Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or Mahatma Gandhi as he is fondly called the world over, wrote two letters to the German Dictator Adolf Hitler, one in 1939 and the other, in 1940. Both letters were addressed to ‘My friend’. In his book ‘Why I Killed The Mahatma’, Koenraad Elst makes a pertinent observation. He says that for anyone else to call the ‘ultimate monster’ a friend would be considered strange given the circumstances.
According to Elst, Hitler had given rather shocking advice to the British on how to maintain its oppression of the Indian people and also, how to suppress to freedom movement that was, by 1937, in full bloom. In a 1937 meeting with Government envoy Lord Edward Halifax (with whom Gandhi had signed the Irwin pact) Hitler had suggested shooting Gandhi to suppress the Freedom movement. If that did not work, Elst says, he had suggested shooting other leaders of Indian National Congress and then, shoot more freedom fighters if necessary. The plan by Hitler became progressively worse. Elst says that while it would be considered strange to call Hitler a ‘dear friend’, it was patently Gandhian to remain friendly with one’s would-be killer.
The first letter by MK Gandhi to Adolf Hitler was written on 23rd July 1939.
The first letter written by MK Gandhi to Adolf Hitler
Koenraad Elst says in his book that in his first letter (of the two letters), Gandhi appears to be circumspect in referring the Hitler as his friend when he writes that his friends have been urging him to write to Hitler for the sake of humanity but he has resisted so far as he felt that any letter would be an ‘impertinence’. However, the noted scholar also says that this circumspection on Gandhi’s part was not bourn out of abhorrence for Hitler, but modesty. The last line of his letter where he asks for forgiveness if he erred by writing to him is also considered modesty and scruples by Elst. Elst also says that while this approach of Gandhi is condemned by many, and several believe that it provided Hitler with a carte blanche option, had Gandhi’s method worked, it would have stopped the deportation and genocide of Jews since what happened then was a consequence of wartime.
Mahatma Gandhi’s second letter to Hitler came on the Christmas even of 1940. On 24th December 1940, Gandhi wrote a lengthy letter to Hitler. At this time, Germany and Italy controlled most of Europe, the German-Soviet pact was still in place under Churchill and Great Britain was continuing its war against Germany for the invasion of Poland in 1939.
Part 1 of the second letter written to Adolf Hitler by MK GandhiPart 2 of the second letter written to Adolf Hitler by MK Gandhi
In this letter, Gandhi explains in details his reasons for referring to Hitler as ‘my friend’ and signing both the letters off with ‘Your Sincere Friend’. Gandhi says that the fact that he addresses Hitler as a ‘dear friend’ is no formality because he owns no foes and that his business in 33 years has been to earn the friendship of entire humanity irrespective of caste, colour, creed, religion and race. Gandhi had gone on to call this approach the ‘doctrine of universal friendship’.
It is no surprise that a large part of the criticism that is accrued to Gandhi is regarding his strict tenets of ‘non-violence’ and ‘universal friendship’. Many believe that Gandhi’s adherence to these principles almost bordered on cowardice.
Gandhi vehemently reiterates that he has no doubts on Hitler’s bravery or his commitment to his motherland. He also shuns the popular public opinion that Hitler was a ‘monster’ as described by his opponents. However, he says that some of his acts and writing are monstrous, especially, to someone like Gandhi who considers the principle of universal friendship a way of life.
Talking about the revolt against the British, Gandhi in his letter to Hitler says that the Indian struggle against the British is an unarmed one.
George Orwell, the great author, once said, “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.” Gandhi could afford to abstain from violence because there were other great men who had embraced violence for the cause of Indian independence.
The deification of Gandhi has relegated many significant events of the Indian struggle for Independence to historical obscurity. The one event which suffered the most was perhaps the British Indian Royal Navy uprising of 1946. Protests against the poor quality of food and racism by the British which began at HMIS Talwar soon spread to Castle and Fort barracks onshore and 22 other ships and other naval establishments. They demanded the release of political prisoners and the Indian National Army (INA) personnel.
The mutineers had widespread support among the public. They carried aloft a portrait of Netaji Subhash as they took out a procession in Bombay and flew flags of different hues which signalled the unmitigated desire for independence that had gripped the nation. Ultimately, an army battalion had to be inducted to save the situation for the British. After many dead and injured civilians and following assurances of sympathetic treatment by senior leaders of the Congress who were against the mutiny from the very beginning, the mutineers eventually surrendered.
It is thus unfair to say that the Indian struggle against the British was purely an unarmed one, thus, belittling the valour of many other freedom fighters.
