what is india - xa.yimg.comxa.yimg.com/kq/groups/19672882/1071745453/name/what_is_india.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 1 of 17
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 2 of 17
Friends,
I am deeply honoured to be invited to speak before all of you. My time is limited, as I was told I
should speak for 30 minutes and after that there will be a question answer session. As my main
speech will be restricted to 30 minutes, I may come to the topic of discussion immediately, that is,
WHAT IS INDIA? I will present before you five theses for your consideration.
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 3 of 17
1. India is broadly a country of immigrants like North America. Over 92% people living in India are
not the original inhabitants of India. Their ancestors came from outside, mainly from the North
West.
2. Because India is a country of immigrants like North America there is tremendous diversity in
India – so many religions, castes, languages, ethnic groups etc.
3. Despite the tremendous diversity in India, by the interaction and intermingling of these
immigrants who came into India a common culture emerged in India which can broadly be called
the Sanskrit-Urdu culture, which is broadly the culture of India.
4. Because of the tremendous diversity in India the only policy which can work and hold our
country together is secularism and giving equal respect to all communities, otherwise our
country cannot survive for one day.
5. India is passing through a transitional period, transition from feudal agricultural society to
modern Industrial society. This is a very painful and agonizing period in history. If you read the
history of Europe from the 16th to 19th Centuries you will find that this was a horrible period in
Europe. Only after going through that fire, in which there were wars, revolutions, turmoil,
intellectual ferment, chaos, social churning, etc., modern society emerged in Europe. India is
presently going through that fire. We are going through a very painful and agonizing period in
our history which I think will last for around another 20 years.
I may now briefly elaborate these theses.
1. India is broadly a country of immigrants, like North America. The difference between
North America and India is that North America is a country of new immigrants, where people came
mainly from Europe over the last four to five hundred years, India is a country of old immigrants
where people have been coming in for 10 thousand years or so.
Why have people been coming into India? Very few people left India, except on two occasions
namely:
i. In the 19th century when under British rule Indian poor peasants were sent to Fiji, Mauritius,
West Indies, etc. as plantation labourers and
ii. The Diaspora for the last 30-40 years or so of highly qualified engineers, scientists, doctors,
etc.
Apart from this, nobody left India, everybody came into India. Why?
The reason is obvious. People migrate from uncomfortable areas to comfortable areas, obviously,
because everybody wants comfort. Before the Industrial Revolution which started in Western
Europe from the 18th century and then spread all over the world there were agricultural societies
everywhere. Now what does agriculture require? It requires level land, fertile soil, plenty of water
for irrigation, etc. All this was in abundance in the Indian sub-continent. If you go from Rawalpindi
to Bangladesh and to the deep South upto Kanyakumari, everywhere you will find level land, fertile
soil, plenty of rivers, forests, etc. You scatter some seeds and there is a bumper harvest. Why will
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 4 of 17
anybody migrate from India to, say, Afghanistan which is cold, rocky and uncomfortable. If you have
seen Afghanistan on your television screen it looks like a desert covered with snow for four to five
months in a year. I have never seen snow falling in my life. I don’t know what a snowfall looks like.
For agricultural society India was really paradise, hence everybody kept rolling into India, mainly
from the North West and to a much lesser extent from the North East.
Who were the original inhabitants of India? At one time it was believed that the Dravidians were the
original inhabitants, but now that theory has been disproved. Now, it is believed that even the
Dravidians came from outside. There are several proofs of that, one of which is that there is a
Dravidian language called Brahui which is spoken in Western Pakistan even today by about three
million people. The original inhabitants of India, as it is believed now, were the pre-Dravidians tribal,
who are called advises or Scheduled Tribes in India e.g. the Bhils, the Santhals, the Gonds, the Todas,
etc., that is, the speakers of the Austric, pre Dravidian languages e.g. Munda, Gondvi, etc. They are
hardly seven or eight percent of the Indian population today. They were pushed into the forests by
the immigrants and treated very badly. Except for them all of us are descendants of immigrants who
came mainly from the North West of India. (See in this connection the article `Kalidas Ghalib
Academy for Mutual Understanding’ on the website www.kgfindia.com).
