for it.”

31 | P a g e
“In the State of Kashmir, the ruler is a Hindu, but the
majority of the subjects are Muslims. The Muslims
fought for a representative government in Kashmir
because a representative government in Kashmir meant
the transfer of power from a Hindu king to the Muslim
masses. In other Muslim States, the ruler is a Muslim
but the majority of his subjects are Hindus. In such
States representative government means the transfer of
power from a Muslim ruler to the Hindu masses, and
that is why the Muslims support the introduction of
representative government in one case and oppose it in
the other.”
“The dominating consideration with the Muslims is not
democracy. The dominating consideration is how
democracy with majority rule will affect the Muslims in
their struggle against the Hindus. Will it strengthen
them or will it weaken them? If democracy weakens
them, they will not have democracy. They will prefer the
rotten state to continue in the Muslim States rather than
weaken the Muslim ruler in his hold upon his Hindu
subjects. The political and social stagnation in the
Muslim community can be explained by one and only
one reason.”

32 | P a g e
“The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must
perpetually struggle; the Hindus to establish their
dominance over the Muslims and the Muslims to
establish their historical position as the ruling
community—that in this struggle the strong will win,
and to ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold
storage everything which causes dissension in their
ranks. If the Muslims in other countries have
undertaken the task of reforming their society and the
Muslims of India have refused to do so, it is because the
former are free from communal and political clashes
with rival communities, while the latter is not. “
History for us is either to be camouflaged or contrived.
We tell and retell what we like about it, and of what we
don’t, we scrunch it up, slip it under the futon, and then
perch ourselves cross-legged over it to retell more. We
are born raconteurs. A lap and a head are all we need.
As for truth? Well, it is not there; it evanesced from
view; and so it never happened.

33 | P a g e
But it did happen. Ambedkar did say these things to
Islam and Indian Muslims. In doing so, he gave a choice
to us, for he knew us only too well. We could either
ventilate his views on Islam brazenly like we do his views
on Hinduism, or we could scrunch them up like a plastic
bag and slip it under our. He did not live long enough to
witness the option that we chose but being the seer that
he was he had an inkling. As a prolegomenon to his
book, he wrote:
“I am not sorry for this reception given to my book.
That it is disowned by the Hindus and unowned by the
Muslims is to me the best evidence that it has the vices of
neither and that from the point of view of independence
of thought and fearless presentation of facts the book is
not a party production. Some people are sore because
what I have said has hurt them. I have not, I confess,
allowed myself to be influenced by fears of wounding
either individuals or classes or shocking opinions
however respectable they may be. I have often felt regret
in pursuing this course, but remorse never.”

34 | P a g e
“It might be said that in tendering advice to both sides, I
have used terms more passionate than they need have
been. If I have done so it is because I felt that the
manner of the physician who tries to surprise the vital
principle in each paralyzed organ to goad it to action
was best suited to stir up the average Indian who is
complacent if not somnolent, who is unsuspecting if not
ill-informed, to realize what is happening. I hope my
effort will have the desired effect.”
What words, What pulchritudinous, plausible,
magnanimous words. Here was Ambedkar, trying to
goad us as sawbones with obtunded organs. But he
misconstrued us. We remain a bundle of nerves,
pococurante, and palsied. We don’t want Catharsis, we
fear it. We never knew all this. Yet, another case in point
is to prove how garbled our history has been. Moreover,
this is not mere distortion. This is Mephistophelian. This
is an exercise in turning us into lambs; ambivalent of
ourselves, ambivalent of who we are and what we need
to do.

