Wednesday, December 26, 2007


Causes behind the Muslim and Christian problem and solution to it

a) The caste system & ostracism:

Basic intention behind caste system was division of labour. But later on it proved as poison to Hindu Society. Due to Saptabandis (SEVEN BANS) like Ban on water ( not to drink water from other castes), ban on intercaste marriages, ban on crossing Attock & Sea sailing. Ban on re-conversion of Muslims and Christians, Hindu world suffered a tremendous loss. Due to these differences based on castes, we the Hindus never became united against common foe. e.g. Molestation of Brahmin woman by Muslim did not generate sense of revenge amongst other cast and vice versa. Muslims and Christians naturally took full advantage of our such internal differences and enhanced their numerical power.

b) Ban on re-purification of forcibly converted Muslim and Christians:

During the 1000 years of Hindu-Muslim War we the Hindus got success in Military War but we failed miserably in religious war. We were successful in Military wars against Muslims but we failed to nullify the religious aggression done by Muslims and Christians on our society. What might be the reason behind this religious defeat ?

Whenever Muslim Army was victorious in war, they used to compel Hindu Men to accept either Islam or Death. They used to capture Hindu ladies and distribute amongst themselves by converting them to Islam through rapes.

After few years Hindu Army used to recapture that province but this victorious Hindu Army never forced any pure Muslim to accept Hindutva. Nay, they even didn't allow the forcibly converted Hindus to come back to their own Hindu religion. They didn't free the Hindu beauty from Muslim harems. Because they want to save their purity by banning on reconversion of polluted Hindu men and women. According to Hindus, such ban was the order of Hindu religion, so they strictly adhered to it. But this ban caused heavy numerical loss to Hindu society, Not only this but this ban caused heavy numerical profit to Muslim society. Hindu women in Muslim harems continued to give births to new Aurangzebs. These Aurangzebs further continued wars and molestation. This continued onwards unchecked and caused numerical imbalance between Hindus and Muslims. This is the very reason why we the Hindus were defeated in religious field although we were victorious in the battlefield.

c) Perverted conception of virtues:

In fact virtues or vices are only relative terms. No virtue can be unqualified and absolute under every circumstance or at every place. Be it said briefly that in practice or in ethical code a virtue should be called a virtue only to the extent to which it is useful to the best interest of human society. And the moment it begins to cause harm to mankind , it should be considered a vice and as such discarded forthwith.

To let go the vanquished and abjectly surrendering enemy is said to be a virtue in some religious books, so enemies like the ungrateful Mohammed Ghori & Rohial Najibkhan, were set free. And what did they do in return for this noble act of the Hindus ? The first brutally murdered his former benefactor, Prithviraj Chauhan, while the second conspired against the very Marathas, who let him go alive and brought about their unprecedented destruction at Panipat. Having only learnt by rote the maxim, to give food to the hungry and water to the thirsty is a virtue, the Hindus went on giving milk to the vile poisonous cobras and vipers ! Even while the Muslim demons were demolishing Hindu temples and breaking to pieces their holiest of idols like Somnath, they never wrecked their vengeance upon those wicked Muslims, even when they had golden opportunities to do so, nor did they ever take out a single brick from the walls of Masjids because their religious teachers and priests preached the virtue of not inflicting pain on the offender.

Every Hindu seems to have been made to suck along with his mother's milk, this Nectar - like advice that religious tolerance is a virtue. But nobody ever explains to him the essence of that precept. If that alien religion is also tolerant of our own religion, our tolerance towards it can be a virtue. But the Muslims and the Christians religions, which boldly proclaim it to be their religious duty to destroy most cruelly the Hindu religion and to eradicate from the face of this earth the Kafirs and the heathens, can never to described as tolerant of other religions.