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 5 of 17
2. Because India is a country of immigrants there is tremendous diversity in India so
many religions, castes, languages, ethnic groups, etc. Somebody is tall, somebody is short,
somebody is fair, somebody is dark, somebody is brown, with all kinds of shades in between,
someone has got Mongoloid features, someone has got Caucasian features, someone has got
Negroid features, there are differences in food habits, dress, traditional festivals, etc. We may
compare India with China. Our population is about 1200 million while China has about 1300 million
and they have perhaps 2 ½ times our land area. However, there is broad (though not absolute)
homogeneity in China. All Chinese have Mongoloid faces, they have one common written script
called Mandarin Chinese (although spoken dialects are different), and 95% Chinese belong to one
ethnic group called the Han Chinese. So there is broad homogeneity in China. In India, on the other
hand, there is tremendous diversity, because whichever group of immigrants came into India
brought in their own culture, their religion, their language etc.
3. Is India a nation at all, or is it just a group of hundreds of kinds of immigrants? Is
there anything common in India? The answer is that the immigrants who came into India over the
last 10 thousand years or so, by their interaction and intermingling created a common culture which
can broadly be called the Sanskrit- Urdu culture. This is our culture.
Now this has to be explained because some people asked me when I put forward this thesis how do
you say this is the culture of India? How are Tamilians part of Sanskrit Urdu culture, what have the
people of Nagaland got to do with Sanskrit and Urdu, etc.
The answer is that you must first understand what is Sanskrit and what is Urdu? I will take a little
time to explain this, but details can be seen in my articles on the website www.kgfindia.com under
the titles `What is Urdu’, `Great injustice to Urdu in India’, `Sanskrit as a Language of Science’, etc.
Both of these languages have been misunderstood. People think that Sanskrit is a language of
chanting mantras in temples or in religious ceremonies. However, that is only 5% of Sanskrit
literature. 95% of Sanskrit literature has nothing to do with religion. It deals with a whole range of
subjects like philosophy, law, science (including mathematics, medicine and astronomy) grammar,
phonetics and literature. So you cannot compare Bengali and Tamil with Sanskrit. Bengali and Tamil
have only stories, novels and moral literature (like Thirukkural) but they do not have any discussion
on mathematics, law, medicine, etc. Sanskrit was the language of people with an enquiring mind,
who enquired about everything, and therefore there is a whole range of subjects which have been
discussed in Sanskrit. In the paper on the website www.kgfindia.com `Sanskrit as a Language of
Science’ all this has been discussed in detail, therefore, I am not going into great detail here. I may,
however, just mention two things: one is the contribution of Panini and the other is the contribution
of the Nyaya Vaisheshik philosophy.
Sanskrit is not just one language there are many Sanskrits. What we call Sanskrit today, and what is
taught in schools and colleges is really Panini’s Sanskrit, which is called classical Sanskrit or Laukik
Sanskrit. But there were earlier Sanskrits. The earliest Sanskrit book is the Rig Veda which was
composed anytime between 2000 or 1500 B.C. (it was subsequently passed on orally). Now
language changes with the passage of time. For instance if we pick up a play of Shakespeare we will
not be able to understand it without a good commentary because the English language has changed
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 6 of 17
over these 4½ centuries since the time of Shakespeare. Many of the words and expressions which
were in vogue in Shakespeare’s time in English are not in vogue today. Similarly, Sanskrit language
kept changing for about 1500 years, from 2000 B.C. to the 5th century B.C., until Panini who, was the
perhaps greatest grammarian the world has ever seen, in his book ‘Ashtadhyayi’ fixed the rules of
Sanskrit in the 5th century B.C. Thereafter no further changes in Sanskrit were permitted, except
some slight changes made by two other grammarians, one was a man called Katyayana who wrote
his book “Vartika’ written about 100-200 years after Panini, and another was Patanjali who wrote his
book ‘Mahabhashya’ about 200 years after Katyayana. Except for these slight changes, what is
taught in schools and colleges is really Panini’s Sanskrit.
What Panini did was that he studied the crude Sanskrit prevailing in his time and he rationalized it
and meticulously systemized it, so as to make it a powerful vehicle of expressing profound and
abstract ideas with great precision.
Science requires precision. Panini made Sanskrit a powerful vehicle in which scientific ideas could be
expressed with great precision and with great clarity and it was made uniform all over India, so that
thinkers in one part of the sub-continent could interact with thinkers of another part easily. That
was his great contribution.
I will give you one small illustration, since a lecture on Astadhyayi will take too much time. Take for
example the alphabets in the English language, from A to Z. Now they have all been arranged in a
haphazard manner. Why is B followed by C, why is D followed by E.? There is no reason why F
comes after E, why P is followed by Q or Q is followed by R. There is no reason at all in this
arrangement of the alphabets, which are jumbled up haphazardly.