Gandhi, however, did not judge Hitler mildly. He did refuse German help in securing freedom from the British and those reasons too are written off in the letter. “We would never wish to end the British rule with German aid”, Gandhi wrote.
Elst in his book supports the method adopted by Gandhi, however, says that Gandhi was wrong in assuming that to disarm the enemy one needs to disarm himself. He writes that while preparing for war is necessary, the target should be bloodless crisis management.
As the nation celebrates the birth anniversary of Lal Bahadur Shastri, India’s second Prime Minister’s on October 2, coinciding with Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary, Filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri paid his tributes to former Prime Minister by calling him a ‘Tyagi’ and India’s first economic reformer.
In a tribute published today in DNA, Vivek Agnihotri, who recently directed the critically acclaimed movie – ‘The Tashkent Files’, based on the suspicious death of Lal Bahadur Shastri, writes that there was a silence of disbelief, not just by the political supporters but mostly by common people, including all sections of India who waited as if their own family member’s body was going to arrive after the untimely death of Lal Bahadur Shastri.
“When Lal Bahadur Shastri’s body reached the Palam airport on the freezing morning of January 11, 1966, thousands of people lined up for his ‘antim darshan’. People loved Lal Bahadur Shastri who, in a short period, had won everyone’s heart and respect with his honesty, sincerity and passionate dedication to serving the downtrodden,” writes Vivek Agnihotri.
According to the filmmaker, Former PM Shastri not only brought back the lost glory of the country by winning in the 1965 war against Pakistan but also revived the pride of forgotten people, especially, farmers.
While India was engulfed in corruption during the Nehru’s era, Shastri showed a humble way of life-based on Tyaga or sacrifice, opines Vivek Agnihotri. He writes that people of the country were aware that Shastri did not even have the money to buy a personal car and had to take a bank loan to get one.
The mysterious death of Lal Bahadur Shastri in Tashkent followed obituaries from across the world reflecting the respect he had garnered in such a short time. “Lal Bahadur Shastri died at a pinnacle of popularity that no one in India believed possible when he succeeded the late Jawaharlal Nehru as Prime Minister barely nineteen months ago,” the New York Times had written.
“It was said that Nehru died too late and Shastri’s death came too early. Though it is widely believed that his popularity had raised because of his response to the war with Pakistan in 1965, Shastri introduced unprecedented reforms in the economy.”
Agnihotri asserts that it will not be wrong to say that he was India’s first economic reformer as he realised certain Nehruvian model of economics was inimical to national development. The writer states that Shasti was expected to follow Nehruvian economics of emphasis on physical controls instead of prices, focus on industry instead of agriculture and crushing web of controls, however, he did not.
Instead, in a very short period of time, Shastri dismantled it piece by piece. The then Prime Minister pumped in fresh thinking into India’s development strategy. People understood that Shastri wore no ideological blinkers. Instead, Shastri chose to see facts as they were in reality and emphasised on tackling them with practical solutions to help the downtrodden.
“Unlike Nehru, he went about his job in quietly, without any showmanship,” writes filmmaker-turned-author Agnihotri.
The article cites Myron Weiner, a professor in Political Science at MIT, who had praised Shastri’s policies to improve Indian agriculture and to increase the production of consumer goods. Shastri’s growing dependence on the free market mechanism and removal of government control from the steel industry relieved many Indian economists and businessmen, observed Weiner.
Agnihotri quotes John Kenneth Galbraith, the then American ambassador to India, who had said that Shastri’s ability to manage Indian affairs during “one of the most difficult periods in Indian history” was a “very considerable achievement.” He cited Shastri’s skill in dealing with India’s food and border problems and in substituting Hindi for English as the official language.
Expressing his deep admiration to Lal Bahadur Shastri, Agnihotri wrote that the former Prime Minister exuded courage, conviction and gave hope to people and he was a symbol of ‘Tyaag’. He personified the Hindu philosophy of ‘Sada jeevan, uchchvichar’ (simple living, high thinking), he writes further.
Shastri, in his personal life, was very simple, against wastage of resources and was fanatic about honesty in public life. As AICC general secretary, he used to give his wife Lalitaji a monthly allowance of Rs 40. When he came to know that she had managed to save Rs 10 out of it, he felt he was overpaying her and cut ten rupees from her allowance!
“Therefore, there remain legitimate grounds to speculate how the Indian economy would have developed had Shastri lived longer. India went on to adopt similar reform measures 25 years later, which put the economy on a higher growth trajectory. The little man was just way ahead of his times,” the article reads.