35 | P a g e
There is no other way of saying this. Ambedkar's nous
scared the bejesus out of Mahatma Gandhi. We have all
been there before, trying to hold our icy core before an
adversary armed with a blowtorch – that loathsome,
gut-wrenching moment when he smirks and decides not
to discountenance you with the truth, that you were
found wanting, that you have been pulverized. Defeated,
some vamoose into meekness, others into hubris. Gandhi
chose the hindmost.
Ultimately, prominence is guesstimated not by how
veracious you were but, rather, by how erroneous.
Gandhi got it wrong more times than Ambedkar got it
right, which was, in this wordsmith's speculation, almost
always.
Gandhi was an altruistic man, he was a good man, and
therefore fallible. He was susceptible to braggadocio and
narcissism. Ambedkar wasn't. He wasn't because every
single day of his life he was made cognizant of the fact
that the mediocre have inherited the Earth and control
it. And on days he wasn't made to feel nickel-and-dime,
his worth was patronized. Nothing came undemanding
to Ambedkar, least of all his genius.

36 | P a g e
Granted, juxtapositions between august men are odious
at best, but in the multitudinous interactions he had with
Ambedkar, Gandhi comes across as a sophomore
expostulating with his dean – sometimes wide-eyed,
sometimes a playground ruffian, ambivalent, and
therefore disposed to bouts of condescension; and then,
as the last throw of dice, couching his unenlightenment
with purloined theological sagacity because it was
underwritten by those as ignorant as him.
These are not eleemosynary words, but then an
assessment of Gandhi is sporadically philanthropic if it
is too callously objective. And who else but Ambedkar to
have assessed Gandhi like no one ever dared to before or
after him?
Gandhi was not latitudinarian, his credence on societal
structure, the economy, the concept of state, on what
Indians should devour or quaff would make even the
most assiduous of conservatives blush. His hunches were
based less on logic and more on an eccentric sense of
faith-based entitlement which can only be delineated as
an inextricable emulsion of Homeopathy and
spirituality.

37 | P a g e
Gandhi was an astute and Machiavellian godman.
Ambedkar, on the other hand, was the only true
Latitudinarian this nation has produced in the last many
centuries. Gandhi was a theologian, dissimulating to be a
politician while Ambedkar was a supreme polymath.
Gandhi was a social Darwinian while Ambedkar was
just a Darwinian. Mahatma Gandhi said that he would
not lament over the disappearance of machinery while
Ambedkar wanted an industrialized India.
Gandhi could have rod roughshod over untrammeled
India had he chosen to for as long as he craved while
Ambedkar lost an election by a nose twice. Gandhi saw
the village as India's liberator while Ambedkar
expounded it as a cesspool and a den of dopiness.
Gandhi’s aplomb was buttressed by the impetuous
fidelity of his multitudinous acolytes while Ambedkar
stemmed from his ability to speak his mind, stand all by
himself, and propitiate no one. Gandhi had a horde of
men while Ambedkar was a one-man army.