After Mahmud of Ghazni demolished the temple of Somnath for the first time, it was rebuilt several times by the Hindus and destroyed by the Muslim conquerors as many times ! Once when a powerful Hindu king established his power in that region., he never disallowed Arab traders from entering the Hindu land even if he had a bitter experience of these traders in past. Because he want to establish his image as generous and religious tolerant Hindu King and he treated Arab with such a grate deal of hospitality and they might feel quite at home there. Naturally, these Arabic traders, actuated whether by political trickery or by religious pride, thought of building by way of a challenge, as it were , a Musjid just in front of the Somnath temple, rebuilt by the Hindu Kafirs. But the under the circumstances then prevalent there, they could not do so by force or bravado. Hence with their usual craft they applied in the most courteous and humble words to the King for permission to build the Masjid. And O what wonder ! that gullible Hindu King consented to it most willingly and up rose the new Masjid challenging the Somnath temple. As a matter of fact, considering the highly miserable state to which the Temple of Smonath was reduced by Mahmud and others the Hindu King should have wiped out of existence all the Masjids without exception, as soon as he conquered the land, and then and then alone could he have restored the Somnath temple to its original glory. But instead of destroying the existing Masjids he permitted a new one to be built up and bestowed an annuity on it for its maintenance. For this suicidal religious tolerance (perversion of a virtue again ! he had very soon to pay dearly, because when after some time the brutal forces of Alla-ud-din and attacked Gujrath and killed thousands of Hindu men and rape as many Hindu women and pulled down hundred of Hindu temples and marched straight towards Somnath, how did these Arabs and their descendants repay the religious tolerance of the Hindu King who allowed the Arabian traders to built the said Masjid ? Did they allow the restored Somnath temple to remain unmolested in return for the obligation of the Hindus - even if it were to tantalize the Hindu gullibility and simplicity ? No ! The Muslim armies battered the temple to pieces once again and outdid Mahmud of Ghazni in taking away the sacred idol and the slab inside this temple to Delhi and made them fit nicely into the pedestal for a Masjid there.


Abolsute Ahimsa is a crime. Relative Ahimsa is a virtue. If a snake is going to bite a man, we will have to kill that snake instantly. To save that man by killing snake is real Ahimsa.


Muslims had a faith that it was a religious duty of every Muslim to kidnap and force into their own religion, non-Muslim women. This incited their sensuality and lust for carnage and, while it enormously increased their number, it affected the Hindu population in an inverse proportion. To hesitate to acknowledge this d fact under guise of politeness is simply a puerile self-deception. Few people call these Muslim Acts as religious fanaticism and madness. But even if it were madness, there was a method in it ! And the method in this Muslim madness was so horrible that, with the mistaken Hindu neglect of this so-called religious fanaticism , the Hindu nation came to have a perpetual bleeding sore. For , as a matter of fact the religious fanaticism of the Muslims was not madness at all, it was an effective method of increasing the Muslim population with special regard to the unavoidable laws of nature. The same law of nature is instinctively obeyed by the animal world. If in the cattle herds the number of oxen grows in excess of the cows , the herds do not grow numerically in a rapid manner. But on the other hand, the number of animals in the herds, with the excess of cows over the oxen grows in mathematical progression. The same is true of man, for at the core man is essentially an animal. Even in the pre-historic times the so-called wild tribes of the forest dwellers knew this law quite well. That is why today also Muslims always have polygamy. This very natural law was adopted and obeyed openly by the aggressive but numerically poor African Muslim armies and their chiefs while attacking the major populations of North Africa. Same was repeated by Arabs, Afghans when they were victorious in Hindusthan because to carry away the women of others and to ravish them is itself the supreme religious duty of the Muslim. This was considered the noble act which increased their number . After Sindh the Arab did not attempt another invasion of India, yet the Arab bands did come here along with other Muslim armies and like these Arabas, all those newly converted people like the Persians (Turanians, Afghans, the Turks, Moghuls and others fell on India with all the ferocity at their command. Obviously they had not brought their million of women fold along with them. But all those from the Sultans to the common soldiers as a rule, began to settle down here with the kidnapped Hindu women, whom they either married or simply kept as their concubines. Let alone the vast numbers of Hindu women of high as well as low ranks who led the most ignoble of lives in the harems of the Emperors, Sultans or Navabs, but almost every Muslim kept at least three or four such forcibly polluted women. Thus the women in this aggressive Muslim community came to be more numerous than the men, and polygamy being an accepted practice sanctioned by their religion, these foreign Muslim communities began to grow rapidly year after year, from a few thousand to millions and more. An interesting point to note is that Sultan Ghiyasd-din Tughlak, Sultan Shikandar, Sultan Phiroz-Shah Tughlak and many other devilish Hindu-haters were borne of Hindu mothers".


