Khwaja Muinuddin Chisti  is regarded as foremost preacher of Sufism among Sufis of India. the belief of Akbar , the mughal emperor that it was his  blessings which lead him a  son and the heir for the mughal throne started trend among people for fulfilling wishes by offering prayer at his mazar. Though people sings more about his miracles but very few are aware of the fact about real stand of last Hindu ruler of our country Prithviraj Chauhan and Khwaja Muinuddin Chisti. Stories have been exaggerated to show Khwaja as mystic with high spiritual powers but truth is nonthe else. The belief of Khwaja in shariat and support to Muslim invader Muhammad Gori in establishment of Islamic rule in India clearly outlines his inclination towards Islam. We will take few examples from his life which will create doubts in our mind about his so called secular? Stand.
The fawaidu’l –fu’ad says that when Khwaja arrived in Delhi from Lahore seven hundred people (Hindus), besides hamidu’din – din dihlawi, embrace Islam (ref- page 117 vol. 1 a history of Sufism in India –Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi).
Khwaja Ajmer visit is mentioned as full of miracles (exaggerated stories). Since Khwaja arrival in Ajmer caused lot of disputes with prithviraj.

1.    Reaching there he decided to sit under a tree, but camel keepers ordered him away as the area belonged to the raj.
(The truth was that camels keeping area was Prithviraj army area in which locals were not allowed. A story has been propagated that due to Khwaja wished that none of the camels were able to stand on their legs. It was only when raI’s officials came and pleaded for guilty Khwaja made them well.  )

2.     The Khwaja and his followers moved to a place near the Anasagar Lake. His servants killed a cow and cooked kebabs for him. Some members of the khwaja’s party went to anasagar and the others to Pansela Lake for ablutions. There were one thousand temples on the two lakes. The Brahmans stopped the ablutions and the party complained to the Khwaja. He sent his servant to bring water for his ewer. As soon as the ewer touched the Pansela Lake, all the lakes, tanks and wells around became dry. The Khwaja went to the anasagar lake temple and asked the name of the idol. He was told it was called sawi deva. The Khwaja asked whether the idol had talked to them. On receiving a negative reply he made the idol recite kalmia and converted it into a human being, naming it sa’di. This caused a sensation in the town. Prithviraj ordered his Prime Minister Jaipal who was also a magician, to avert the evil influence of the Khwaja. Jaipal proceeded to fight the Khwaja with 700 magical dragons, 1500 magical discs and 700 disciples. The Khwaja drew a circle bringing his party within it under his protection , and succeeded in killing all the dragons and disciples. Pithaura and jaipal begged the Khwaja forgiveness. The Khwaja prayer restored water to the lakes, tanks and wells. A large number of people accepted Islam. Pithaura refused tom accept Islam and the Khwaja prophesied he would be handed over to the Islamic army.(ref- ali asghar chisti- jawahir-I faridi , Lahore 1884, pp.155-160 )

(The truth was that This area was considered as sacred by Hindus and killing cow who is also considered as sacred  was heinous crime. the visit of Khwaja to anasagar lake temple caused many controversies as Hindus were not in favor of cow meat eater. second if Khwaja was so powerful then why Muhammad Gori was defeated in first war against prithviraj chauhan, it was only in second war and that also along with combined forces of king jaichand, father of prithviraj wife sayogita helped Mohammad Gori  prithviraj lost the war. Rest all stories are myths in which no wise person will belief.  )

3.    Sheikh nizamuddin-din auliya believed that when Khwaja muinuddin reached Ajmer, India was ruled by Pithaura raI’s and his capital was Ajmer. Pithaura and his high officials resented the sheik’s presence in their city, but the latter’s eminence and his apparent power to perform miracles, prompted them to refrain from taking action against him. A disciple of the khwaja’s was in the service of prithviraj rajs. After the disciple began o receive hostile treatment from the rajs, the Khwaja sent a message to Pithaura in favor of the Muslim. Pithaura refused to accept the recommendation, thus indicating his resentment of, the khwaja’s alleged claims to understand the secrets of the unseen. When Khwaja mu’inu’d-din heard of this reply he prophesied: “we have seized Pithaura alive and handed him over to the army of Islam.” about the same time sultan Muhammad Gori arrived from ghazna, attacked the forces of Pithaura and defeated them. Pithaura was taken alive and thus the khwaja’s prophesy was fulfilled.
(Ref- amir khwurd, siyaru’l – auliya, delhi,1885,pp.45-47)

(The above reference is by a renowned Sufi nizamuddin auliya for another Sufi clears their stand for Islam. they are considered as preachers of brotherhood and humanity. the above reference exposes their attitude towards Hindus.)

A. Conversion of Hindus by Sufis

Sufis are considered as messengers of god who believed in peace, harmony and nonviolence. But contrary to this we read many evidences of Sufis using all measures to convert Hindus towards Islam. From debates, stipends, grants, higher official posts, life threat, pardoning of life to brutal killings were main tools for them.

1. Gisu Daraz famous Chisti Sufi (born 30 July 1321 in New Delhi) learnt Sanskrit and acquired a knowledge of the Hindu epics in an attempt to refute the religious beliefs in Hinduism. He indulged in debates with Brahmins on the condition that whoever was beaten should embrace the religion of the victor. Gisu Daraz claimed to have defeated many Brahman scholars.

(Ref. Gisu Daraz, jawanmi’u'l-kilam, British museum MS.or 252, ff.9a, 87a-90a)

2. Shahjahan ordered Mulla Muhibib “ali sindi, an alim, poet and Sufi whom he deeply respected to convert willing Hindus to Islam which would make them eligible for stipends and revenue grants”

(Ref. tabaqat-I-shahjahani, f.316b)

3. Sheikh dawud of chati converted fifty to a hundred Hindus each day would make the number of converts annually an impossible neat 15,000

(Ref. supra, p.63)

Sheikh dawud’s successor, shah abu’l-ma’ali, and Sufis in other qadiriyya khanqahs certainly never hesitated in their proselytizing mission and even Mulla shah converted a number of Hindus to Islam

(Ref. supra, p.119-120)

4. Shah ‘abdu’l-’aziz himself claimed to have converted hundreds of hindus, but was not successful in recruiting more than half a dozen shi’is to the ranks of sunnism.

(Ref.- malfuzat-I-shah ‘abdu’l-’aziz, p.22)5. A Hindu zamindar Birbar was arrested for fomenting a rebellion and was given the death sentence. He requested a Sufi Miran Bhikh to save his life and promising to become a Muslim if he did so. He was pardoned and was rewarded with a rode of honor. Sufi Miran converted him to Islam and also made him his disciple.

(Ref. HSI vol. 2 p.272-273)

6. According to Dara -Sukoh, Sheikh ‘Abdul-qadir converted a large number of Hindus to Islam, as well as causing many wayward Muslims to adopt a pious life

(Ref. Muhammad dara-shukoh, safinatu’l-auliya’, lucknow, 1872,p.69)

7. Sheikh Mahmud bin Abdullah gujrati was for several years deeply in love with the son of a Hindu dancer. The sheikh’s success in subsequently islamizing the boy was a matter of great satisfaction to the orthodox.