38 | P a g e
Ambedkar saw through Gandhi. Worse, the Mahatma
quantified this, ameliorated this, sussed this but like a
stupefied ostrich dissimulated to hold fort employing his
bulwarks, his sycophants who were also benumbed of
Ambedkar’s nous. India has forever been a land of such
vicissitudes, the one who candidly was a Mahatma
fought a man shamming to be one and lost.
That Gandhi was dealing with a disparate kind of man
should have become palpable to him after their very first
formal extended convocation. The colloquy, which took
place on 14 August 1931, has been recorded for posterity
and is revealing beyond measure.
Gandhi: I understand that you have got some grievances
against the Congress and me. I may tell you that I have
been thinking over the problem of Untouchables ever
since my school days – when you were not even born.
Ambedkar: It is true, Mahatmaji, that you started to
think about the problem of the Untouchables before I
was born. All old and elderly persons always like to
emphasize the point of age.
Gandhi: The Congress has spent not less than rupees
twenty lakhs on the uplift of the Untouchables.
39 | P a g e
Ambedkar: The Congress is not sincere about its
professions. Had it been, it would have surely made the
removal of Untouchability a condition, like the wearing
of khaddar, for becoming a member of the Congress. No
person who did not employ untouchable women or men
in his house, or rear up an untouchable student, or take
food at home with an untouchable student at least once a
week, should have been allowed to be a member of the
Congress. Had there been such a condition, you could
have avoided the ridiculous sight where the President of
the District Congress Committee was seen opposing the
temple entry of the Untouchables. You might say that
Congress lacked strength and therefore it was unwise to
lay down such a condition. Then my point is that
Congress cares more for strength than for principles.
This is my charge against you and the Congress. You say
the British Government does not show a change of heart.
I also say that the Hindus have not shown a change of
heart regarding our problem, and so long as they remain
adamant, we would believe neither the Congress nor the
Hindus. We believe in self-help and self-respect.
Gandhi: Surprisingly, men like you should offer
opposition to me and the Congress.
40 | P a g e
Ambedkar: We are not prepared to have faith in great
leaders and Mahatmas. Let me be brutally frank about
it. History tells that Mahatmas, like fleeting phantoms,
raise dust, but raise no level.
It would be specious to suggest that Ambedkar abhorred
Gandhi. Hate cannot cloud the judgment of a man as
rational and detached as Ambedkar, for if it did, he
would no longer be the guardian of these virtues. What
Ambedkar employed, instead, was logic, through which,
slowly, methodically, year on year, a decade on decade,
he dismantled Gandhi's sainthood. There was no loathe
involved, just the brute force of reasoning and judgment.
Ambedkar was implacable and unyielding, and the
Mahatma was chuffed to oblige.
When World War 1 culminated with the demobilization
of the Ottoman Empire, Gandhi cajoled the Congress to
succour the Khilafat movement - a callous perturbation
for the refurbishment of the Islamic Caliphate
defenestrated by the triumphant British.

41 | P a g e
Before long, Gandhi pinched his nose and plunged into
the murky waters of religious acquiescence and terror
rationalization in the wake of the costly Anti-Hindu
sadism perpetrated by the Malabar Muslims in 1921.
Ambedkar said, “Gandhi’s advocacy of the Khilafat
movement was a pernicious political stunt. The
movement was started by the Muslims and was taken up
by Mr. Gandhi with the tenacity and Faith which must
have surprised many Muslims themselves.”
Ambedkar viewed the Moplah jacquerie as nothing but
jihad. He said, “The Muslim rabble-rousers preached
the sermonized the credo that India under the British
government was Dar-ul-Harab and that the Muslims
must fight it against it and if they could not, they must
carry out the alternative principle of Hijrat. The aim
was to establish the kingdom of Islam by supplanting the
British government. Knives, swords, and spears were
secretly manufactured, and bands of Desperados were
collected for an assault on the British authority.”

42 | P a g e
On 20th August, a severe encounter took place between
the Moplahs and the British forces at Pinmangdi. Roads
were occluded, telegraph lines were cut and the railways
were dismantled at several places. As soon as the
administration had been gorgonized, the Moplahs
trumpeted that Swaraj had been established. A certain
Ali Mudaliar was proclaimed Raja. Khilafat flags were
flown and Eranad and Walluvanade were articulated as
Khilafat Kingdoms. It was unambiguous as a coup d’etat
against the British government, but what
discombobulated most was the treatment accorded by
the Moplahs to the Hindus of Malabar.
The Hindus were visited by a dire kismet at the hands of
the Moplahs. Massacres, forceful transmutations, the
discretion of temples, abhorrent outrages upon ides such
as ripping open parturient women, pillage, arson, and
destruction - in short, all the accompaniments of bestial
and wanton barbarism were freely perpetrated by the
Moplahs upon the Hindus until troops could be
scrambled to reinstate order through an onerous and
extensive tract of the country. This was not a Hindu-
Muslim brawl, this was a Bartholomew.