According to the writer, Nehru did not learn Tyaag from Gandhi but Shastri did. Tyaag is the highest quality a man can possess, a door to Shuddhi or cleansing. Without Shuddhi there is no transformation, noted filmmaker writes.
During the 1965 Indo-Pak war, when Lal Bahadur appealed for a voluntary Vrat (fasting), India was going through a food crisis. “Shashtri used ‘Tyaag’ as a political Shashtra (weapon) to address it besides sowing the seeds of a Green Revolution. Politics needs optics, and optics which are ingrained in the Indian ethos, are always most effective. Vrat is part of Indian culture. Shastri used it to make a point about the food crisis,” reads the tribute piece.
As Shastri deviated from Nehruvian ideology, the media, people and intellectuals, who were patronised by Nehru and became the beneficiaries of the seeping corruption, called Shastri’s call for ‘Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan’ a political gimmick. Agnihotri claims that the so-called intellectuals were not prepared to sacrifice one meal and intellectualised their lack of commitment to the national cause instead. However, millions of Indians did fast on Sundays.
“If we entrust our destiny in a leader’s hands, we must be prepared to be led by him on the path of change. If that path requires sacrifice then why shouldn’t the true followers be ready to sacrifice? If Bharat has to become truly independent then Tyaag has to be mutual. Citizens must always choose Tyaag- based leadership over leaders with egos”, writes Agnihotri.
Lastly, Agnihotri writes that he believes that he was destined to make a film on Lal Bahadur Shastri’s mysterious death. Agnihotri states that it gives him immense satisfaction that children all over India will learn that October 2 is not only Gandhi Jayanti, but also Lal Bahadur Shastri’s Jayanti. What can be a more fitting tribute to this great ‘tyaagi’ son of the soil of India? he noted.
The Juvenile Justice Committee (JJC) from the Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising of four High Court judges has submitted its report to the Supreme Court giving the details of 144 minor boys ‘arrested’ in Jammu and Kashmir since August 5.
As per a report in the Times Of India, the committee, in its report has submitted that all the boys have been released except only two who were in juvenile homes. The JJC was tasked to examine the cases after several media outlets in India and abroad reported that underage boys have been detained by Indian security forces and are being tortured.
The JJC, comprising of HC judges Ali Mohammad Magrey, Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Sanjeev Kumar and Rashid Ali Dar has submitted its report to the SC after individually examining each of the detention cases and has concluded that except two, all boys were released on the same day.
‘Child rights activists’ Eenakshi Ganguly and Shanta Sinha were the petitioners on whose plea the JJC was tasked by CJI Ranjan Gogoi to file a detailed report. Interestingly, the ‘activists’ had based their petition not on actual complains but on reports by news portals such as The Quint, The Scroll, Caravan and Washington Post.
The JJC has specified that till now, they “have not recieved a single complaint or representation or anything like that from any individual, lawyer, human rights activists, group persons, organisations, civil society members or any other person complainging about the arrest of any juvenile.”
The detailed report has included data not only from police stations but also from juvenile homes in the state.
The police report cited by the JJC states,” Child welfare committees are effectively working in the state and the petition is only an exaggeration to settle some political score and to demoralise the state action which has only been within the parameters of Law.”
After a detailed inspection and follow up of individual cases, the JJC’s report has demolished the claims made by portals like The Quint, The Scroll, Carvan and Washington Post. The JJC has also cited individuals claims by these media houses to demonstrate how they had created a false narrative to mislead the public and create an environment of fear based on nothing.
As per the JJC report:
“Detention of 11-year-old from Pampore is factually not correct. It has been ‘generated’ with an intention to malign the police and to create a story with an element of sensationalism,” says the JJC report. The story was published in The Quint quoting the ‘fact finding team’ by leftist Kavita Krishnan and Jean Dreze. It is notable here that Krishnan and Dreze’s ‘report’ on Kashmir was also denied screening by the Press Club of India, calling it propaganda.
The Quint’s report called out as ‘sensationalism’ by the JJC
The incident of Saura in Srinagar that was published by the Washington Post has also been criticised. Though the police have admitted to some violence and protests from the area, the report does not quote the sources, Hence the JJC found nothing to check the veracity of the claims.
Also, the August 30 report by Washington Post on Kashmir is called ‘wrong reporting’ by the JJC as no specifics of the alleged incidents were provided. The report was widely shared by Indian opposition politicians and ‘left-liberals’ to allege human rights violations in Kashmir and detention of children by security forces.
