muslims never persecuted Hindus: natwar singh

[adhanda]

No evidence to show Muslims persecuted Hindus: Natwar

New Delhi, Jan 15 (UNI) In a scathing attack against the Sangh Parivar, particularly the BJP, for distorting the concept of secularism and core national values, External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh today said there was no evidence to suggest that Muslim rulers had persecuted Hindus and instead, ''the picture was quite the opposite.'' ''Indeed, the picture is quite the opposite...Recollection of ancient wrongs of Muslim rulers is both fallacious and pernicious : there is no evidence to suggest the sustained persecution of Hindus by Muslim rulers,'' the External Affairs Minister said while delivering the 12th Lal Bahadur Shastri Memorial Lecture here.

Hitting out at the BJP and its ideology, Mr Natwar Singh said the premises put forward by the BJP and its fraternity criticise the practice of secularism since independence as having wounded the Hindu ethos and psyche even as Muslims were given privileged status.

In support of these assertions there are frequent references to Indian history based on selective readings of old events and episodes.

He said no political movement would be able to seize power in India on the basis of an exclusivist philosophy and agenda, however emotive ts assertions and seductive its appeals.

''To rule India, a movement or Party must necessarily represent and uphold India's rich diversity and include within its agenda the interest of different sections that make it our national tapestry,'' he said.

He said the ''anti-secular philosophy'' of the BJP, the strident assertions of its adherents and the ''rampages of its cohorts'' had led some observers to believe that there had been an increase in religious bigotry and that minorities remained insecure while communal conflicts proliferated.

[sansanwalamit]

These politicians are so full of shi*, having no guilt or shame, stooping down to any level for their petty causes.
How could Natwar Singh, being a hindu himself distort history, his comment is a very false, quixotic, romantic notion. I certainly wish it was true, sigh its not.
If BJP distorted history then how come all the hindus and buddhists were wiped out from present Pakistan and Afghanistan and most recently Kashmir.
How does he define the origins of Sikhism and Khalsa. He should make a formal apology for this, as he has brought disrespect to those martyrs who didnt tolerate such attrocities.
And by name he sounds like a Rajput, well if he is one then I wont be surprised as licking muslim behind is a genetic mutation in them.

[chhoraharyanada]

1. Hindu Kush (in Afghanistan) which literally means "slaughter of hindus".
2. Ghaznavi
3. Khiljis
4. Aurangzeb
5. Jinnah/1947.

I hate the Congress!

B*stards!

[birbal]

If one looks back through thousands of years of Indian history, despite the baloney of "Ram Rajya" and "Satyuga" it is clearly evident that the rulers of India were very cruel to their citizens. These include the Hindu Kings, the Muslims and the British.

However, the BJP propagandists want to talk of only the cruelties committed by the Muslims.

Let us start by looking back from the independence of India. As all of us know India is today a food surplus country with a population over a billion and it has been a food surplus country most of the time except during British rule. It is estimated over 45 million people died of starvation during British era (I think it is over 100 million) as the British used food supply as a weapon to keep the country weak (read the "Late Victorian Holocausts"). We Indians do not need to read this book as we know over 10 million people starved to death in Bengal and Northeast India when British created a deliberate famine as they feared defeat from the Japanese as they advanced through Burma to India. It is well known to all Jat people that in the year Vikram Samvat 1956 (1899 in Christian calendar) tens of millions of people died in famine. In the book referred above, it is clearly shown how the British used these famines as weapons.

Further, as far as the Jats are concerned, they had absorbed the blows from a variety of antagonists including the muslims, and survived with dignity while battling enemies until the British did us an irreparable damage after 1857.

Most of the leaders who talk of Hindutva and rant against Muslims were pro-British until independence. These are the kind of people described by William Howard Russell in his book "My Diary in India in the year 1958-59". He wrote "...people who after centuries of foreign invasion still can not protect or defend themselves. People who run with high delight to aid the foreigner to overcome their brethern". V.S Naipaul wrote after reading Russell "The Hindus would have no loyalty except to their clan; they would have no higher idea of human association, no general idea of the responsibility of man to his fellow. And because of that missing large idea of human association, the country works blindly on, and all the bravery and skills of its people lead to nothing".