(Ref. Gulzar-i-abrar, f.247a.)

8. Nawahun, the Hindu darogha of Uch once visited Makhdum Jahaniyan (also known as Saiyid Jalalu’d-din Bukhari, eminent Suhrawardiyya Sufi) on his deathbed. He in his previous discourse had expressed that a formal recitation of kalima did not make the speaker a Muslim. The Saiyid concluded that Nawahun’s statement amounted to a protestation of faith. Nawahun was not willing to accept Islam. He even made an unsuccessful attempt to prevent his conversion from sultan of Delhi. But makhdum’s younger brother Saiyid Raju caught and executed him.

(Ref. HSI .by SAA Rizvi vol. 1 p. 279,280)

9. We know that the Suhrawardiyya, Shaikh lalalu’d-din tabrizi, Makhdum Jahaniyan and his brother, Raju Qattal, were active propagators of Islam. The Sufis trained in the khanqahs of Shaikh alaud-dala Simnani, Mir Saiyid Ali Hamadani and his son and successors, Mir Muhammad, considered the conversion of Hindus to Islam as one of their main objectives. Shaikh Jalal of Sylhet and his Turkistani disciples were similarly imbued with missionary fervour, as were Khwajgan and the Naqshbandiyyas of central Asia, some of whom would devote a few years of their lives fighting against the non-Islamic Turkic tribes before converting them to Islam. The Sufis of the Shattariyya, qadiriyya and the naqshbandiyyas orders who began establishing their khanqahs during the fifteenth century were deeply aware of the proselytizing traditions of their ancestors in Persia and central Asia, and brought their knowledge to bear upon Indian conditions in order to gain converts.

(Ref. HSI by SAA Rizvi, vol.2, pp.426)

B. Influenced Muslim rulers to show hostile behaviors towards Hindus to enable them to denounce Hinduism and accept Islam.

1. Saiyid nur-ud-din Mubarak’s gave four principles for protection of Islam. He was a Suhrawardiyya khalifa appointed by Iltutmish and was called by people of the city as, Mir-I dilhi (lord of Delhi)

The first one is as follows:

They (rulers) should promote Islamic customs, promulgate the commands of the sharia, enforcing what is obtained and prohibiting what is forbidden by it, and uproot kufr (infidelity), shirk (polytheism) and idolatry. If they cannot fully uproot kufr and shirk they should make every effort to disgrace and humiliate Hindus, mushriks (polytheists) and idolaters, for they are inveterate enemies of god and the prophet Mohammad. They should not tolerate the sight of Hindus, and in particular they should exterminate the Brahmans, who are the leaders of heretics and disseminators of heresy. They should not allow kafirs (infidels) and mushriks to lead an honorable life or sassing to them high office.

(Ref. tarikh-I firuz shahi, pp. 41-44)

2. Shaikh Muzaffar (Firdawsiyya Sufi) reminded sultan of Bengal Ghiyasu’d-din Azam shah that high government posts should not be given to Hindus and wrote:

An infidel may be entrusted with some work but he should not be made wali (chief supervisor or governor) so that he may have control over and impose his authority on Muslims. God says “let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers and neglect god: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from god expect by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. There are severe warnings in the Quran, the Hadis and historical works against those who have given authority to the unbelievers over the believers. God grants opulence and provisions from unexpected sources, and he gives deliverance from them.” There is authoritative promise of provisions, victory and prosperity. The vanquished unbelievers with heads hanging downward, exercise their power and authority and administer the lands which belong to them. But they have also been appointed (executive) officers over the Muslims, in the lands of Islam, and they impose their orders on them. Such things should not happen.

(Ref. S.H.Askari- the correspondence of the fourteenth century Sufi saints of Bihar with the contemporary sovereigns of Delhi and Bengal, journal of the Bihar research society, march 1956,p.186-187)

3. Mir Saiyid Ali Hamadani (founder of Kubrawiyya Sufi order of Kashmir) emphasized a covenant to sultan of Kashmir on his relation with Hindus. Covenant is as follows:

1.      They (the hindus) will not bid new idol temples.

2.      They will not rebuild any existing temple which may have fallen into disrepair.

3.      Muslim travelers will not be prevented from staying in temples.

4.      Muslim travelers will be provided hospitality by Zimmis in their own houses for three days.

5.      Zimmis will neither act as spies nor give spies shelter in their houses.

6.      If any relation of a Zimmi is inclined towards Islam, he should not be prevented from doing so.

7.      Zimmis will respect Muslims.

8.      Zimmis will courteously receive a Muslim wishing to attend their meetings.

9.      Zimmis will not dress like Muslims.

10.  They will not take Muslim names.

11.  They will not ride horses with saddle and bridle.

12.  They will not possess swords, bows or arrows.

13.  They will not wear signet rings.

14.  They will not openly sell or drink intoxicating liquor.

15.  They will not abandon their traditional dress, which is a sign of their ignorance, in order that they may be distinguished from Muslims.

16.  They will not openly practice their traditional customs amongst Muslims.

17.  They will not build their houses in the neighbourhood of Muslims.

18.  They will not carry or bury their dead near Muslim graveyards.

19.  They will not mourn their dead loudly.

20.  They will not buy Muslim slaves.

(Ref. Zakhiratul-muluk, pp. 117-118)

(Saiyid Ali considered Hindus as Zimmis)

4. Shah Waliu’llah suggested Mughal emperor Ahmad shah regarding their administration:

Strict orders should be issued in all Islamic towns forbidding religious ceremonies, publicly practiced by infidels (such as the performance of Holi and ritual bathing in the ganges). On the tenth of Muharram Shi’is should not be allowed to go beyond the bounds of moderation, neither should they be rude nor repeat stupid things (that is, recite tabarra or condemn the first three successors of Muhammad) in the streets or bazaars.

(REF. Shah Waliu’llah dihlawi ke siyasi maktubat, aligarh, 1950, pp. 41-44, 2^nd edition, Delhi 1969, p.5)

5. Under the influence of Mir (Mir Muhammad Sufi of Kubrawiyya order) and Suha Bhatta, the sultan’s  (Sultan Sikander of Kashmir 1389-1413) policy changed. Ancient temples in Pompur, Vijabror, Martand, Anantnag, Sopur and Baramula were desecrated and demolished; many puritanical and discriminatory laws were introduced and the jiziya or poll tax was imposed on hindus for the first time in Kashmir. The persecution of Brahmans, their exclusion from the top spheres of government and the ensuing replacement by Irani migrants, gave the administration a veneer of orthodoxy.

(Ref. HSI by SAA Rizvi, vol.1, pp.297)

C. Sufis promoted or participated in destruction of Hindu temples.

1.Miyan Bayan supported Bahadur Shah of gujrat to invade Rajputs and destruct Hindu temple.