In Sanskrit, on the other hand what Panini did was that he arranged the alphabets in a very scientific
manner. For example, take the consonants. There is a sequence ka, kha, ga, gha, nga (called the `ka
varga’) which you must have heard of. Now all these sounds come from the throat. Also the second
and the fourth consonants in this sequence are what are known as aspirants. An aspirants means a
consonant in which ‘ha’ is added. For instance, ‘ka’ + ‘ha’ is ‘kha’ ‘ga’ + ‘ha’ is ‘gha’, etc. Similarly,
the second and fourth consonants in every sequence (of 5 consonants) is an aspirant.
The sounds in the second sequence of 5 consonants (the `cha varga’) ch, cha, ja, jha, yan all come
from the middle of the tongue. The sounds in the `ta varga’ Ta, tha, da, dha, nda come from the roof
of the mouth, the sounds in the sequence ta, tha, da, dha, na come from the tip of the tongue, the
sounds in the sequence pa, pha, ba, bha, ma come from the lips. We can see how scientifically these
consonants are arranged. Thus even in such a simple thing as the arrangement of alphabets a
careful and scientific study was done. Panini made Sanskrit a powerful vehicle of expressing
profound ideas in a very concise and exact manner, as is required in science.
The second contribution of Sanskrit to the development of rational and scientific thinking was the
Nyaya Vaisheshik philosophy. I do not know how many of you are students of Indian philosophy, but
I may tell you very briefly that there are six classical systems of Indian philosophy, Nyaya, Vaisheshik,
Sankya, Yoga, Purva Mimansa and Uttar Mimansa, and three non-classical systems, Buddhism,
Jainism and Charvak. Out of these nine systems eight of them are atheistic as there is no place for
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 7 of 17
God in them. Only the ninth one, that is Uttar Mimansa, which is also called Vedanta, has a place for
God in it. One of the classical systems is called the Nyaya system. The Nyaya system says that
nothing is acceptable unless it is in accordance with reason and experience, which is precisely the
scientific approach. Vaisheshik was part the physics of ancient times (the atomic or parmanu
theory). Physics is part of science, and hence at one time Vaisheshik was part of Nyaya philosophy.
However, since physics is the most fundamental of all sciences subsequently Vaisheshik was
separated from Nyaya and made into a separate philosophy altogether.
It was the Nyaya Vaisheshik philosophy which provided the scientific background and gave great
encouragement to our scientists to propound their scientific theories. People in our country were
not persecuted for being scientists, unlike in Europe where scientists were burnt on the stake like
Bruno for propounding his scientific theories. Galileo was almost burnt on the stake, and he
narrowly escaped by recanting his views. As recent as in 1925 in America a teacher John Scopes was
criminally prosecuted in the famous (or infamous) monkey trial for teaching Darwin’s theory of
evolution because it was against the Bible. This never happened in our country because behind
science was a scientific philosophy, that is the Nyaya Vaisheshik philosophy, which says that nothing
is acceptable unless it is in accordance with reason and experience.
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 8 of 17
I want to tell you about the scientific achievements of our ancestors. But before doing so let me tell
you that a lot of people talk nonsense that in ancient India there were atom bombs, guided missiles,
etc. This is all nonsense, and you make a laughing stock of yourselves by talking like this. Some
people say that we had aeroplanes in ancient India, because in the Ramayana it is mentioned that
Lord Ram brought Sita back from Lanka on a Pushpak Viman. They conclude from this that there
were aeroplanes in ancient India. Everyone, including children, know that the first aeroplane was
invented by the Wright brothers in America in 1903. so it is total nonsense to say that we had
aeroplanes in ancient India.
Now it is true that in the Ramayana there is mention of Pushpak Viman. But what is the Ramayana?
It is an epic poem. A poet has what is called poetic licence. That means that he has a right to
exaggerate. So we should not take words in a poem literally. If there were aeroplanes in ancient
India then that means there were engines. Then why did the ancient warriors fight on chariots,
horses and elephants, they should have fought in tanks. This kind of talk is all nonsense, and we
make a laughing stock of ourselves by talking like this.
The real great achievements of our ancestors most people are totally unaware of, and instead they
talk such nonsense.