Sir William Jones wrote from India in 1786 to an American friend "I shall never cease thinking, that rational liberty makes men virtuous; and virtue, happy: wishing therefore ardently fo universal happiness, I wish for universal liberty. But Hindus are incapable of civil liberty; few of them have an idea of it; and those, who have, do not wish it. They must (I deplore the evil, but know the necessity of it) they must be ruled by an absolute power; and I feel my pain much alleviated by knowing the natives themselves ... are happier under us than they were or could have been under the Sultans of Delhi or petty Rajas."

The Muslim rulers were undoubtable very cruel to the people including their own brothers and family members. But so were the Hindu rulers. That's why the roughly translated famous saying from the peasants "whoever the king it does not matter to us as they are all equally bad".

The editor of a popular Indian magazine (Sarita) from my days, Mr. Vishwanath, in summarizing the real Indian problem said "the idea of caste is the main reason why we have been slaves and the Brahmins were the enemy". I am sure he meant not the genuine scholar Brahmins (and there have been a lot in the Indian history), but the kind of people who are the BJP propagandists today.

If you look at the Indian history and all the wars that shaped our sordid history, there is not a single example where any of the two armies fighting were strictly Muslims or Hindus. Even Ghouri had Hindu support in the battle against Prithviraj Chauhan; Babur had Hindu soldiers on his side and Rana Sangram Singh had Muslim soldiers on his side. Even in the third battle of Panipat where the Maratha leader Sadashiv Rao Bhau collected thousands of Jat soldiers by writing one of the most emotion charged letter I have ever read, there were muslims on his side and Hindus on the side of Abdali.

BJP people today try to portray the history in a completely distorted manner. The reality is that there was never a clear cut fight between Hindus and Muslims but there were lot of wars between cruel rulers both Muslims and Hindus.

During the struggle between Aurangzeb (probably the cruelest ruler of them all) and his elder brother, Dara Sikoh (a genuine scholar who had translated Upnishads in Persian), Father Buzeo, a European Padre in Agra had told the Italian historian and adventurer in the Mogul court, Mancuci, that Dara will be defeated and destroyed inspite of all the advantages because "the people of Hindustan are malicious people and .... such a race required to be ruled by a malignant king rather than a good natured person like Dara".

My only request to the people on Jatland is that please do not get excited by any propaganda material without checking the details thoroughly. Of course, the Muslim rulers (and the Hindu rulers) committed lot of cruelties but to say that the Muslim ruler only persecuted Hindus is totally absurd. When you read what Natwar Singh said in its proper context, it is perfectly true.

[dahiyars]

I agree with Dr Birbal Singh ji . I think that Hindu Rulers had been much more cruel to the public at large. History is full of such examples. Even in a given any community we find thieves, rapists, eve teasers, murderers and so on who do all these crimes against their community fellows and women fellows daily. Dropdi cheer Haran was not done by Muslims in Mahabharta. Daily many Hindu dropdi are raped by Hindus. But there is no Mahabharat now. Ditortions had been done in the History also. One must not see History subjectively, It is to be seen objectively.Rationality should prevail in our thought.
Dr.R.S.Dahiya

[devdahiya]

My dear members,

What are we discussing? Please Put a full stop to this discussion here only.Please don,t play in the hands of politicians .....They are all shameless people and have done no good to common man. Please don't debate this topic at all..............," Lena ek na denna 2 sukki raand bhdda-bhadd ho." S.....................H....................A...... ..................N..........................T.... .......................I O............................O.................... ................M.
Ek shabad bhi mat kahiyo iss ke baad.........haath jodd ke prarthana he ye meri aap sabhi se................Wish You Happiness!

[ramksehrawat]

Who was cruel to whom a thousand years or five hundred years back has no relevance in shaping the destiny of India in the present times. Whatever the Hindu or Muslim rulers did must have been necessary to survive in those times. Self-assuming and self-proclaimed intellectual Natwar Singh seems to have lost his balance as is evident from his recent statements on nuclear status of India, UN seat and now this. Does he deserve to occupy this highly sensitive post of External Affairs Minister ? On most of the occasions he himself is not aware what he is talking about. This shows how bankrupt India has become as far as leadership is concerned. I really pity him. We should not be surprised if tomorrow he says his father Govind Singh was never a Hindu.

[devdahiya]

Sab Ko Pata He Mere Doston ...," Har Saakh Pe Ullu Baithha He...guullisttan Ka Khanddar Banna Diya He."...........koe Phayda Na Iss Baat Ne Aagge Badhhawan Ka......once Again My Humble Request...,stop Debating This Non-issue. Korri Paggalpanthhee He Ye.