In Ajmer, there lived Bayan Majzub who spent most of his time in the vicinity of the tomb of Khwaja Mu’inu’d-din Chisti. It is said that before his accession to the throne, Bahadur shah of gujrat (1526-1537) visited Ajmer, which was then ruled by the Rajputs who had gone to the extent of converting the tomb into an idol temple. Bahadur took a vow that if he were to succeed to the throne; he would take revenge upon the infidels and reduce them to miserable circumstances. Miyan Bayan who was present at the time instantly ordered his slave girl to arrange for a high throne for the sea bird, meaning Bahadur. The prince’s claim to the gujrati throne were strongly contested by his rivals. However, considering bayan’s symbolic gesture as a prophecy of his success in acceding to the gujrat sultanate, he immediately returned to gujrati and soon became its ruler. Shortly he invaded the Rajputs and shattered their power.

(Ref. akhbaru’l-akhyar by Shaikh ‘abdu’l-haqq muhaddis dihlawi pp.291-292)

2. Shaikh Jalalu’d-din of Suhrawardiyya Sufi order demolished temple and constructed a khanqah in place of it.

Shaikh Jalalu’d-din had many disciples in Bengal. He first lived at lakhnauti, constructed a khanqah and attached a langer to it. He also bought some gardens and land to be attached to the monstry. He moved to Devatalla (Deva Mahal) near Pandua in northern Bengal. There a kafir (either a Hindu or a Buddhist) had erected a large temple and a well. The Shaikh demolished the temple and constructed a takiya (khanqah) and converted a large number of kafirs.

(Ref. jamali, p.171)

D. Sufis appealed or helped Muslim invaders to invade Hindu kings

1.Shaikh Nur Qutb-i ‘ Alam and Saiyid Muhammad Ashraf Jahangir Simnani appealed Sultan Ibrahim Shah Sharqi to invade Bengal.

Shaikh Nur Qutb-i ‘ Alam believed in the traditional perso-islamic theory of kingship and taught his followers tom obey the sultan according to the prophet’s Hadis and the advice of leading Chisti saints. His relations with Sikander’s successor, Ghiyasu’d-din A’zam Shah, were cordial but he was distressed by the growing factionalism at court. A powerful party of Hindus and Muslims, led by Raja Ganesha, a local Hindu chief of Dinajpur in North Bengal began to dominate the government. After the death of Ghiyasu’d-din A’zam Shah, between 1410 and 1415, the Raja acted as king- maker and one after the other three puppets were elevated to the throne. During the reign of the last, Ala’u'd-Din Firuz Shah, Raja Ganesha was defacto ruler of Bengal. This prompted Nur Qutb-i ‘ Alam to write to Sultan Ibrahim Shah Sharqi of Jaunpur urging him to invade Bengal and in so doing restore the glory of Islam. Saiyid Muhammad Ashraf Jahangir Simnani also wrote a similar letter. In 1415 Sultan Ibrahim Shah Sharqi invaded Bengal but a peace was concluded in which Ganesha promised his son would convert to Islam before assuming the throne of Bengal.

(Ref. tabaqat-I-akbari, 3,p.265; gulshan-I ibrahimi, pp. 296-207; ghulam hussain salim, riyazu’s- salatin, Calcutta, 1890, pp.108-110, maktubat-I ashrafi (letter to sultan Ibrahim); mir’atu’l-asrar, ff.477b-79b; riyazu’s-salatin, pp.112-113)

2. Sheikh Ghaus of Shattariyya order of Sufis helped Babur to seize Gwalior fort.

For thirteen years and four months Shaikh Ghaus performed rigorous ascetic exercises in the caves of Chunar, near the Ganges in the modern district of Mirzapur in the U.P., and became known to the Muslim elite for his miraculous powers. He settled in Gwalior where he became very influential. In November 1526 he helped Babur’s army to seize the Gwalior fort, thereby winning the respect and confidence of the emperor.

(Ref. Beveridge, a.s.tr.Babur-nama, 2, reprint, New Delhi, 1970, pp. 539-540)

3. Saiyid Ahmad Shahid urged Muslims to help him in annihilation of Sikhs from northern India.

11 January 1827 he (Saiyid Ahmad Shahid) officiated at a ceremony of bay’a in which several thousand theologians, Sufis, leading citizens and common people in the northwest frontier pledged him their allegiance, after which they recited the khutba in his name. At the time Saiyid protested that as an Imam he was not commissioned to deprive the various sultans between Kabul and Bukhara of their states. They could continue to flourish in peace, he said, and would assert only his leadership in the question of bid’a (sinful innovations). However they were urged to offer him their military assistance in a jihad against the Sikhs.

(Ref. Muhammad ja’far thaneswari, ed. Maktubat-Saiyid Ahmad shahid, Karachi, 1969.no.14, 16)

Sufis unfriendly attitude towards Hindus

1.Shah waliu’llah advised Indian Muslims to live so far from Hindu towns that they would be unable to see the light from the fires in Hindu houses.

(Ref. shah waliu’llah, hujjat Allah al – baligha, 1, Karachi, n.d. pp.468)

2. He (Makhdum Jahaniyan or Saiyid Jalalu’d-din Bukhari of Suhrawardiyya order) also sternly disapproved of giving Allah such Hindi names as Thakur (lord), Dhani (rich) and Kartar (creator)

(Ref. siraju’l-hidaya, f.64b)

Sufis praised Muslim invaders who killed millions of Hindus, plundered thousands of temples, raped countless mothers and sisters and sold Hindus in slave market of Kabul.

It is not surprising that Shah Waliu’llah considered sultan Mahmud of Ghazna (998-1030) Islam’s greatest ruler as he launched and sustained the first read conquest of northern India. His fame had a natural qualification- Mahmud was the greatest ruler after the khilafat-I-khass. Shah waliu’llah argued that in reference to Mahmud historians failed to recognize that his horoscope had been identical to the prophet’s and that this fact had enabled him to obtain significant victories in wars to propagate Islam.

(Ref. shah waliu’llah, qurrat al-a’ynain fi tafzil al-shaykhyn, Delhi, 1893, p.324.)

Sufis didn’t hesitate to say lie for personal benefits

When mughal emperor aurangzib imprisoned his own son Shah Alam, his other son prince Azam shah believed that if Shah Alam were killed his accession to the throne would not prove too difficult. So Azam shah started hatching plots, using a Shaikh from Sirhind to whom the emperor was greatly attached. Azam deposited with a banker 900,000 rupees in name of the Sirhind Shaikh, on the condition that the latter incite the emperor to execute Shah Alam. The Shaikh informed the emperor that Shah Alam was an evil man who should receive the death penalty and that such knowledge had been given to him by the prophet. Owing to the seriousness of this accusation the emperor requested the Shaikh to mystically consult the prophet again, only to be told that the orders were final. The following morning the Shaikh called on the emperor, urging him against a delay in carrying out the express command of the prophet. Aurangzib summoned Sidi Faulad the kotwal, to whom he delegated complete responsibility in the handling of the matter. Sidi Faulad summoned every prominent banker in the imperial camp with their diaries and account books. The note about the plot hatched by Azam shah was found.

