sifynews_mkdhar_img_75x100.jpg
Maloy Krishna Dhar started life off as a junior reporter for Amrita Bazaar Patrika in Calcutta and a part-time lecturer. He joined the Indian Police Service in 1964
and was permanently seconded to the Intelligence Bureau.
During his long stint in the Bureau, Dhar saw action in almost all
Northeastern states, Sikkim, Punjab and Kashmir. He also handled
delicate internal political and several counterintelligence
assignments. After retiring in 1996 as joint director, he took to
freelance journalism and writing books. Titles credited to him are
Open Secrets-India's Intelligence Unveiled, Fulcrum of
Evil – ISI, CIA, al-Qaeda Nexus, and Mission to Pakistan. Maloy
is considered a top security analyst and a social scientist who tries
to portray Indian society through his writings.
Recently, a ‘right reactionary Hindu’ Patriot’s Forum filed a PIL in the Delhi High Court challenging the validity and legality of the Sachar Commission Report, which has recommended a plethora of concessions to the ‘minority’ Muslim community.
Though the Constitution and the legal system of the country are silent about the definition of ‘minority,’ successive governments in Independent India continued to use the ‘Two-Nation’ term to define the numerically lesser Muslims as ‘minorities.’ Religion has been the yardstick of majorityism and minorityism, as it was during the British Raj.
And of course, the common Indian has been kicked around in the name of secularism, and hounded by frightening apparitions of minorityism, shameless vote-bank solicitation. And the reaction to this by the so-called rightist, reactionary and communal non-secular people described as Hindus. Such reactions are repetition of the bad dreams India experienced between 1876 till Partition.
The Sachar Commission Report has revived that bad dream of ‘Two Nations.’ The much-publicised and criticised report has raised basic questions by statisticians and open-minded historians.
The derogatory manner in which the ‘secular leaders’ and some media persons refer to Hindus gives one a creeping feeling that it was perhaps better not be born in India. That it would have been a heavenly bliss if Hindu parents had brought up their progeny on the sands of Arabia. In that case no one would have dared to put the stamp of communalism on them. They would have been born secular.
But birth is accidental, and one has to live with accidents.
The numerically lesser number of people professing Islam lived and ruled in India for nearly a thousand years. But they could not bring down the entire population of Central Asia and Persia to rule India, nor could they convert every indigenous Indian. However, they did not feel the ‘minority’ pinch.
But the moment the Mughal Empire was demolished and the democracy-practicing British came in, Muslims started crying foul of ‘possible majority Hindu domination.’ Jettisoning Indianism, they took refuge under the cocoon of ‘minorityism.’ They collaborated with the British for ‘minority-majority equalism,’ and they are now being pampered by the Congress+Left+Casteist seculars as an ‘endangered community.’
The first communal award conceded by the Minto-Morley Reform in 1909 was sanctified by the Congress-Muslim League agreement in 1916, better known as the ‘Lucknow Pact’ which gave reservation with weightage to the Muslims.
Read all Maloy Krishna Dhar columns here
The entire historical context of reservation for the endangered Muslim ‘minority’ had ended with the Partition. Muslims, who preferred to stay in Bharat, are Bhartiya Muslims enjoying equal rights with other Indians. Muslims who wanted to follow Jinnah had gone over to Pakistan. Those Muslims who had not joined the Jinnah bandwagon were not minorities - they were Indians or at best Indians professing Islam. Religion should no more determine our nationality.
There were other Indians professing Christianity, Sikhism, Jainism and of course the much hated right reactionary Hindus. What prompted the Congress leaders and allies to stamp certain people belonging to certain religious faiths as ‘minorities?’ Could not all Indians be treated as ‘Indians?’ What was the need for branding Hindus as the majority? Could they not take up the entire socio-economic backwardness issue of the people as a whole and not merely single out the presumed minorities? Is there any evidence to prove that the ‘minorities’ were prevented by the majorities from attending higher education, taking up vocations and marching along with the rest of the country?
‘Abstainism’ was the policy of the Muslims during British days, which continues to this day. This is a mass psychological process instilled by the ulemas and separatist politicians. The ‘majority’ cannot be blamed for this. Can quotas alone end this psychology of ‘abstainism?’