The JJC has called The Quint’s report of minors in Baramulla being detained for days by police as a “fictional imagination”.
The report by ‘The Quint’ alleging detention of minors has been termed ‘fictional imagination’ by the JJC
The JJC states that the two boys who were picked up in the Rajbagh police station area on August 22 were let go after a proper counselling by the SHO. They were handed over to their parents on the same day.
A report on The Scroll had claimed that a boy on his way to the hospital with bread and tea was picked up by the police. The JJC report cites The Scroll’s report and states that it defies ‘common sense’ and it only aims to paint the security forces as ‘predators on the prowl’. Dismissing the claims, the JJC report states that it was nothing but an attempt to demoralise the police personnel.
The Scroll’s report slammed by the JJC
The J and K police’s report to the JJC has also asked how foreign publications and digital media portals have ‘reported’ incidents that were nowhere to be found on local media and have no evidentiary value.
It is notable here that since the government abrogated Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, leftist media and their patrons have been on a misinformation overdrive. Several false claims, and lies are being peddled. From medicine shortage to imaginary stories of torture and extreme violence, some media portals seem to be peddling the lines perpetrated by Pakistan over the Kashmir issue.
Bhagat Singh is a hero to all Indians. He made sure he was caught and hanged to death in 1931 in the hope it would help countless youth rise against the British yoke. He was only 23 and arguably a bigger legend than both Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru in his closing days. The nation hoped as one he would be pardoned, and not executed.
As we celebrated his 112th birth anniversary (September 28, 1907), the cacophony is back to own him up. Marxists claim him to be one of their own; Congress cite countless instances of how much Pt. Nehru admired the revolutionary in public and his atheism is cited as a rebuff to RSS and communal politics.
Times of India today had a middle in its edit page where a Bhagat Singh researcher, Prof Chaman Lal has been interviewed by one Manimugdha Sharma. The piece begins and ends with Bhagat Singh being a proud son of Marxist/socialist ideology but doesn’t miss out in rubbishing Veer Savarkar for his silence on the martyr. Predictably, Bhagat Singh’s distaste for casteism is showcased too.
Is this the binary we want Bhagat Singh to be reduced to where everyone is apportioning a piece of his corpse? Where facts are twisted to suit an ideology? Where Bhagat Singh is revealed a Marxist but hidden is the fact that he never joined Communist Party of India? Where Savarkar is demonized for his silence but cloaked is the truth that Bhagat Singh never said a word against Savarkar and indeed completely read the latter’s work, “Hindu Pad Padshahi”? Where Bhagat Singh is mentioned as an atheist but masked is the evidence that Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Arya Samaj exerted a great influence on him? Where Mahatma Gandhi is cited by Prof Chaman Lal to have “made efforts” for Bhagat Singh’s release but veiled is the historical reality that Gandhi faced black flag demonstrations by angry youths in Karachi who shouted “Down With Gandhi” in the wake of latter not demanding clemency for the condemned revolutionary? Where Jawaharlal Nehru is shown to be an unabashed admirer of Bhagat Singh but disguised is the truth that Pt. Nehru snubbed revolutionary Chandrashekhar Azad when the latter sought his help that Bhagat Singh not be hanged?
To satisfy their conscience—DoubleThink is the hallmark of Commies as George Orwell famously told us in Nineteen Eighty-Four—the interview does have a question on why Mahatma Gandhi never sought a pardon for Bhagat Singh which the nation prayed for. Prof Chaman Lal tells us that “Even if Gandhi had made it a point not to have the Gandhi-Irwin Pact without the commutation of their death sentences, the revolutionaries would not have accepted and compromised at their end.”
There is this wonderful piece in Swarajyamag where Prof Irfan Habib is shown indulging in similar skullduggery on Bhagat Singh. Since we can’t show Prof Chaman Lal and Manimugdha Sharma a mirror on the folly of their concert, let’s urge them to read it. Let’s not assume they have no shame. (Even though I firmly believe the edit pages of Times of India is now the bastion of Marxists).