43 | P a g e
To Ambedkar’s horror, Gandhi laid the onus squarely
on the Hindus. The Mahatma said, “Hindus must find
out the causes of the Moplah fanaticism. They will find
that they are not without blame. They have hitherto not
cared for the Moplah.”
“They have either treated him as a serf or dreaded him.
They have not treated him as a friend and neighbor, to
be reformed and respected. It is no use now becoming
angry with the Moplahs or the Muslims in general.”
Gandhi went further if such rationalization wasn't
detestable enough, inculpating everyone else for the
Moplah barbarity but the Moplahs themselves. He said,
“The Government has thoroughly exploited the
Moplah’s madness. They have punished the entire
Moplah community for the madness of a few individuals
and have incited the Hindus by exaggerating the facts.
Malabar Hindus, like the Moplahs, are an excitable
people and the Government has incited them against the
latter. The outbreak would not have taken place if the
Collector had consulted the religious sentiment
of the Moplahs”.

44 | P a g e
That religious sentiment, as scrutinized by Ambedkar,
was jihad. Indeed, Muslim leaders themselves concurred
with Ambedkar.
Maulana Hasrat Mohani, the eulogized frondeur and the
fidus Achates of the Mahatma, and one who had coined
the slogan “Inquilab Zindabad”, vindicated the
slaughter of Hindus by saying that this was Islamic jihad
and that according to the rules of jihad, those who help
the nemesis become nemesises themselves.
Shockingly, Gandhi was conciliatory toward the
Maulana. Gandhi being brass-necked said, “I do not
blame the Maulana. He looks upon the British
Government as an enemy. He would defend anything
done in fighting it. He thinks that there is much untruth
in what is being said against the Moplahs and he is,
therefore, not prepared to see their error. I believe that
this is his narrowness, but it should not hurt the Hindus.
The Maulana speaks what is in his mind. He is an honest
and courageous man. All know that he has no ill will
against the Hindus. Despite his amazingly crude views
about religion. There is no greater nationalist nor a
greater lover of Hindu-Muslim unity than the Maulana.”

45 | P a g e
So here was Gandhi, a Hindu, schooling a Maulana on
Islam. He wasn't done yet. He transmogrified next into a
Maulana himself, quibbling on Islamic sanctions just so
he could venture into the minds of the men whom
Ambedkar had called barbarians and rationalize their
enormity. "Their notions of Islam were of a very crude
type," asseverated the Mahatma.
Gandhi later parleyed, “Forcible conversions are
horrible things. But Moplah bravery must command
admiration. These Malabaris are not fighting for the
love of it. They are fighting for what they consider is
their Religion and in the manner they consider is
religious.”
Then came the draconian of blows – a solicitation to the
Hindus to rationalize the bloodbath by taking recourse
in dharma. Gandhi said, “Even if one side is firm in
doing its dharma, there will be no enmity between the
two. He alone may be said to be firm in his dharma who
trusts his safety to God and, untroubled by anxiety,
follows the path of virtue. If Hindus apply this rule to
the Moplah affair, they will not, even when they see the
error of the Moplahs, accuse the Muslims.”

46 | P a g e
“I see nothing impossible in asking the Hindus to
develop the courage and strength to die before accepting
forced conversion. I was delighted to be told that some
Hindus preferred the Moplah hatchet to forced
conversion.”
“Even so is, it more necessary for a Hindu to love the
Moplah and the Muslim more, when the latter is likely
to injure him or has already injured him. Why should a
single Hindu have run away on account of the Moplahs’
atrocities?”
This was sheer lunacy. The Mahatma was beseeching the
Hindus to hold their ground even as they were being
hunted down and liquidated in thousands. One could
ingeminate much more of this utterly opprobrious
apologia from the Mahatma’s playbook were it not so
purgatory. Of little solace is the fact that the saint
continued to hold such views despite disapprobation by
hombre like Ambedkar.