At one time we were leading the whole world in science and technology. I may give you a few
illustrations. The ancient Romans who built a very great civilization, the civilization of Caesar and
Augustus, and were the cultural ancestors of the Europeans, felt very uncomfortable with numbers
above one thousand. This is because they expressed their numbers in alphabets. One was I, five
was V, ten was X, fifty was L, hundred was 100, five hundred was D and 1000 was M. ‘M’ stands for
millennium or one thousand. There was nothing above ‘M’. So if the ancient Romans wanted to
write 2000 they had to write MM, if they wanted to write 3000 they wrote MMM, etc. To write one
million they would have to write M one thousand times, as that was the only way they could express
one million. On the other hand, our ancestors had invented the concept of zero.
You see these numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 do not really exists; what exists is one table, two chairs, three
men, etc. These have existence in the objective universe. One, two, three, four has no existence in
the objective universe, they are pure abstractions. And the concept of zero required a further flight
of imagination which Europeans could never achieve. The Arabs borrowed it from us and the
Europeans borrowed it from the Arabs. So we could express numbers in astronomical terms. For
example, one thousand requires 1 with three zeros, add two more zeros it becomes one Lakh, add
two more zeros it becomes 1 Crore, two more zeros one Arab, two more zeros one Kharab, two
more zeros one Padma, two more zeros one Neel, two more zeros one Shankh, two more zeros one
Mahasankh, etc. Each one of these large numbers have names. On the other hand, the ancient
Romans felt very uncomfortable after one thousand, as already stated. They had difficulty in
expressing large numbers.
At one time the numbers in the decimal system were called Arabic numerals. The Europeans called
them Arabic numerals, but the Arabs called them Hindu numerals. The question is whether they
were Arab numerals or Hindu numerals? Now these languages Arabic, Persian and Urdu are written
from right to left, but if you ask any writer of these languages to write any number randomly say 253
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 9 of 17
or 1045 he will write it from left to right. What does it indicate? It indicates that these numbers
were taken from a language which was written from left to right, and now it is accepted that the
decimal system was invented by Indians who could conceive very high numbers unlike the Romans.
For example, it is believed that Kaliyug in which we are living, has 4,32,000 years according to the
Vishnu Puran. The Yug (age) before Kaliyug was Dwaparyug, in which Lord Krishna lived. That is
twice as long as Kaliyug, therefore it is of 8,64,000 years. Before that there was Tretayug in which
Lord Ram lived. It was thrice as long as Kaliyug. And before that there was Satyug which is four
times as long as Kaliyug. One Kaliyug + one Dawaparyug + one Tretayug + on Satyug is known as one
Chaturyugi, and one Chaturyugi is hence ten times long as one Kaliyug (1+2+3+4=10). That means
one Chaturygi is 43,20,000 years long. 72 Chaturyugi make one Manwantra. Fourteen Manwantras
make one Kalp and 12 Kalps make one day of Brahma. Brahma is said to have lived for trillions of
years.
When our traditional Hindus do their Sankalp every day they have to mention the particular day, the
yug, the Chaturyugi, the Manvantara and the Kalp and the date changes daily. For instance, it is
believed that we are living in the Vaivasusat Manwantar. It is believed that out of the 72
Chaturyugis in this Manvantara 28 have passed and we are in the 29th Chaturyugi of Vaivasusat
Manvantar.
You may not believe all this but look at the flight of imagination of our ancestors, how high they
could go. Similarly in various fields of science e.g. in Medicine Sushruta invented plastic surgery
2000 years ago. In plastic we do not use plastic, we take one part of the body and put it in another
part. For instance, in a by-pass heart operation, we take a vein from the man’s leg and put it into his
heart, because the immune system will not reject. This was invented 2000 years ago by Sushruta.
Westerners invented it only 200 years back. If you go to the London Science Museum you will find
one whole gallery displaying about 40-50 surgical instruments used by Sushrut. Thus, Indians were
far ahead of Westerners in medicine. In astronomy, the calculations which were made 2000 years
ago are still the basis of predicting with great accuracy the day and time of a Surya Grahan (Solar
Eclipse) or Chandra Grahan (lunar eclipse) by reading a ‘patra’. These calculations were made 2000
years ago by our ancestors who did not have telescopes and modern instruments but by sheer
observation by the naked eye and the power of intellect they predicted what is going to happen
2000 years in the future. This was the scientific level which we had reached in the past, we were far
in advance of Westerners in science and technology at that time. Today we are far behind them, so
what happened? Why did we not have an Industrial Revolution? Why did we lag behind? This is
known as Needham’s question or Needham’s Grand Question, first posed by Prof. Joseph Needham.