The oversell of Prof Irfan Habib, a JNU professor like our very dear Chaman Lal, was the soft corner Pt. Nehru had on Bhagat Singh. He cited countless instances when Pt. Nehru was effusive in his praise for the nationalist. The Swarajymag piece laid bare the fact that Nehru never put his foot down when Gandhi-Irwin Pact was being ratified by the Congress Working Committee to which he was the president. Subhas Chandra Bose didn’t mince his words: “The responsibility of Pandit Nehru is very great. Besides being the President of the Indian National Congress, he was the only member of the Working Committee who could be expected to understand and advocate the Left-wing point of view…”
Non-partisan historians believe that if Gandhi had wanted he could’ve persuaded Irwin—with whom he shared a good rapport—to release Bhagat Singh. There are elaborate mentions of Gandhi-Irwin dialogue on Bhagat Singh in the Swarajyamag piece. Also, Nehru defended Bhagat Singh in public but in reality left him on wolves’ table. (We in NewsBred have an archived piece where Bhagat Singh’s nephew lambasts Congress for treating revolutionaries as terrorists!).
Those who are innocents would be startled on how disappointed Chandrashekhar Azad was when he sought out Nehru on Bhagat Singh’s clemency. The Swarajymag piece also details the version of Manmathanath Gupta, a fellow revolutionary of Bhagat Singh, on the attitude of the Congress leaders, including Gandhi and Nehru. Gupta mentions the betrayal by the two leaders and is quoted thus: “…Nehru completely misrepresented the revolutionaries, charging them with fascist tendencies” So Nehru viewed Bhagat Singh and his fellow revolutionaries as fascists! But Chaman Lal tells us that the martyr approved of Nehru above Bose!
The headline in Times of India doesn’t reflect the piece; as the piece doesn’t reflect the legendary Bhagat Singh. It’s a work of small men committing sacrilege on a deity of sacrifice and courage. It’s a disservice to Bhagat Singh’s memory.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India lost its patience with the counsel representing parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case and reprimanded them, particularly Rajeev Dhavan representing the Muslim parties for constantly repeating their arguments. The Supreme Court also directed all sides to stick to the schedule for completion of arguments in the Ram Mandir case.
According to the reports, the Muslim parties in the Ram Mandir case represented by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan and Meenakshi Arora received the wrath of the apex court after they constantly interrupted the Hindu parties’ counsel senior advocates K Parasaran and C S Vaidyanathan from making any arguments.
The interruptions upset the Supreme Court bench consisting of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, which said, “We are being told the same thing again and again as if there is no application of mind on this side (by the judges). This is no way to argue the case. It is impossible to complete arguments if it continues in this manner.”
Following this, Rajeev Dhavan apologised for interrupting the other side from making any arguments. Rajeev Dhavan had tried to drown Vaidyanathan’s arguments by interrupting through the microphone. An irritated Vaidyanathan countered by increasing his voice, to protest Dhavan’s constant interruptions. As a result, it became difficult to decipher the arguments.
The Supreme Court bench advised Vaidyanathan to switch off his microphone to help bring back sanity in the proceedings and said, “it is adding to the problem”. Vaidyanathan complied and sanity returned.
Chaos broke out in the Supreme Court in the Ram Mandir case over the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report, which states that there was a massive structure resembling North Indian temples directly beneath the disputed structure. This report has become the bone of contention between Hindu parties, who rely on it and the Muslim parties, who reject it as mere conjecture on part of the archaeologists.
Senior Advocate Vaidyanathan said Hindus had from time immemorial considered the disputed site the birthplace of Lord Ram and had a right over it, even though the mosque over it came into existence just 500 years ago. Refuting Sunni Waqf Board’s argument that an Idgah existed beneath the Babri Masjid, Vaidyanathan said that the claims by Muslim parties were both ridiculous and an attempt to trivialise the importance of the ASI report prepared by experts.
“Muslims had never argued during the trial of title suits before the Allahabad High Court that an Idgah existed beneath the disputed structure. The HC meticulously examined the ASI report including the video recording of the excavation which was carried out in the presence of a large number of persons. Muslim parties gave up their right to cross-examine the archaeologists before the HC. Hence, the ASI report is now admissible evidence and Muslim parties cannot doubt its veracity before the Supreme Court,” said Vaidyanathan.
Recently, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan representing the Muslim parties in the Ram Mandir case had to apologise before the top court after another advocate representing Muslim parties – Meenakshi Arora had questioned the ASI report. The Muslim parties had questioned the credibility of the ASI report and had raised her doubts on the authorship of the Archeological Survey of India’s (ASI) report. She had questioned the credibility of archaeology as a scientific discipline.
The Supreme Court bench hearing the politically sensitive, Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid land dispute case on a day to day basis has tentatively decided to give a verdict by November 18. On the fifth day of the hearing in the case, Ram Lalla’s lawyer, when asked by the court, affirmed that the exact site of Rama’s birthplace is where the Babri Masjid once stood in the present-day Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.