47 | P a g e
Decades later in 1947, while sermonizing to those
effectuated by the pre-partition Hindu-Muslim violence,
he said: “Hindus should not harbor anger in their hearts
against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy
them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should
face death bravely. If they established their rule after
killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by
sacrificing our lives. None should fear death. Birth and
death are inevitable for every human being. Why should
we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall
enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new
India.”
Ambedkar was antagonized by Gandhi’s selectivity,
more so by his stand on the Moplah Massacre.
Ambedkar said, “Mr. Gandhi has never called the
Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of
gross crimes against Hindus. Mr. Gandhi has never
protested against such murders of prominent Hindus
like Swami Shradhanand, Rajpal, and Nathuramal
Sharma. Not only have the Muslims not condemned
these outrages but even Mr Gandhi has never called
upon the leading Muslims to condemn them. He has kept
silent over them.”

48 | P a g e
“Such an attitude can be explained only on the ground
that Mr. Gandhi was anxious to preserve Hindu-Moslem
unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus if it
could be achieved by sacrificing their lives.”
Ambedkar next turned to Gandhi's deportment during
the Moplah Massacre, a pogrom he had deprecated in
the strongest of terms earlier. "This attitude to excuse
the Muslims any wrong, lest it should injure the cause of
unity, is well illustrated by what Mr. Gandhi had to say
in the matter of the Moplah riots. The blood-curdling
atrocities committed by the Moplahs in Malabar against
the Hindus were indescribable. All over southern India,
a wave of horrified feelings had spread among the
Hindus of every shade of opinion, which was intensified
when certain Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to
pass resolutions of congratulations to the Moplahs on the
brave fight they were conducting for the sake of
religion.”
“Any person could have said that this was too heavy a
price for Hindu-Moslem unity. But Mr. Gandhi was so
obsessed with the necessity of establishing Hindu-
Moslem unity that he was prepared to make light of the
doings of the Moplahs and the Khilafats who were
congratulating them.”
49 | P a g e
“He spoke of the Moplahs as the brave God-fearing
Moplahs who were fighting for what they consider as
religion and in a manner which they consider as
religious.”
Another incident around the same time brought to light
the dissimilitude between Ambedkar and Gandhi,
underscoring further the lacuna that exists between
objectivity and selectivity, and how the hindmost is used
to deleterious effect in politics. It was the publication of
a pamphlet called Rangila Rasool, written as a lex
talionis for Sita ka Chinala, a book penned by a Muslim
that asseverated Lord Rama's wife, Sita, was a whore.
Ambedkar stood for Mahashe Rajpal, the publisher of
the pamphlet who was exterminated by a Muslim
wackadoodle in broad daylight, Ilm-ud-din, which was
roistered by all prominent Muslim leaders of the day.
While Ilm-ud-din was defended in court by none than
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and the man who rendered a
eulogy at his inhumation was none other than the
vaunted poetaster Allama Iqbal, who cried his eyes out
as the homicide’s sarcophagus was lowered: We sat idle
while this carpenter son took the lead."

50 | P a g e
Ambedkar was scandalized at what was done to Rajpal;
Gandhi was infuriated at what Rajpal did. He said, “I
am no defender of the author of Rangila Rasool.”
Gandhi added that the book gave him ‘deep pain.’He
called the book scandalous and its author a mischief-
maker.
Do we know any of this? Do we know these views of the
Mahatma? Do we know that Ambedkar called him The
Prophet of a Dark Age? Do we know that Ambedkar
called him a charlatan?
Worse, our knowledge of Mahatma Gandhi is
embellished by that preposterous propagandist film
called ‘Gandhi’ and how every Indian almost pirouetted
when it got the Oscar.
The paper now focuses on the unembellished face of
Jawaharlal Nehru. If one were to look, then there are so
many aspects of his policies and personality, that have
been wantonly camouflaged or airbrushed in our
history.