He was a brilliant Professor in micro-biology in Cambridge University who born in 1900 and became
a Professor in 1925. Prof. Needham posed this question why did India and China who were ahead of
whole world in Science and Technology at one time later fell behind and did not have an Industrial
Revolution. This question has been sought to be answered in various ways, but that discussion will
have to be held some other day.
As I was saying, Sanskrit was the language of people with enquiring minds, of people who enquired
into every aspect of life. Therefore it is the language of not only Hindus or North India but it is in
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 10 of 17
that sense the language of everybody who has a rational approach, because the emphasis in Sanskrit
is on reason. There is emotion also in it, but the emphasis is on reason.
Coming now to Urdu, in my opinion the best poetry is in Urdu. I have read the poetry of many
countries, England, America, France, Germany, Russia etc., apart from reading some of the poetry of
Indian language e.g. Tulsidas, Surdas, Kabir, etc. Tamil poetry, Bengali poetry etc. but there is no
match to Urdu because the voice of the heart which is expressed in Urdu poetry, is, in my opinion,
not expressed in any language of the world.
About Urdu there is a misconception that it is the language of Muslims and of foreigners, which is a
totally false propaganda made against Urdu after 1947 that is after Partition.
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 11 of 17
Before 1947, all educated people in large parts of India were studying Urdu. It was not the language
of Muslims alone. It was the language of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs everybody. For instance,
in Punjab the Sikhs used to write in Urdu script, it is only after 1947 that they switched over to
Gurumukhi script. Before 1947 all they were writing in Urdu even now they know it. So it was the
language of all of us. But after Partition a deliberate propaganda was made by certain vested
interests that Hindi is the language of Hindus and Urdu is a language of Muslims. This was done to
make Hindus and Muslims fight each other (part of the divide and rule policy). A lot of effort was
made to crush Urdu in India. But a language which expresses the voice of the heart cannot be
crushed as long as people have hearts.
Unlike Arabic and Persian which are foreign language, Urdu is an indigenous language, and is loved
by the people of India even today. If you go to a bookstall on a railway platform in India you will find
a lot of poetry books of Mir, Ghalib, Firaq, etc. of course, nowadays in Devanagiri script. You will not
find any book there of Mahadevi Verma or Sumitra Nandan Pant, the Hindi poets. Very few people
read Hindi poetry, everybody reads Urdu poetry. Urdu has a dual nature, it is a combination of two
languages i.e. Hindustani and Persian; that is why it was at one time called Rekhta, which means
hybrid. Since it is a combination of two languages, Hindustani and Persian, the question arises: is it a
special kind of Persian or a special kind of Hindustani? The answer is that it is a special kind of
Hindustani, not a special kind of Persian. Why? Because the verbs in Urdu are all in Hindustani. The
language to which a sentence belongs is determined by the verbs used in it. Supposing I say: Mr.
Ram you and your wife ‘aaiye’ to my house tomorrow night for dinner at 8 pm. This sentence has 16
words of which 15 are in English. But it is a Hindustani sentence, not an English sentence, because
the verb the ‘aaiye’ is in Hindustani. In Urdu all the verbs are in simple Hindi (which is called
Hindustani or Khadi Boli). For example Ghalib says:
“dekho mujhe jo deeda-e-ibrat_nigaah ho
meree suno jo gosh-e-naseehat_niyosh hai”
The verbs ‘dekho’, ‘suno’,’ hai’ are all simple Hindi, though the nouns or adjectives may be Persian or
Arabian. It is the verb which determines the language to which a sentence belongs, and the verbs in
Urdu are all in simple Hindi. It has to be so, otherwise, it is not Urdu; and this shows that Urdu is an
indigenous language, unlike Arabian and Persian which are foreign languages.
Urdu has a dual nature, because it is a combination of Hindustani and Persian. Hindustani is the
language of the common man, while Persian is the language of aristocrats.
Where did Persian come from? Persian is the language of Persia, how did it land up in India? To
explain this it has to be noted that it often happens that the elite or upper class of a society speaks a
foreign language. For instance, in India and Pakistan the elite speaks English. In Europe upto the
end of the 19th century the Russian aristocrats spoke to each other in French, though a Russian
aristocrat would talk to his servant in Russian. Similarly, a German aristocrat would talk to another
German aristocrat in French, but he would talk to his servant in German. French was the language of
the elite in large parts of Europe for many centuries.