(Ref. HSI by SAA Rizvi, vol.2, pp.370-371)

1.    Who was Maxmuller?
Maxmuller was a fugitive from Germany who in his youth was in extreme difficulty to earn even two square meals for him. (…Had not a penny left, and that in spite of every effort to make a little money, I should have had to return to Germany-ref –the life and letters of Maxmuller, vol.1, p.61, London edn.) He was a scholar extraordinary but his situation made him easy tool in the hands of Britishers. Maxmuller who had continuously suffered from want and youthful zeal and an insatiable ambition willingly agreed to prostitute his pen, intellect and scholarship for the filthy lucre the new job promised him plenty. (I am to hand over to the company, ready for the press, fifty sheets each year-the same I had promised to samter in Germany; for this I have asked 200 pounds a year, 4 pounds a sheet- ref. the life and letters of Maxmuller, vol.1, p.60-61, London edn.) He soon launched himself upon the project with the zeal and devotion that can be expected only from a religious zealot. He did his best to equate Hinduism with polytheism even though he had to invent for this purpose a new Jesuitical definition for the religion of the Rigveda.

2.    Boden chair and its motives
Col. Joseph Boden one time Bombay colonel with the army of the east India Company wanted to do whatsoever lay in his power to help Christian missionaries to Christianize India in general and the Hindus in particular. So, after his retirement (in 1807) he donated 25,000 pounds to the university of oxford to enable it to found a chair of Sanskrit, which the university, justifiably and as a mark of gratitude, named after him. Boden objective was to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian religion by providing translations of the bible into Sanskrit.

As Christianity is founded upon and wedded to trinitarianism it would not give up its belief in three gods except at grave peril to its very existence. The Christian missions wanted therefore as the only other alternative available to them, to show someone to the world at large that Hinduism was a polytheistic religious faith. Since the Hindus traced their monotheism back to the Vedas, to the Rig in particular, it was considered absolutely necessary that the concocted evidence in order to be readily acceptable to the Hindus must have behind it the sanction and authority of the Rigveda. Once the decision had been made and the target fixed the only thing that remained to be done was to find the right marksman. The search for the right man continued till Maxmuller happened to come their way. Maxmuller was a German and was not at all well versed with English, Sanskrit was far off. But he was a youth of 24 and this task assured him bread and butter for next eight years. In addition he had at his back the combined might of all those Christian missionaries who wanted to convert the Hindus of India to Christianity. These missionaries readily and willingly broadcast to the world whatever Maxmuller said and wrote and this went a long way to enhance Maxmuller’s prestige as a scholar.3.    Maxmuller meets Macaulay and its impact
Macaulay was born in a Presbyterian family and brought in rigid clapham sect of Christians so he was having a strong bias in favor of Christianity to the exclusion of all other religions- a prejudice from which he was not able to free himself even when he had grown into a matured man of 55 years. He came to India in 1834 with plans in his mind to introduce European education in combination with Christian doctrines so that Indians could more easily be made to accept the religion of Christ.

In feb.1835 he made English language the compulsory medium of instruction in all Indian schools. Very gleefully he writes to his father in his letter dated Oct. 12, 1836 “our English schools are flourishing wonderfully. We find it difficult – indeed, in some places impossible – to provide instructions for all who want it. At the single town of hoogle fourteen hundred boys are learning English. The effect of this education on the hindoos is prodigious. No hindoo, who has received an English education, ever remains sincerely attached to his religion. Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy; but many profess themselves pure deists, and some embrace Christianity. It is my firm belief that if, our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be affected without any efforts to proselytize; without the smallest interference with religious liberty; merely by the natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in the prospects. Ref. the life and letters of Lord Macaulay, pp. 329-330”

In 1851 Maxmuller met Macaulay for first time for a short while in a party in London. He met him second time only in Dec. 1855 when he had with him long interview. In between Maxmuller wrote a pamphlet “suggestions for the assistance of officers in learning the languages of the seat of war in the east” in which he had stressed importance of learning oriental languages especially Sanskrit. Macaulay a mulish Christian and a rabid enemy of oriental languages and literature did not like the idea of Maxmuller. Maxmuller went to plead Macaulay the case for oriental studies forgetting the historian fact that it was Macaulay who had imposed on the Indian people English language with the covert purpose of language being used as a vehicle for converting people to Christianity. Maxmuller wrote to his mother about this encounter as “…I made acquaintance this time in London with Macaulay, and had along conversation with him on the teaching necessary for the young men who are sent out to India. He is very clear headed, and extraordinarily eloquent…I went back to oxford a sadder, and, I hope, a wiser man. Ref. –the life and letters of Maxmuller, vol.1, p.162, London edn”

Maxmuller profited very little because while he gathered pelf in accepting the company’s assignment he had, in the bargain, lost his soul. His writings took a different trend in as much as he became more active and less inhibited in praise of Christianity; of the bible and of Jesus Christ.

4.    Maxmuller revealed himself as a Christian zealot
Maxmuller’s encounter with Macaulay left an indelible impact on Maxmuller. Despite his constant endeavors to hide his moves behind the secular mask of scholarship he too often gave himself away as a Christian proselytizer and evangelist. He had written a letter to Bunsen saying- “ …nevertheless I of course shall be glad if the Rigveda is dealt with in the Edinburgh review, and if Wilson would write from the standpoint of a missionary, and would show how the knowledge and bringing into light of the Veda would upset the whole existing system of Indian theology, it might become of real interest ”(The life and letters of Maxmuller, vol.1, p. 117, London edn.)

Maxmuller’s hidden mission even received support of influential missionaries and ecclesiastics like bishop of Calcutta and Dr. Pusey.

Bishop of Calcutta wrote to him (Maxmuller) “I feel considerable interest in the matter, because I am sure that it is of the greatest importance for our missionaries to understand Sanskrit, to study the philosophy and sacred books of the Hindus, and to be able to meet the pundits on their own ground. Among the means to this great end, none can be more important than your edition and professor Wilson’s translation of the Rigveda. It would be most fitting in my opinion for a great Christian university to place in its Sanskrit chair the scholar who has made the Sanskrit scriptures accessible to the Christian missionary.”
(The life and letters of Maxmuller, vol.1, p. 236-237, London edn.)

Dr. Pusey wrote to Maxmuller. “I cannot but think that your lectures on the Vedas… are the greatest gift which had been bestowed on those who would win to Christianity the subtle and thoughtful minds of the cultivated Indians.”
(The life and letters of Maxmuller, vol.1, p. 237-238, London edn.)

Monier-Williams who had become second professor of Boden Sanskrit chair revealed more in being a proselytizer than a scholar of Sanskrit. In his preface to a Sanskrit- English dictionary which he compiled he boastfully gave vent to his christianish zeal and aspirations in these words: ‘in explanation I must draw attention to the fact that I am only the second occupant of the Boden chair, and that its founder col. Boden, stated most explicitly in his will that the special object of his munificent bequest was to promote the translation of the scriptures into Sanskrit so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian religion’

Today even people think Maxmuller as friend of Hindus; a scholar extraordinary in Vedas, the letter of Maxmuller written to his wife in 1866 exposed his aspirations.