51 | P a g e
Nehru zapped India of Sardar Patel’s and Ambedkar’s
chimeras. But one aspect hurts the nation more and it
debilitates it more and it is that Nehru is extrapolated as
the Paragon and the protector of Carte Blanche and free
speech. Even today, historian after historian, textbook
after textbook, and government after government has
eulogized Nehru in this account. So, weighing up how
free speech was taken care of by him becomes germane.
Now, this would also be illustrated with examples
because it stands out to be the splendiferous way of
delineating it.
Stanley Wolpert’s book ‘Nine Hours To Rama’ was
embargoed. Ansar Nasiri’s book ‘Chandra Mohini’
was embargoed. Aubrey Menen’s book ‘The
Ramayana’ was embargoed. Alexander Campbell’s
book ‘The Heart of India’ was embargoed. Aziz Beg’s
book ‘Captive Kashmir’ was embargoed. Kurt
Frischler’s book ‘Ayesha’ was embargoed. Burton
Russell’s book ‘Unarmed Victory’ was embargoed.
Siddigigvi Sardanvi’s book ‘Marka-e-Somnath’ was
embargoed. Hameed Anuar’s book ‘Pakistan
Pashmanzarwe’ was embargoed. V.S. Naipul’s book
‘An Area Of Darkness’ was embargoed. Alfred Burt’s
book ‘The Evolution of the British’ was embargoed.
52 | P a g e
Robert Taylor’s book ‘The Dark Urge’ was
embargoed. D.H. Lawrence’s book ‘Lady Chatterley’s
Lover’ was embargoed. Anon’s book ‘What Has
Religion Done To Mankind’ was embargoed. Agha
Babar’s book ‘Cease Fire’ was embargoed. Bhupat
Singh’s book ‘Kaluwank Ravatwank’ was embargoed.
Toni Hagen’s book ‘Nepal’ was embargoed. Arthur
Koestler’s book ‘The Lotus And The Robot’ was
embargoed. Aubrey Menon’s book ‘Rama: Retold’
was embargoed.
Mrinal Sen’s film ‘Neel Akshar Neechey’ was
embargoed. Mark Robson’s film ‘Nine hours to
Rama’ was embargoed. M.S. Sathyu’s film ‘Garam
Hawa’ was embargoed. Goswami’s film ‘Rumi’ was
embargoed. Protima Deshgupta’s film ‘Jharna’ was
embargoed. Jagan Sharma’s film ‘Bhool Na Jana’ was
embargoed. I.S. Johar’s film ‘Nastik’ was embargoed.
Dilip Kumar’s film ‘Ganga-Jamuna’ was embargoed.
A.V. Meiyappan’s film ‘Parasakti’ was embargoed.
Shaukat Hussian’s film ‘Jugnu’ was embargoed.

53 | P a g e
Thoppil Basai’s play ‘Ningalenne Communistakki’
was embargoed. Sharad Chandra’s play ‘Mahesh’ was
embargoed. Rabindranath Tagore’s plays like ‘Gora’
and ‘Bisarjan’ were embargoed. Balraj Sahani’s play
‘Jadoo ki Kursi’ was embargoed. Import of any
newspapers that undermine friendly relations with
foreign states was embargoed. Import of any obscene
drawing or painting was embargoed.
Kavi Pradeep’s song ‘Amar Rahe Yeh Pyaar’ was
embargoed. Two songs from ‘Phir Subha Hogi’ were
embargoed. Multitudinous Hindi film songs were
embargoed from being played on All India Radio.
Western Pop music was embargoed from being played
on All India Radio. People’s Theatre Association was
embargoed. Godse’s testimony was embargoed. The
disquisition of Rajendra Prasad was barred from
distribution. The Draconian Press Objectionable Act
was passed.
Majrooh Sultanpuri was incarcerated for 2 years for
calling ‘Nehru: Hitler ka Chela’. Historian
Dharampal was incarcerated for lambasting Nehru
after the Indo-China war.