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 12 of 17
The elite wants to distinguish itself from the common people. In India Persian was the language of
the Court and of the elite for centuries. Although Persian originated in Persia it later spread to much
of South Asia. This was because Persian writers like Hafiz, Firdausi, Sadi, Rumi, Omar Khayyam, etc.
developed Persian as a language of sophistication, culture, etiquette and dignity and that was
adopted by large parts of South Asia including India. It was the Court language of India for several
hundred years. Akbar’s foreign minister Todarmal passed an order that all Court records throughout
the Mughal Empire will be maintained in Persian.
Urdu is the combination of Hindustani and Persian, and that is why it has a dual nature. It is the
common man’s language, ‘awaam ki zubaan’, and also the aristocrats’ language because one part of
it is Persian. The content of Urdu is that of the common man. The feelings, emotions etc. in it are of
the common man. But the form, the style, the andaaz-e-bayaan is that of an aristocrat. That is what
gives Urdu such great power.
I often used to go to functions where I would say that Hindi does not have the power or ‘dum’ which
Urdu has, and they would get very angry, but I believe I spoke the truth.
Urdu places more reliance on emotion and Sanskrit more on reason, We require both for our
country’s progress. In Europe they had two very great thinkers, Voltaire and Rousseau. Voltaire
emphasizing reason and Rousseau emphasizing emotion. These two thinkers played a major role in
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 13 of 17
the creation of modern Europe. Similarly Urdu and Sanskrit they complement each other, and in
fact, Sanskrit is the grandmother of Urdu because 70% of the words in Urdu are from Sanskrit.
4. Since there is so much diversity in India the only policy which will work is the policy of
secularism and giving equal respect to all communities. Otherwise India will break up into a hundred
pieces since there is so much diversity.
Two people can be said to be the creators of modern India. One is the Emperor Akbar, and the other
is Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. There was no ruler in the world like Emperor Akbar.
I have studied the history of the whole world, but I have found no ruler in the world like Emperor.
He was far ahead of his times. In the 16th Century Akbar proclaimed the doctrine of Suleh-e-kul
which means universal toleration of all religions. At that time Europeans were massacring each
other in the name of religion, Catholics massacring Protestants, Protestants massacring Catholics
and both massacring Jews. Horrible massacres in the name of religion were taking place in Europe at
the time when Emperor Akbar proclaimed his doctrine of Suleh-e-Kul. Similarly in recent times
religious passions were inflamed in 1947 and people had become like animals, Hindus and Muslims
butchering each other. Pakistan had declared itself an Islamic State. There must have been
tremendous pressure at that time on Pandit Jawarhlal Nehru and his colleagues to declare India a
Hindu State. It is their greatness that they kept a cool head, and said that India will not be a Hindu
State but will be a Secular State and provided this in our Constitution. For this reason today we have
relatively more stability as compared to neighbouring countries.
In this connection I wish to tell you that the initial Muslim invaders who came into India no doubt
broke a lot of Hindu temples, like for instance, Mahmood Ghazni who broke the Somnath temple.
That is true, but their descendants who became local Muslim rulers in various parts of India, far from
breaking temples used to give grants to temples and celebrated Hindu festivals like Holi and Diwali.
For instance, Babar was an invader but Akbar was not an invader, he was born in India and was very
much an Indian. Now the descendants of those invaders who became local Muslim rulers had a
population of 80-90% Hindus. If they broke temples everyday there would be a revolt or turmoil
which no ruler wants. Just use your common sense, if you are a Muslim ruler in an area where 80-
90% population is Hindu would you break temples? You would like to have a jolly good time enjoy
life as a king, you would not like everyday revolts and turmoil. So in their own interest every one of
the local Muslim rulers fostered communal harmony they gave grants to Hindu temples, they
celebrated Hindu festivals. For instance, the Nawab of Avadh used to organize Ram Leela, and
celebrate Holi and Diwali. Tipu Sultan used to give annual grants to 156 Hindu Temples, his Prime
Minister was a Hindu called Punaiya his Commander-in-Chief, was a Hindu called Krishna Rao. Tipu
Sultan sent 30 respectful letters with grants to the Shankaracharya, of Shringeri (see online “History
in the Service of Imperialism” which is a speech given by Prof. B. N. Pandey in the Upper House of
the Indian Parliament in 1977). In one of the thirty letters sent by Tipu Sultan to the Shankaracharya
of Shringeri it is mentioned that because of great saints like you who are in my kingdom there is
prosperity and happiness, there are good rains and good harvest, people are happy here because of
presence of great saints like you.