“I hope I shall finish that work (translation of Rigveda), and I feel convinced, though I shall not live to see it, that this edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what that root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung up from it during the last 3000 years”. (The life and letters of Maxmuller, vol.1, p. 328, London edn.)

“…The missionaries have done far more than they themselves seem to be aware of, nay, much of the work which is theirs they would probably disclaim. The Christianity of our nineteenth century will hardly be the Christianity of India. But the ancient religion of India is doomed- and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault it be?”
(The life and letters of Maxmuller, vol.1, p. 357-358, London edn.)

Inspite of the fact that the Vedas sings monotheism Christian missionaries tried to show polytheism in Vedas. Maxmuller wrote,  “… When I undertook to publish for the university press a series of translations of the most important of these sacred books, one of my objects was to assist missionaries. What shall we think if a missionary who came to convert us, and who had never read our bible? …. But, it will be said, you cannot deny that the Hindus are polytheists, that they worship idols. But let us look at their own bible, at the Veda, older than any other book in India. No doubt we find there many names for the divine, many gods, as we are accustomed to say. But there are also passages in which the oneness of the deity is clearly asserted.”
(The life and letters of Maxmuller, appendix D p.455, London edn.)

The world at large now knows it too well that this scholar extraordinary who masqueraded all his lifetime from behind the secular mash of philology was more a Christian missionary than a scholar of the Vedas.

5. Maxmuller as a scholar of Vedas
Maxmuller is considered as one of the foremost scholar of Vedas worldwide. But was his level of knowledge in Sanskrit and English (both were not his mother tongue) sufficient to complete this task. He himself has agreed with Swami Dayanand that it is not an easy matter to interpret the Vedas. The language is different from the classical as well as colloquial Sanskrit.

Maxmuller himself was aware of his limits so he started making impressions that his translations were genuine, flawless and correct. When he revised his first edition, he reaffirmed that” he believed that the translators (of the Rig-Veda) ought to be decipherers.( Ref- sacred books of the east, vol. 12 introduction, p.9)” he even confessed his utter failure as translator by saying “no one who knows anything of the Veda would think of attempting a translation of it at present. A translation of the Rig-Veda is a task for the next century. He further added “not only shall we have to wait till the next century for such a work, but I doubt whether we shall ever obtain it ”(Ref- sacred books of the east, vol. 12 introduction, p.9)”.

Maxmuller was even unaware of Panini grammar who was constantly referred to by Sayana in his commentary of the rig-Veda .He writes in his autobiography, p.94 that “he (boehtling) could have done the whole work himself, in some respect better than I, because he was my senior, and besides, he knew Panini, the old Indian grammarian who is constantly referred to in Sayana’s commentary, better than I did)”. Maxmuller admitted his shortcomings as a scholar of Vedic Sanskrit as “over and over again was I stopped by some short enigmatical reference to Panini’s grammar or Yasaka’s glossary, which I could not identify…how often I was in prefect despair, because there was some allusion in Sayana which I could not make out, and which no other Sanskrit scholar, not even Bournouf or Wilson could help me to clear up. It often took me whole days, nay weeks, before I saw light” (ref- my autobiography, p.108-109).

Maxmuller played another plank by saying that “the great difficulty in all discussions of this kind arises from the fact that we have to transfuse though from ancient into modern forms. In that process some violence is inevitable (ref- lectures of the origin and growth of religion, p.245, fifth Hibbert lecture)”

It’s not uneasy to understand that violence was inevitable because all the while Maxmuller had been pre-resolved to translate the rig from the standpoint of a missionary. And a Christian missionary’s standpoint is, nearly always, only to denounce and denigrate every other religious faith except his own brand of Christianity.

5.    Maxmuller and Swami Dayanand
Great Vedic scholar Swami Dayanand Saraswati in Satyarth Prakash p.278 as “the impression that the Germans are the best Sanskrit scholars, and that no one has read so much of Sanskrit as Prof Maxmuller, is altogether unfounded exposed Maxmuller. Yes, in a land where lofty trees never grow, even recinus communis or the castor oil plant may be called as oak…. I came to learn from a letter of a principal of some German university, that even men learned enough to interpret a Sanskrit letter are rare in Germany. I have also learnt from the study of Maxmuller’s history of Sanskrit literature and his comments on some mantras of the Veda, that prof. Maxmuller has been able to scribble out something by the help of the so-called tikas or paraphrases of the Vedas current in India” Swami Ji was supported in his view by famous German scholar Schopenhauer that our Sanskrit scholars do not understand their text much better than the higher class boys their Greek or Latin.

In the context of the commentary/translation of the Vedas by Max Muller, it will be relevant to point out the opinion of Mr. Boulanger, the editor of Russian edition of The Sacred Books of the East Series as follows:
“What struck me in Maxmuller’s translation was a lot of absurdities, obscene passages and a lot of what is not lucid”.
“As far as I can grab the teaching of the Vedas, it is so sublime that I would look upon it as a crime on my part, if the Russian public becomes acquainted with it through the medium of a confused and distorted translation, thus not deriving for its soul that benefit which this teaching should give to the people”.

Swami Dayanand translation of Vedas is based on Yasaka’s, Nirukta and Panini Ashtadhyyayi that have been considered and accepted throughout the ages and throughout the world as indispensable for correct comprehension. He specially elaborated spiritual meaning of Vedas

Maxmuller with fear of being exposed started attacking swami Dayanand not through the way as scholar does but like a shrewd clever mind after his death. He write to malabari that he had “wished to warn against two dangers, that of undervaluing or despising the ancient natural religion, as is done so often by your half-Europeanized youths, and that of overvaluing it, and interpretating it as it was never meant to be interpreted, of which you may see a painful instance in Dayanand Saraswati’s labors on the Veda. (Ref- the life and letters of Maxmuller, vol. 2, p.115, newyork edn).” He thought Dayanand had interpreted the Veda ought to have been interpreted. That the interpretation had to be from the standpoint of a missionary so that the translation would be of help in uprooting Hinduism and in the conversion of the Hindus to Christianity. He like a coward tried to smear Dayanand’s name after his death in these words “…but he indulged for a time in the use of bhang, hemp, which put him into a state of reverie from which he found it difficult to rouse himself”(ref- chips from a German workshop, vol.2, p.178). In a postscript Maxmuller added “from what has come to light after Dayanand Saraswati’s death, I am afraid that he was not simple-minded and straightforward on his work as a reformer as I imagined” ”(ref- chips from a German workshop, vol.2, p.182)

Though Christian missionary backed government of India purposefully to ignore Swami Dayanand in his times but it did not deter the lion-hearted Dayanand from his mission of reviving the Vedic dharma.