54 | P a g e
Columnist Vivek was sacked and his column
censorious of Nehru was discontinued. Hindustan
Times Editor Durga Das was sacked and his column
censorious of Nehru and his family was discontinued.
Editor Prahald Keshav Atre was incarcerated for
writing a condemnatory article. The Organiser of RSS
was censored and its’ publishers were prosecuted.
Many Congress leaders stipulating the renunciation of
Nehru were apprehended and then incarcerated. The
First democratically elected Communist government
in Kerala was dismissed.
But the conundrum of this nation is that even after
multifarious examples, some crackbrained readers
would say that Nehru Chacha was latitudinarian and
protected freedom of speech and expression.

55 | P a g e
The paper now delves into some dissimulating to be
minute contortions, but which have left irrevocable
ramifications on the Indic Society.
With a spur of evincing how benighted and credulous
the Indic society was, the quotidian credence that
Hindus practiced Sati and 'the most urbane of men' i.e.
Britishers were the first to deracinate Sati is often put on
the pedestal.
But, the British were not the first to interdict sati in
India. Hindu Peshwas embargoed Sati twenty-nine years
before Lord Bentinck. Hindu Maratha Kingdom
Savantvadi extirpated Sati by an official order dated
May 6, 1821. Moreover, Shri Swami Narayan was
crusading against Sati in Gujarat by the beginning of the
nineteenth century. Thus, anybody who says the British
were the first to annul Sati is either perfidious or
airheaded.
As soon as the students get into upper primary classes,
the intermedial chapters of history aggrandize
Buddhism. The textbook dedicates a few pages to
elucidate the construction of stupas. But what about the
other half?

56 | P a g e
Why is it not told that the modus operandi of burying
children alive under the stupas took place till 1959 for
some iffy religious raison d'etre? Many European
globetrotters notarized such praxis.
Even the gargantuan Buddhist country i.e. China has
process-verbals about the protestation of the kinsfolk of
twenty-one individuals who were ordained to be
dispatched in 1948, by the authorities in Lhasa, for the
solitary raison d'etre of using their organs as "votive
oblations" in an attempt to have the spirits impede the
Communists from wangling dominance of Tibet. Such
things don't find a mention even in the most
particularized volumes on Buddhism.
Can you envisage the unscrupulous yet reverenced
practices of a faith being calumniated in a country that
has the maximum henchmen of that particular faith?
The imagination itself is meritorious before you cannot
witness such a situation unless and until you are in
India. Hinduism, the majority religion, is perpetually
slandered for its caste system based on English
transliterations of Vedas by a man who was nescient of
Sanskrit.

57 | P a g e
Even historians have wantonly panegyrized the fallacies
and presuppositions for their mercenary purposes. So, it
becomes my fidelity as a connoisseur of Sanskrit to
present the unambiguous translations of the verses
before the readers.
Verse 239 of Chapter 31 of Skanda Purana says, “In
veracity, every person is a Shudra by birth. After getting
sacrament or higher education, a person takes second
birth. By the anatomization of a Veda, one becomes
Vipra i.e. unassailable. And when one comes to know the
self-knowledge i.e. Brahma (numen) sitting inside
himself, then he becomes a Brahmin.”
Verse 65 of Chapter 10 of Manusmriti says, “A Shudra
can be a Brahmin and a Brahmin can be a Shudra,
which means if a Brahmin is compatible with qualities,
he remains a Brahmin. Although a Brahmin who has the
qualities of Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra becomes
Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra. By the way, if a Shudra
is vacuous or vicious, he remains a Shudra, but if he is
bona fide as the divine snow, he becomes a Brahmin,
Kshatriya, or Vaishya. The same happens with
Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. A person of any caste can get
any caste.”

58 | P a g e
There are fathomless verses in multitudinous
Upanishads and Puranas, but the rudimentary essence
of every verse has been reproduced on the
aforementioned page.
When we talk about untouchability, another segment of
the Caste System, the only religion that hits our mind is
Hinduism. But, have we ever conjectured about it being
pompously practiced in other great religions of the
world? No, we haven’t and the brownie point goes to the
worshippers of grey. So, the paper now delves into this
concealed aspect.
The Indian Christians used to take gratification in
publicizing untouchability and vaunting their birth
status in religious jamborees like Easter service.
Christians used to take out a public cavalcade with the
fetish of Jesus. While Colossians 3.10 says, “Here there is
no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised,
Scythian, Barbarians, slave or free, but Christ is all and
is in all.”