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 14 of 17
Now the first part, that the Muslim invaders broke temples, has been mentioned in our history
books, but the second part, which is of ten times longer duration, that the descendants of these
invaders, who were local rulers used to foster communal harmony they used to give land grants for
building Hindu temples, they celebrated and organized Hindu festivals, has been deliberately
suppressed by the British from our history books, the whole game being divide and rule. Hindus and
Muslims must be made to fight each other. If you go on line and read the speech called ‘History in
the Service of Imperialism’ a speech by Professor B. N. Pandey, Professor of History in Allahabad
University, who later became Governor of Orissa, given in 1977 in the Rajya Sabha, the upper House
of Parliament. Prof. Pandey has mentioned in great detail how the British policy was to make Hindus
and Muslims inimical to each other. For instance he has mentioned that in 1928 when he was a
Professor of History in Allahabad University some students came to him with a book written by one
Professor Harprasad Shastri, Professor of Sanskrit of Calcutta University in which it was mentioned
that Tipu Sultan told 3000 Brahmins to convert to Islam otherwise they will be killed, and those 3000
Brahmins committed suicide rather than becoming Muslims. On reading this Professor B. N. Pandey
wrote to Professor Harprasad Shastri asking him on what basis have you written this? What is the
source of your information? Prof. Harprasad Shastri wrote back that the source of information is the
Mysore Gazetteer. Then Prof. Pandey wrote to Prof. Shrikantia, Professor of History in Mysore
University, asking him whether it is correct that in Mysore Gazetteer it is mentioned that Tipu Sultan
told 3000 Brahmins to convert to Islam. Prof. Shrikantia wrote back that this is totally false, he had
worked in this field and there is no such mention in the Mysore Gazetteer, rather the correct version
was just the reverse, namely, that Tipu Sultan used to give annual grants to 156 Hindu Temples, he
used to send grants to the Shankaracharya of Shringheri, etc.
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 15 of 17
Now, just imagine what mischief has been done. Deliberately our history books have been falsified
so that the mind of a child at an impressionable age is poisoned so that he should start hating
Muslims in India and in Pakistan he should start hating Hindus. The poison put in the mind of an
impressionable age is very difficult to remove at a later age. All our history books have been falsified
in this manner.
It is time we re-write our History books and show that in fact upto 1857 there was no communal
problem at all in India. A composite culture in India had been developing. Hindus used to
participate Eid and Muharram, and Muslims used to participate in Holi, Diwali etc. There were some
differences no doubt but they were becoming narrower. In 1857 the great Mutiny took place.
Hindus and Muslims jointly fought against the British. After suppressing that Mutiny it was decided
by the British rulers that the only way to control this country to divide and rule. In other words,
Hindus and Muslims must be made to fight each other. All communal riots start after 1857. The
English Collector would secretly call the Hindu Pandit and give him money to speak against Muslims,
and similarly he would secretly call the Maulvi and give him some money to speak against Hindus. A
very beautiful racket was started in this way, and this resulted ultimately in the partition of 1947.
I am just telling you this to show that now the time has come when we must see through this game.
I mean how long are you going to be taken for a ride. Are we fools that anybody can come and make
fools out of us and make us fight each other.
About two months back I read in the newspapers that there was some violence in Aligarh Muslim
University, and the University had to be closed for some days. I thought that it was a Hindu Muslim
issue but some friends of mine from Aligharh came to Delhi and said it was not a Hindu- Muslim
issue but it was Azamgarhi versus Biharis. I said what! What nonsense! We should be united, and
brothers of each other. We should be one country, instead we are fighting on such silly matters.
In Maharashtra some people have proclaimed a bhumiputra theory (son of the soil theory). They say
that only Maharashtrians should be allowed to live in Maharashtra. South Indian UPites, and Biharis
should get out of Maharashtra. Such people do not realize that in that case they will also have to
leave Maharashtra because they also are not bhumiputras. Bhumiputra are hardly 7 or 8 % of the
people living in Maharashtra e.g. the Bhils and other adivasis (tribals). This is a country of
immigrants.