It’s very clear that Maxmuller was a Christian missionary but only in secular garb of a philologist whose main aim was to denounce the Vedas to clear way for Christian missionaries. Maxmuller masqueraded all his lifetime from behind the mask of literature and philology and mortgaged his pen, intellect and scholarship to wreck Hinduism but Swami Dayanand exposed his cruel plans.

by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari

The January 5, 2009 edition of the renowned daily The Times of India carried a press report titled “Gandhi donned army uniform for the British”, that said, “It might seem surprising but it is that in the year 1899, Mahatma Gandhi donned a uniform. This uniform belonged to a voluntary ambulance unit, which he created” (article by J P Chaturvadi published in the Sainik Samachar edition of October 9, 1977). The article contained a rare picture of Gandhi sporting the British Army uniform during the Anglo-Boer war that broke out in South Africa in 1899. It should be mentioned here that the Dutch had their own colony in South Africa and in 1899, a clash of interest began between these two colonialists which turned into a military confrontation in December, 1899 and simply to please the British Government, Gandhi created the said 1,100 strong Indian volunteer and the stretcher bearer corps. During the war Gandhi was personally sympathetic to the Dutch. But, he later on confessed that, to please the British he sacrificed his conscience.

“The performance of his voluntary ambulance unit was appreciated by all when the Anglo-Boer war ended in 1902, after the capture of Transvaal. The commander-in-chief of the army mentioned the heroic deeds performed by this ambulance unit, whose workers walked 20 to 25 miles a day to carry out voluntary duties to help the injured”, says the article. After the victory in the war, British Government presented a medal and a citation to Gandhi which he preserved with great respect till his death. It should be mentioned here that Gandhi strongly believed that the British Empire was for the welfare of the entire world and he maintained this view till his death. Later, Gandhi proudly recalled how he loyally served the British during the Boer War and put his life in peril, particularly while his ambulance corps was working at the battle fields of Colenso, Spion Kop and Vaalkranz.

While in South Africa, Gandhi did not miss a single opportunity to please the British crown. Just after the Boer war, Gandhi expressed his loyalty by sending felicitation to Queen Victoria on her birthday. Queen Victoria died in January, 1901 and Gandhi sent a condolence message to the Colonial Secretary in London, laid a wreath on the pedestal of the Queen’s statue in Durban and distributed picture of the Queen among the school children. Later on, when George-V was coroneted as the king of England, Gandhi expressed his loyalty by sending congratulatory telegram to England that read, “The Indian residents of this country (i.e. South Africa) sent congratulatory cablegrams on the occasion, thus declaring their loyalty”.

To please the British colonialists, Gandhi used to sing National Anthem of England in public meetings though he could discover violence in the following two lines of the song

“Scatter her enemies, and make them fall;

Confound their politics;

frustrate their knavish tricks”.

When Gandhi lived in South Africa, a violent form of apartheid was in vogue there. In some occasions, Gandhi himself was a victim of that discrimination. The Negroes or the original inhabitants of South Africa were divided in many tribes, e.g. the Zulus, the Swazis, the Basutos and the Bechuanas. Among them, the tallest and the most handsome were the Zulus. In February, 1906, the Zulus rose to revolt against the Natal Government. The Zulu chief advised members of his tribe non-payment of new tax imposed upon them. This resulted in assassination of a sergeant and the clash that followed developed into a rebellion.

Being a black himself, Gandhi should have sided with the Zulus, but he supported the British. “His lip sympathy was for the Zulus, but his head was with the British Empire”. The British Government of Natal ruthlessly put down the rebellion. Though Gandhi confessed that it was not a war but a man-hunt, he sided with the British. Later on he said, “But I then believed that the British Empire existed for the welfare of the world. A genuine sense of loyalty prevented me from even wishing ill to the Empire”.

In 1909, Lord Ampthill visited South Africa and Gandhi was out to please him by whatever means he could. The British statesmen and rulers always wanted a man who condemned extremists and revolutionists in India and Gandhi took the opportunity to please Armphill by denouncing the revolutionaries of India and their policy. Through several letters, Gandhi tried to convince him that his doctrine of passive resistance or nonviolent Satyagraha has no intention to hurt others – ‘a satyagrahi do not inflict sufferings on others, but he invites it on himself’. Many believe that it was the most important cause that inspired the British to bring Gandhi to India, made him the topmost leader of Indian freedom movement and his creed of Satyagraha was projected as the only mode of freedom struggle in India.

At that time, British in India were terribly afraid of violent freedom struggle launched by the patriots of Bengal, Maharastra and Punjab and particularly in Bengal, where life of an Englishman was not safe. So in 1911, the British Government on India had to shift its capital from Calcutta to a safer place in New Delhi. But it has been pointed out above that Gandhi, through his speeches and writings, could have managed to expose that he was against any sort of violence in Indian freedom movement. At that historic hour, people of this country saw Sri Gopal Krishna Gokhale to sail to London and visit South Africa on his return journey. He landed at Cape Town on October 22, 1912, and pressed Gandhi to return to India. While in London, Gokhale pleaded to the Prime Minister Mr. Gladstone to repeal the so called Black Act of South Africa, an unjust and discriminatory tax of £ 3 imposed per Indian, for which Gandhi was then fighting. Mr. Gladstone agreed just to glorify Gandhi and the followers of Gandhian nonviolence usually highlight this fact as a great victory of Gandhi and his creed.

After reaching South Africa, Gokhale, whom Gandhi revered as his political guru, communicated this piece of news to Gandhi and said that he (Gandhi) would have to return to India within a year (according to the plan of their British master). Apart from his unwavering loyalty to the British Empire, Gandhi was chosen by the British as the new leader of India’s freedom struggle due his newly invented doctrine of nonviolence. It was not difficult for the British to understand that his harmless and nonviolent Satyagraha would pose no threat to the British Empire.

Why Gopal Krishna Gokhale took so much interest in bringing Gandhi back to India? The reader would recall that on 28 December 1885, British government of India formed the Indian National Congress with Allan Octavian Hume as the president and few other eminent, loyal and English educated Indians like Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Phirozeshah Mehta and so on. The sole intention was simply to get prior information of what the Indians were thinking and going to do in near future so that another Sepoy Mutiny might not recur. At the beginning it was like an elite club dominated by the loyalists. But later on, appearance of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai and Bepin Bihari Pal (popularly known as Lal Bal Pal), the scenario changed considerably. Lokamanya Tilak was first to embrace independence of India from British rule as the national goal and it aroused the first spurt of nationalism among the members of the Congress.

In 1906, the Congress was split into two.. The group led by Tilak and supported by Lala Lajpat Rai and Bepin Bihari Pal was known as the extremist group, while the loyalists were called the moderates. Gradually, the extremists, with the help of mass support, gained popularity and emerged as the dominant group while the moderates lost their control over the Congress. So, when the British took Gokhale into confidence and disclosed their plan to bring loyalist Gandhi to India and make him the sole leader of Congress, Gokhale found to ray of hope to regain their hegemony in the Congress. He readily supported the intrigue and agreed to play a mediator between Gandhi and the British.