The Muslim women never feared retribution or punishment at the hands of any Hindu for their heinous crime. They had a perverted idea of women chivalry. If in a battle the Muslims won, they were rewarded for such crafty and deceitful conversions of Hindu women, but even if the Hindus carried the field and a Hindu power was established in that particular place the Muslim men alone, if at all suffered the consequential indignities but the Muslim women - never " Only Muslim men, and not women, were taken prisoners. Muslim women were sure that even in the thick of battles and in the confusion wrought just after then neither the Victor Hindu Chiefs, nor any of their common soldiers, not even any civilian would ever touch their hair. For albeit enemies and atrocious, they were women ! Hence even when they were taken prisoner in battles the Muslim women, royal ladies as also the commonest slaves, - were invariably sent back safe and sound to their respective families ! Such incidents were common enough in those times. And this act was glorified by the Hindus as their chivalry towards the enemy women and the generosity of their religion ! For a sample, read the following incidents.

Even now we proudly refer to the noble acts of Chhatrapati Shivaji and Chimaji Appa, when they honourably sent back the daughter-in-law of the Muslim Governor of Kalyan and the wife of the Portuguese governor of Bassein respectively. But is it not strange that, when they did so, neither Shivaji nor Chimaji should ever remember the atrocities and the rapes and the molestation, perpetrated by Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori, Alla-ud-in Khilji and others, on thousands of Hindu ladies and girls like the princesses of Dahir, Kamaldevi, the wife of Karnaraj of Karnawati and her extremely beautiful daughter, Devaldev. Did not the plaintive screams and pitiful lamentations of the millions of molested Hindu women, which reverberated throughout the length and breadth of the country reach the ears of Shivaji Maharaj and Chimaji Appa ? The souls of those millions of aggrieved women might have perhaps said, "Do not forget O, your Majesty, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and O ! You excellency, Chimaji Appa, the unutterable atrocities and oppression and outrage committed on us by the Sultans and Muslim noblemen and thousands of others, big and small. Let those Sultans and their peers take a fright that in the event of a Hindu victory our molestation and detestable lot shall be avenged on the Muslim women. Once they are haunted with this dreadful apprehension, that the Muslim women, too, stand in the same predicament in case the Hindus win, the future Muslim conquerors will never dare to think of such molestation of Hindu women". But because of the then prevalent perverted religious ideas about chivalry to women, which ultimately proved highly detrimental to the Hindu community , neither Shivaji Maharaj nor Chimaji Appa could do such wrongs to the Muslim women. It was the suicidal Hindu idea of chivalry to women which saved the Muslim women (simply because they were women) from the heavy punishments of committing indescribable sins and crimes against the Hindu women. Their womenhood became their shield quite sufficient to protect them. Still worse was the ridiculous idea, which the Hindus of those times entertained, that it was a sin to convert a Muslim woman to Hinduism. They foolishly thought that to have any sort of relations with a Muslim women meant their own conversion to Islam. Naturally, even in the midst of a Hindu community and the Hindu State they were secure against any attempt by the Hindus at abducting them or their forcible conversion to Hinduism. Exceptions however were very rare. Under these circumstances, the Muslim feminine class was left serphically free from any chastisement or penalty for their share of the crimes against the Hindu women world. Suppose if from the earliest Muslim invasion the Hindus also whenever they were victors on the battlefields, had decided to pay the Muslim fair sex in the same coin or punished them in some other ways i.e. by conversion even with force, and then absorbed them in their fold, then ? Then with this horrible apprehension at their heart they would have desisted from their evil designs against any Hindu lady. If they had taken such a fright in the first two or three centuries, million and millions of luckless Hindu ladies would have been saved all their indignities, loss of their own religion, rapes, ravages and other unimaginable persecutions. Our women-world would not have suffered such a tremendous numerical loss, which means their future progeny would not have been lost permanently to Hinduism and the Muslim population could not have thrived so audaciously. Without any increase in their womenfold the Muslim populations would have dwindled into a negligible minority. But with the fantastic idea of chivalry to enemy women and a blind eye to time, place or person, the Hindus of that period, never tried to chastise the Muslim women folk for their wrongs to Hindu women, even when the former were many a time completely at their mercy. Well, did this misplaced chivalrous idea of the Hindus have any salutary effect on their Muslim foes ? Were the latter ever ashamed of their sin of molesting a Hindu women in view of this Hindu religious generosity and high mindedness ? Did the Muslims ever sincerely feel thankful to Hindus for the safe return of thousands of Muslim women to their own kith and kin ? Never ! On the contrary they again and again reciprocated Hindu chivalrous behaviour with the same old treachery and atrocity, and thus held it to ridicule and scorn. On the contrary the Muslims were puffed perhaps with the thought that if at all the Hindus were to show chivalry to anybody, it should have been to their own Hindu women ! It was they who had the first right to such a chivalrous treatment ! But if the Hindus could not rescue thousands of their own women who were being abducted, polluted, and forced into Islamic religion, in their very presence, through centuries, why should the Muslims not ridicule the Hindu chivalrous idea of civility to women, even enemy women ? On the contrary they perhaps thought that the Hindus dared not hink of violating or even insulting the Muslim women for fear of horrible reprisals. Thus they were more likely to misconstrue the Hindu idea of chivalry, than interpret it in the right sense, as to have been borne of cowardice than of strength and bravery.