Regards

[raj2rif]

I agree with Mr. Sehrawat's viwes. I think Mr. Natwar Singh has lost his balance. It is so unfortunate to have a leader like him leading our foreign policy.

While I am neither a supporter of BJP or Congress, I personally don't agree with the idea of Hindu Rulers being more cruely than Muslim Rulers per say. If that was so, Md. Gajnavi would not have got the second chance to attack India after his first defeat. The foreign invaders task had been made easy with people like Jaichand and we have plenty of them even today in high offices.

Let us not carry on with the policy of appeasment whether it is Hindus or Muslims. Also let us not defend Mr. Natwar Singh on this forum for just his being a Jat.

We have landed up in the situation that we are today just because of the politics of appeasment whether it was for minorities of scheduled castes. I think we should look at the larger picture of the community and value the human being irrespective of his/her caste or religion.

Mr. Natwar Singh is absolutely wrong in his statement and I definitely condemn it.

[ajaysinghbamel]

What Mr.Natwar singh is saying is just diplomatically correct what Ch. Hardwari Lal wrote in editorial of Hindustan times 27th january 1997 on the reply of article of Kuldeep nayyar (anti Jat writer) on 50th indepenmdence day . Kuldeep nayyar wrote that Hindus were killed during 1947 and next day Ch. Hardwari lal wrote a full editorial prooving that it was not anti Hindu riots in 1947 but revolt against punjabis who had suppressed poor muslim farmers for years same what kashmiri pandits had done to muslims in Kashmir . Ch. Hardwari lal proved that he and one more jat sikh officer Mr.sandhu in pakistan at that time (they were ics officers) were not even arranged for their departure to india by same (punjabi) hindus when thay came to know that they were jats by so called hindu (punjabi's) at lahore, but when muslims came to know that they are from rehbrey azam ch. chotu ram's area and farmers they themselves arranged for their safe passage to India.If you analyse the old preindependence era in around jat areas with old people you will never feel that farmers suffered from muslim or english invaders but always from local biz man.This has historical evidence across world. Therefore Natwar singh is correct that Muslims never killed Jats . By the way he is also jat and he is the only leader for jats at centre and we should accept this.

[devdahiya]

BHAI LOGGO...This is the LAST time that i am requesting u all to CONTROL YOUR EMOTIONS................IT is a thankless issue.AGGAR NAHIN MANNTE.. TE LAGGE RAHO..............





RAM-RAM

[chhoraharyanada]

Chalo, BJP aur Congress ko chhodo ...

Fact remains that historically-speaking, by-and-large, Muslims have been the worst of the worst scumbags to hindus.

Ignore a few anomalies of a few emotional letters here or there to the odd Jat ruler - lets never forget Aurangzeb, Khiljis, Md. Ghaznavi and more recently, Jinnah miah and the Muslim League.

http://www.hinduunity.org/muslimleague.htm

Its an entire book written online - makes for interesting reading.

Regards and Ram Ram.

[jagmohan]

"Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely".

How very true and applicable this statement is for mankind. The rich WILL exploit the poor and the RAJAS (HIndus/Muslims/Etc) will illtreat the common man. More spineless the 'Praja', greater the 'Exploitation'. All this is gospel truth and I don't understand the reason for this debate. All those who RULED, exploited. They do it even today and I can assure you it would happen in future too.

A word about Mr Natwar Singh. I for one don't give him the benefit of doubt at all as far as intellect is concerned. I am extremely pained to say it but it must be said. A person who can't look after his own family and give happiness to his own children has no right to make sweeping statements about who exploited whom in the past. And for heaven's sake don't call him a JAT Leader.

[shailendra]

Dr. Birbal Singh's comments are really on the mark. it is once again delightful to read frank and genuine views like his.
I agree that we tend to romanticize about certain aspects a little bit too much that seem to have caught the imagination over the generations. For example; Hatred for what symbolizes the 'kattar musalmaan'... not that those views are without basis. It is a well known fact about some of their very mosques had been constructed in those times right over what were once Hindu temples stood, and so on. (It is interesting to understand that this was once again simply ploys to emotionally destroy the confidence of a certain kaum, by the invading rulers)
We as Jats probably already know/heard and read that why look towards the Muslims, but even the Rajput rulers (Hindu's at that!!!) and there brethren once made sure that their arch rivals and strong contenders to the Rajput's supposed sole right as the only existing martial Kaum (us Jats!) were always humiliated and made to live as second rate citizens within their ruling areas....