So after one year and nine months he had met Gokhale, Gandhi, after staying 21 years in South Africa, came to India, via London. He left Cape Town by S.S. Kinfauns Castle on July 18, 1914, accompanied by his wife Smt. Kasturva and his German friend Mr. Kalenbuch, and reached London on August 6. He again sailed from London on December 19, 1914, for India and landed Bombay on January 9, 1915. Thus he stayed nearly 5 months in England on his way back to India. After landing at the Mumbai port, he, as the most important British loyalist, wrote a letter to the Governor of Bombay Presidency expressing his promise that he would always abide by his instructions. Many believe that he went to London to receive the parting instruction from his British master.

During his brief stay in London, Gandhi, the apostle of nonviolence, deplored Madanlal Dhingra and other revolutionaries to please the British, declared them anarchists and said, “Is killing honourable? Is the dagger of an assassin a fit precursor of an honourable death?” He also said that he wanted to purge India of the atmosphere of suspicion on either side and there was no reason for anarchism in India.

The reader should recall the First World War began in Europe on 28 June 1914, and Gandhi, immediately after reaching India, started to recruit Indian soldiers for the British army, simply to express his loyalty to the British Empire. It is important to note that, Gandhi, the apostle of nonviolence, who claimed to have discover a weapon on nonviolence to end violence in the world, supported war and according to his promise to the British master, recruited Indians to be sacrificed in the violence of the war. He used to travel about 20 miles a day and addressed meetings at Nadiad, Kathlal, Karamsad, Godhra, Jambusar, Vadlhal and other places for recruitment, under the presidentship of the Commisionar Pratt. People used to ask him, “You are a prophet of nonviolence, how can you ask us to take up arms? What good has the British Government done for India to desrve our cooperation?” But Gandhi had to keep mum. It was not possible for him to say that he was doing all these things as the most loyal slave of the British crown. It should be mentioned here that the staunch followers of Gandhi, even today, refuse to acknowledge this glaring example of hypocricy of Gandhi.

He then took up the other important task to please his British master and that was disarming the revolutionaries of India. It has been said earlier that at that time violent freedom struggle was going on in Bengal, Punjab, Maharastra and elsewhere and the patriots of Bengal were playing the leading role in this direction under the leadership of Sri Aurobinda Ghosh, Barin Ghosh, Jatin Das, Surya Sen and others. The British Government was terribly afraid of the revolutionaries of Bengal. So gandhi visited Bengal to extuinguish the fire of violent freedom struggle with his false creed of nonviolence.

Such an effort was also necessary to for Gandhi, most loyal stooge of the British, to make India safe for the British Empire, when it was in its difficult hour like World War-I. So, as the first step, he went to Bengal and delivered the first blow against Indian Revolutionaries at a meeting of Bengal youth. Later on, on April 24, 1915, in a meeting organized by the Madras Bar Association, Gandhi proudly declared, “It gives me the greatest pleasure this evening at this very great and important gathering to re-declare my loyalty to the British Empire and my loyalty is based upon very selfish grounds. As a passive resister I discovered that I could not have that free scope which I had under the British Empire … and I discovered that the British Empire has certain ideals with which I have fallen in love.”

That time onward, Gandhi renewed his effort of deploring the revolutionaries of this country to please the British. He asked the youths of Bengal and of other provinces to give up violence. On April 27, 1915, he asked the students of Madras to give up political assassination, political dacoities and conquer the conquerors not by shedding blood but by sheer force of spiritual predominance. He deplored Khudiram, Madanlal Dhingra, condemned Savarkar for supporting Dhingra and deplored other revolutionaries like Biplabi Rashbehari Bose. It should be mentioned that even an Englishman W S Blunt praised Dhinra and described him a great patriot (My Diary, Part-II, pp-288). On the contrary, Gandhi condemned violence and said that it was an evil path and the revolutionaries were anarchists. At that time, Lokamanya Tilak was arrested in Mumbai because he wrote three articles in the Kesari supporting Khudiram’s bomb explosion at Muzaffarpur, and was sentenced on July 22, 1908, to six years’ transportation. Gandhi deplored Tilak on the charge of inciting Indians against British rule.

Gandhi strongly believed that India’s connection with the British was a blessing and used to say that “it would be a calamity to break that connection between the British people and the people of India.” Hence he used to say, “Satyagraha is not to hurt British and should never hurt the British.” He also assured the British that he would never adopt violent means against the British Empire and protection of British Raj was necessary for the interest of Swaraj. It has been mentioned earlier that Gandhi never fought for India’s freedom. On the contrary, he used to say that there was no need to end British rule in India and the Demand of INDEPENDENCE was DENIAL GOD. Later, he himself confessed that he did not work for India’s independence.

It has been pointed out earlier that he reproached the leaders like Subhash Chandra Bose and others because they were in favour of demanding independence. He also blamed C F Andrews for demanding complete independence. It is needless to say that all such utterances of Gandhi made the British colonialists extremely pleased. This made Sir Samuel Hoare, the Viscount of Templewood to comment that Gandhi was one of the best friends of the British. But later on in 1930, Gandhi was compelled to support the independence proposal simply to gain control over the Congress. Many believe that while in London on his way back to India, he promised that he will always inform the Viceroy in advance what he is going to do as his next step and take prior permission from him. There is no doubt that he kept the word of his British master up to his last breath.

It should be mentioned at the very outset that Gandhi never fought for India’s freedom. The reader should recall that Gandhi was brought from South Africa by the British to sabotage India’s freedom movement and hence it was not possible for him to fight the British for freedom. On the contrary, his intention was to prolong British rule in this country and to hoodwink the Hindus, he used to say that he was fighting for Swaraj. But his concept Swaraj was entirely mystical and vague and he used equate Swaraj with Ramrajya (or the rule of Lord Ram). According to him, termination of British rule was not at all necessary to establish Swaraj and Swaraj could function well even under the British rule. So he always opposed any move for demanding complete independence from the British rule and reproached the leaders like Subhash Chandra Bose and others because they were in favour of demanding independence,

One of the basic preconditions of his Swaraj was the amity between the Hindus and the Muslims. It has been pointed out earlier that his idea of Hindu-Muslim amity was extremely biased and prejudiced – Hindus were supposed to make every sacrifice and silently endure all the oppressions and crimes of the Muslims for the sake of this unity. It is well known that, for the sake of this Hindu-Muslim unity, Gandhi supported the KHILAFAT MOVEMENT, and extremely communal agitation launched by the fanatic and orthodox Muslim leaders, the Ali brothers. In his personal capacity, Gandhi once wanted to translate Spirit of Islam by Syed Amir Ali and Muhammad’s biography Life of Mahomet by Sir W Muir, to win the hearts of the Muslims. To appease them, he used to overlook and ignore even heinous crimes committed by the Muslims and considered “Allahu Akbar” as a national slogan. He held the view that, Hindus should die but never should kill a Muslim. Many used to consider him a more devout Muslim than even Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

To many. it would appear unbelievable that Gandhi used to advise the Amir of Afghanistan not to make peace with India and, on the contrary, instigated him to launch jihad against India or invade India. Moreover, he advised the Muslims of this country that, at such a situation, they should join the Afghan army and fight against India. He used to say that “Muslims are bullies and the Hindus are cowards” and advise the Muslims to be more cruel and violent during their attack on the Hindus. On the other hand, he suggested the Hindus to remain non-violent and not to defend their attack. He used to maintain the view that Hindus must not strike a Muslim even to save their lives. In the wake of partition, when the Muslims started slaughtering the innocent Hindus of Punjab, Sardar Vallabbhai Patel asked the Hindus to defend their lives. But that displeased Gandhi and he reproached Patel for his advice.