When Shoorpanakha, another she-demon, rushed to eat away Seeta like cucumber, Laxman deprived her of nose and ears and sent her back - not honourably with generous gifts of ornaments to show off his chivalry to women ! When Narakasur carried away thousands of Aryan women to his Asur Kingdom Shrikrishna marched upon demon and killed him in the war. But he did not stopped with military and political defeat he inflicted on Narkasur he rescued all the thousand of imprisoned Aryan female, undergoing all sorts of humiliations there, and brought them back to his own kingdom and thus took a social revenge ! Shree Krishna's army did not forsake their kinsowmen, simply because they were forcibly polluted and violated - a dastardly thought which he never entertained for a minute. On the contrary Shrikrishna as the Bhoopati brought all the sixteen thousand or more women to his kingdom, rehabilitated them honorably and took upon himself, the responsibility of feeding and protecting them. This very act of Krishna, as the Bhoopati , has been fantastically construed by the writers of the Puranas as to describe him the husband of those thousands of women. He was later thought to have married all of them.

In the post puranik period also the Hindus , right from the Samants to common citizens married unhesitatingly , Yavan, Saka or Hun women. The nation was valiant enough to absorb not only the progeny of those enemy women but the whole enemy communities in their own and leave no trace of their origin behind !. Is it necessary to add that these 'cow-faced' followers of Hinduism, proud of their utmost tolerance of other religions were not (in the least) likely to hit back the tiger-faced Muslims on religious grounds ?

Religious tolerance ! Virtue ! Yes, It can be a virtue only where the other religion is tolerant of our own ! But to tolerate the Muslim religion, the followers of which right from the Sultans like Mahmud of Ghazni and Ghori and others to the various Shahs and Badshahs thought it their religious obligation to massacre the Kafir Hindus to celebrate their accession to the throne and had been carrying on horrible religious persecution of the Hindus for nearly a thousand years, was tantamount to cut the throat of one's own religion ! It was not tolerance towards other religions, it was tolerance of irreligion ! It was not even tolerance, it was impotence ! But this truth never dawned upon the Hindu society of those days even after the horrible experience of a thousand years or so. They on their own part went on tolerating even such a heinous religion as the Islam and considered it a glorious virtue of their own - a special ornament in the crown of the Hindu community !

O thou Hindu society ! Of all the sins and weaknesses, which have brought about thy fall, the greatest and most potent are thy virtues themselves.

Remember every virtuous act done without the least regard to the propriety of the persons concerned - without the least thought whether the other person deserves such noble treatment or not - becomes a glaring vice most harmful to the true religion.

Courtesy of Savarkar Darshan