However, the United Progressive Alliance drummed up a Commission to divide the country again on communal lines by providing reservation to the Muslims. Do they want to push India back to 1909 and drag the Indians through the process of another Lucknow Pact and another Partition? This is nothing but the repeated rape of Indian history by vote hungry political parties.
Also read: The Secular Road to Hell
A globalised India, the ‘reservation’ protagonists feel, cannot progress unless it is pushed back over 100 years in history to start again the great communal wars leading to another Partition. It is suffocating to live with doctored, sponsored and inspired commission reports which start from the conclusion and try to fit the data to justify the conclusion already reached by Quota Ministers and Secular Quixotes.
A close study of the Sachar Report would bring out the incongruities which tilt heavily in favour of a particular community. It is every bit as scandalising as the 1909 Reforms and the so-called Lucknow Pact.
The incongruities of the Sachar Report are revealed by the following simple observations:
1. A statistical study meant for social and economic reforms is carried out in the backdrop of the total social canvas. Sachar focused only on a single community. He did not compare the parallel socio-economic conditions against a vast canvas. While studying the socio-economic and political status of a single community professing a particular religion, it is mandatory to compare their conditions with the people of other communities professing different religious faiths but languishing under similar socio-economic and political backwardness.
2. It is mandatory to consider this when using the mathematical formula that X number of people of one community should be compared with X number of people of the other community living under similar conditions. Equating X samples (say Muslims) with Y sample (say rest of the Indians) is a scientific folly that can lead to the conclusion that the universe is earth-centric. Any student of statistics would shoot down the Sachar Report with acute disdain.
3. For example, it was mandatory to make a comparative evaluation of landless peasants amongst the given number of Muslims and landless peasants amongst the same number of people of other communities. What conclusion should be drawn if landless peasants amongst the Hindu community stand at X50 (amongst a population of 80 crore) and X5 amongst the Muslims (out of 15 crore)? Are the Muslims discriminated against? That would be a pre-determined conclusion. The right conclusion would be that landlessness is a national phenomenon amongst both Hindus and Muslims (Hindus more in number) and demands immediate action by the Union and the State governments. But no political parties or their expert economists have argued on this line. All arguments are branded as acts of communalism.
4. Let us take the case of unemployment. The figure amongst the people professing Islam say is Y5. The Hindu figure may be Y50. What is the justification to shout that special funds are necessary to generate employment to the endangered species called Muslim Minority? What about the unemployed people amongst other religious faiths? Who sheds tears for them? But anyone who raises this issue will be immediately branded as a Right Reactionary Non-Secular Hindu Communalist.
5. One more incongruity in the Sachar perfidy should be cited. It says that the quantum of modern education amongst ‘secular’ Muslims is Z3. However, the great judicial mind of Sachar has not taken into consideration that amongst the Hindus and others in Bharat, lack of modern education is about Z35. While the Quota Congress is howling like near extinct vultures, the Secular Quixotes have forgotten to mention that lack of higher modern education among the Hindus and other under-privileged non-Muslims also require special funding and drive. But defying all these scientific methodologies, the UPA government has announced special scholarships only for minority students.
In fact, one can burn such holes in page after page, chapter after chapter in the tailored report that was prepared to fit into the reverse historical thrust of the Great Secular Thekedars of Bharat- the endangered Congress and its political tails - the Left and Caste barons.
Are the people of India being prepared by the Secular Quixotic Congress and Quota votaries for several rounds of ‘direct action’ of the kind taught by Jinnah? How many wars will it take? Is India being turned into a perpetual battleground between Hindus and Muslims? Between the upper castes, OBCs, SCs and STs?
Who will save India from the Secular Quixotes, who are driving their daggers into the national soul, in order to divide and rule perpetually?
The dream of ‘One India, One Nation’ after Jinnah walked out with his own empire and the British escaped remains unfulfilled. The Hindus are honoured with the huge honorific of Right Reactionary Non-Secular Communalists. The time has come to decide and act.
We, the People of India, irrespective of religion and other diversities, should decide to finally cry out: We are united Indians. Oh the great Indian National Congress, the Jurassic Leftists and Caste Lichens, do not divide us, do not make us fight communal wars! Our religion should no more decide our nationality.
The author can be reached at maloy_d@hotmail.com
The views expressed in the article are of the author’s and not of Sify.com.
| Slide Shows | Columns | Calendar
Share | 
Print | Rate 