In 1946, Gandhi did not go to Noakhali when the Hindus were being butchered there and he went there when the bloodshed was over. On the contrary, when the Hindus of Bihar started retaliating the Noakhali killings, he at once went to Bihar to save the Muslims.. Due to his extraordinary affection for the Muslims, many used to mention him as Mohammad Gandhi. To many, it would appear unbelievable that Gandhi used to advise the Hindus (for the sake of nonviolence) not to take part in any short of physical exercise and body-building activities as, in that case, it would have been difficult for the Muslims to oppress and massacre the physically strong Hindus. In fact, he closed most of the gymnasiums and other body-building centres in Gujarat.Gandhi strongly believed that Muslim rule was better for India than the British rule and in the wake of independence, he requested the British to transfer the power to the Muslims. At the same time, he started to look for an efficient Muslim emperor to rule this country. But doing so much for the Muslims, he remained a loathsome kafir in the eyes of the Muslims as Koran does not advocate Hindu-Muslim unity. On the contrary, Allah advises the Muslims to kill non-Muslim kafirs whenever and wherever they could be found (Koran – 9:5). So the Muslim leader Mohammad Ali said, “In my eye, Gandhi is worse than a fallen Mussalman.”

It has been pointed out earlier, what kind of vile and treacherous role Gandhi played during independence. After independence, both Gandhi and Nehru started vehemently to erase all the symbols that carry Hindu heritage. They declined to rename divided India as “Hindustan” and started to mention it as non-Pakistan and ultimately they settled at “Indian Republic.” But most of the countries in the world are known according to the name of the majority of the population, e.g. France, Germany, England, Ireland, Turkey, Afghanistan and so on. While commenting on Gandhi and his policy of Muslim appeasement, in the name of nonviolence, Sri Aurobinda once said, “India will be free to the extent it succeeds in shaking off the spell of Gandhism.”

The present topic will remain incomplete if we do not discuss Gandhi’s deeds during the jihad launched by the Moplahs in Kerala in 1920, against the Hindus. At that time Kerala was a Princely state called Travancore under the Madras Presidency. Malabar was a small district of Travancore having a population of 3 million out of which 1 million were Muslims known as Moplahs, which was a corrupt Mollah. Historians believe that once upon a time Arab traders and their sailors and crews settled in the district, who married local women and grew into a sizable population of Muslims.

These Moplahs were mostly illiterate and poor and nearly all of them used to earn their bread as agricultural labourers in the fields of well off Nambudri Brahmins. Like Muslims of other parts of the world, they were extremely cruel and used to declare jihad against the Hindus on flimsy ground and attack Hindus of the locality. From the beginning of the English rule, they launched 35 attacks within 1920 AD.

In August, 1921, when Gandhi was touring Assam, Silhet and Silchar, Moplahs organized a severe and unprovoked attack on 20^th August on the Hindus. Large scale slaughtering the Hindus, looting their properties, setting their houses on fire, raping Hindu women, desecration of Hindu temples and forceful conversion went on without any respite. The cruelty, brutality and horridness of the attack were far-reaching and incomprehensible. At that time, there were two options before the Hindus – either conversion to Islam or death.

A Muslim called Ali Musaliar was leading the attack. To bring the situation under control, British government declared martial law in the district but the rampage continued up to December. So the British had to prolong the martial law up to February 24, 1922. According to government records, 2300 Hindus were dead and 1650 Hindus were severely wounded, although the actual figures were more than double of the above account.

In many occasions, Gandhi, the apostle of nonviolence, decried forceful conversion as a terribly violent act. But regarding the forceful conversion by the Moplahs, he preferred to remain mum. Moreover, he propagated the lie in Young India that the Moplahs, during the said rampage, had converted only a single Hindu to Islam. Most shamefully he described the killing of the innocent Hindus by the Moplahs as a heroic deed and he repeatedly said, “Muslims are bullies and the Hindus are cowards.” Moreover, he used to say that the Moplahs were not guilty of killing the Hindus and, guilty were the Hindus who infuriated and provoked the Moplahs who had had no other option but to kill the Hindus. In addition to that, he asked the Hindus, for the sake of humanity, not to retaliate. There is no doubt that Gandhi, by safe guarding the Moplahs, instigated the Muslims to launch attacks on the Hindus in Punjab, Bengal and in other places in the wake of partition.

More shamefully, Gandhi deplored the British administration for taking stern action to suppress the jihad by the Moplahs. Moreover, he declared Moplahs, who fought with the British army, as freedom fighters and said, “The Moplahs are among the bravest in the land. They are god-fearing. Their bravery must be transformed into purest gold.”…Thus “He represented the perpetrators of vile deeds as god-fearing people! Was it not a travesty of religion to described men who murder and rape in the name of religion as god-fearing? … Gandhi thus described the Moplah ferocity as the ignorant fanaticism of the Moplah brothers, and the Hindu mentality as cowardliness.” (Mahatma Gandhi, D Keer, ibid, pp-402). The matter did not end here. Due to perpetual insistence by Gandhi, the Moplah rogues, who died in police encounter, were later on declared martyrs of the freedom struggle and were allowed to receive allowance, like other freedom fighters, from the government exchequer, after independence and the practice is still in vogue. After the carnage by the Moplahs, Gandhi started raising money from common people to help, not the Hindu victims, but for the Muslim perpetrators. Following the tradition set by Gandhi, the so called secular politicians and secular media in Mumbai observe Moplah Day every year and take out procession and hold public meetings. Many believe that it would have been immensely beneficial for the country, had Gandhi been assassinated at that time.

So, it is not difficult to understand that, had Gandhi been alive today, he would declare the killing of innocent Hindus in Kashmir, bombing the Hindu temples and killing innocent devotees, killing the Hindu pilgrims at Amarnath etc. as the bravery of the Muslims and cowardliness of Hindu victims. It also becomes evident that why today’s so called secular politicians and their media held the Hindu victims of Godhra responsible for their own death and remained silent about the Muslims criminals, as a policy of Muslim appeasement. And by following the foot-steps of Gandhi, these secular and leftist political leaders raised money for the Muslims of Gujarat, not for the Hindu victims of Godhra. Therefore many believe that Gandhi’s naked Muslim appeasement during the Moplah incident was enough to assassinate him in 1920s and that would have saved this country from many misfortunes, later on brought by Gandhi.