59 | P a g e
The derision is that even after such pulchritudinous
words by the Son of Mary himself, the Christians
contemplated the silhouette of a Dalit to be extremely
feculent and wanted to clinch the obliteration of any
such ‘thing’ from their path.
Susan Visvanathan gives instances of such practices in
her anatomization of Syrian Christianity. She talks of
how the casteist practice of distance pollution is believed
and observed in church as follows, “One consuetude
which survives among the Yakoba of Kottayam recalls
this. After the Easter service, people boohoo poyin poyin
as they walk in a cavalcade down the street. Poyin means
‘go away’ and is heraldic in nature, betokening that
higher castes are abroad and lower castes must therefore
remove themselves from the path.”
This was an admonition to Dalits to keep off the streets
and not ‘contaminate’ them by their presence. In some
churches of Kerala, this shibboleth survived until 1970.
Other historic church documents disseminate the praxis
of caste rituals and performances in the church. The
practices of untouchability by the ginormous religion of
the world were not limited to this singular aspect, it had
many more aspects to be told.

60 | P a g e
Maurice Kriegel in his indagation has shown
antediluvian Spanish oppidan documents which
vociferate that not only were the Jews interdicted from
eating with Christians, they were verboten from even
touching various foods on sale. Should they touch them,
either they must buy them or pay an amercement.
Kriegel based on his indagation has attested that
Christians adjudged such food items, once they had been
touched by Jews, as adulterated, feculent, and
putrefactive. Similar legislation appeared also in France
in the thirteenth century. Kriegel opines that as sophism
accelerated to new heights, even the bare presence of
Jews in the marketplace became a source of
perturbation for the Christians.
Forget about aggrandizing, was this even brought to
light by those who asseverate to be the most pugnacious
adversaries of Christianity? Well; the question needs no
answer for the sake of Section 295A and the worshippers
of grey.

61 | P a g e
If India is to invigorate the burgeoning of
intellectualism, it must understand that the ecosystems
as we know them must be discouraged. It must
understand the role of a philanthropist. It can succour a
virtuoso by organizing a gig for him but you can’t ask
him to perform your mediocre creation and that is what
most of the ecosystems do sooner or later.
The ecosystems turn into herds and their members are
turned into lambs; terror-stricken to speak their minds,
pusillanimous of the denouement. They enshroud and
guard mediocrity than proselytize and help it prosper.
Instead, the Right-wing and the Non-Left wing must
cultivate non-conformists and recusants among their
folds.

62 | P a g e
Yet again, the conundrum is that the existing brainiacs
have turned into claimants and the claimants have
turned into potters. They have made sure that the soft
clay that got baked into erudition and percipience is now
baked into untold melancholia. But it wasn’t always like
that. And that clay is very special.
It is that same clay that suckled the glorious and inter-
galactical Vedas whose richness attested implicitly the
proficiency of its people, whose texture resonated ‘Unity
In Diversity’, whose fragrance recalled Kalidas,
Tulsidas, Bharatendu, Bankim, Bharati, Ramdhari
Dinkar, Raychand, Aurobindo, Vivekananda, Bhimrao
Ambedkar and C.V. Raman, whose blood birthed
Chandragupta, Rajendra Chola, Prithviraj, Rana
Pratap, Shivrai, Ranjit Singh, Savarkar, Subash Bose,
and great frondeurs.
It is that same clay that trundles down our mountains
and is washed over by the transgression obliterating our
revered rivers and while they wait to receive that same
clay in their palpitating hands at Ganga Sagar before it
is lost forever in the vast oceans of Apathy, we have to
make sure that they receive this clay and then shape it
into a Newfangled India and an Illustrious India.

63 | P a g e