5. India is passing through transitional period, transition from feudal agricultural society to
modern industrial society. We are presently neither totally feudal nor totally modern. We are
somewhere in between.
The transition period is a very painful and agonizing period in history. If you read the history of
Europe from the 16th to 19th centuries you will find it a very horrible period which Europe went
through. It was only after going this fire that modern society emerged in Europe. India is presently
going through this fire. We are going through a very painful period in our history which I think will
last another 10 to 20 years. In my opinion the duty of all patriotic people is to help in shortening this
transitional period, in reducing this pain, although we cannot totally eliminate it because there is
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 16 of 17
going to be turmoil in this period since the vested interests in the old feudal order will not give up
their vested interests without a fierce struggle. So there is going to be pain but we must try to
explain to our people about the transition period, and try to reduce the pain and shorten the
transitional period.
Here is where the role of the Judiciary becomes very important. We were talking about the Judiciary
and some people said that I should speak about the Judiciary also. Well, I will give you one example.
In Northern India in some States e.g. western UP, Haryana, Rajasthan etc. (also in Pakistan) there is
the phenomenon called ‘honour killing’. If your daughter falls in love with a boy of another caste or
religion, or within the same village or in the same Gotra, both are killed and often brutally murdered.
This has been happening in a very large scale in some areas, and sometime it is organized by caste
panchayats. The problem is that the Chief Ministers are often unwilling to interfere because these
caste Panchayats supply the vote banks to the politicians. In India politics often runs on caste on
religious basis. So the Chief Minister usually relies on the vote banks supplied by the caste
panchayats. Therefore, he does not want to annoy them, he will not interfere, and the District
Magistrate and Superintendent of Police even though they know that this honour killing is going to
take place (through their intelligence agencies) will not interfere out of fear that if does so the Chief
Minister will get angry with him.
But I am not dependent on your votes, I am not an elected authority, and that makes me very
strong, in fact, it makes me more democratic than the so called democratic bodies because I am not
bothered about your votes. I therefore passed the order that those who do honour killing will be
given mandatory death sentence and the District Magistrate and Superintendent of that area must
be immediately placed under suspension. This was a very strong judgment after which ‘honour
killing’ has considerably declined. This could not have been done by the politicians because they are
dependent on the votes of these people. So, here is where the Judiciary becomes very important, by
the very fact that we are undemocratic. In fact we are more democratic than the so called
democratic bodies because we can take responsible decisions to help the country get modernized.
Many of you were mentioning about corruption in India. It is true that in India there is rampant
corruption. You rightly said that it is a matter of shame, and it is true absolutely true. It is
disgraceful what is happening. Here is where the Judiciary is playing a little role. Recently we passed
strong orders in the 2G scam case. The result was that one cabinet Minister was dismissed, and he is
in jail, one member of Parliament, daughter of a Chief Minister, is in jail and we are taking such other
steps to the extent we can.
In environmental matters Delhi had become like a gas chamber. 10 years back there was so much
pollution because of the pollution from vehicles and factories. Hence the Supreme Court passed
strong orders. Today Delhi is relatively is much better. Thus, the judiciary can play a very important
role in this transitional age which we are passing through. We are trying to do something but we
cannot do everything. After all we are not Gods, who can solve all problems.
I will conclude by one couplet of Faiz Ahmed Faiz whose centenary we are celebrating this year. He
is in my opinion the greatest Urdu poet of the 20th century. The greatest Urdu poet was of course
C:\Users\Firdoshktolat\Documents\Interesting\India\What Is India.Docx
Thursday, February 09, 2012. 10:48 AM 17 of 17
Ghalib. Ghalib is far above everybody else. But I will talk some other day about Ghalib. In the 20th
century the greatest poet in my opinion was Faiz and I would like to quote from his famous poem:
“Gulon mein rang bhare baad-e-naubahaar chale
Chale bhi aao ke gulshan ka kaarobaar chale”
What does this mean? Urdu poetry often has an outer superficial meaning and an inner real
meaning. The outer, superficial and literal meaning of the above couplet is:
“In the flowers the colourful breeze of the new spring is blowing Come forward, so that the
garden can function”
However the inner real meaning of the couplet is that the objective situation in the country is ripe
which invites the patriotic people now to come forward to serve the country. The word ‘gulshan’
literally means ‘garden’ but here it means the country. You have not to take it literally. So it is a call
to the people of the country including the people of the Diaspora like you to come forward since our
country is in difficulties and you are required now to help it.
Thank you.