It is believed, the Mughals demolished a Hindu shrine that marked the spot and constructed a mosque in its place.
Now, the former regional director, North, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), KK Muhammed, who was a part of the team of archaeologists which had carried out the first excavation at the site in 1976-77, has endorsed this belief. He, in an interview with Time of India, has confirmed that there is enough archaeological proof of a grand temple below the Babri Mosque.
While speaking to the media house, Muhammed shared his thoughts on what made him feel that Muslims should voluntarily hand over the land at Ayodhya.
The former regional director of the ASI discusses three important aspects which prove the existence of a Hindu shrine under the Babri tomb.
The first aspect- Archaeological evidence:
Muhammed divulged that archaeologically there is enough evidence to say that below the controversial Babri structure, there were temple remains. In fact, there was a grand temple structure, he said.
He goes on to speak about the two excavations which were carried out at the site.
First excavation (1976-77):
The first excavation was carried out in the year 1976-77 under the eminent archaeologist BB Lal, who was the director-general of ASI from 1968-72.
Muhammed said that he was the only Muslim who was a part of the team during the first excavation.
Excavation has two important components. As per the procedure, first surface exploration was conducted to find out the remains on the surface. The former director divulged that during the process he saw 12 pillars of the mosque which were made from temple remains.
On being asked as to how he understood that the pillars were made of the temple remains, the archaeologist explained that in almost all temple structures from 12th and 13th centuries, you get ‘Purna Kalasha’ at the base. It is the structure of a ‘ghada’ (water pitcher) from which foliage is seen coming out. It is the symbol of prosperity in Hinduism. He also said that although there were no gods and goddess, there was ‘Asht-Mangala Chinhas’, the suit of eight auspicious symbols in Hinduism.
Base of a pillar excavated at the Ram Mandir site
He divulged that the example of this can be still seen at Quwwatul Islam mosque near Qutub Minar. This mosque, he said, was also made out of the remains of 27 temples. There was evidence for this as well, Muhammed confirmed. A book called Taj-ul-Masir, written by Hassan Nizami, also confirms that temples were destroyed and a mosque was constructed out of it.
He added that there is also an inscription in front of the Quwwatul mosque which confirms that it was made out of the spoils of 27 temples. When you go inside, you can see a number of ‘Purna Kalashas’ and a number of gods and goddesses, he confirmed.
Similar things were also present in Babri masjid site also. Though there were no god and goddesses, the presence of ‘Asht-Mangala Chinha’ and other structures archaeologically proves that the pillars of temple remains were found at the disputed site. “So, on the basis of these, any archaeologist would say that these are temple remains”, said the expert while talking tho TOI.
Muhammed went on to recollect that BB Lal had also then undertaken the excavation of the western side of the mosque. The pillar bases were also excavated. A number of terracotta sculptures were found. Had it been a mosque, depictions of human beings or animals would never be there as Islam considers it to be ‘haraam’ (forbidden or proscribed). This means there was a temple, said the former director.
However, Muhammed said that these findings were not highlighted by BB Lal then as their excavation purpose was not to establish whether there was a temple or not but to examine the cultural sequence of the place.
Asked whether these findings were ever highlighted, Muhammed remembered that a group of leftist historians led by Romila Thapar, DN Jha and RS Sharma among others went to the media around 1990 and falsely claimed that no temple remains were found in the excavation and that the report did not mention it either, which was actually a faulty statement.
The expert recollects that though BB Lal had then defended that the excavation team did find temple remains, they did not make an issue about it.
That time the Ayodhya issue was not as heated up as it became later, said the archaeologist.
Moving ahead with his interview, Muhammed said that he had then vociferously claimed that being the only Muslim in the team he could vouch that temple remains were found during the excavation process.
Muhammed opined that this is as important for Hindus as Mecca and Medina for Muslims. Therefore, Muslims should willingly hand it over to Hindus.
Second excavation (2003):
The second excavation was carried out in 2003 under the supervision of archaeologists Hari Manjhi and BR Mani, as per the directions of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. By that time the mosque structure had been already destroyed by karsevaks. Before the excavation, a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey was conducted. It found that there were several structures below the ground within the compound. Many anomalies were reported. “Anomalies meaning that you will be getting structures below the Babri Masjid”, he said.
Since this time the excavation was being done as per the court’s directive, the report assumes the status of a Court Commissioner’s report and it is fully authentic. The report by the ASI is impartial and scientific, explained the former director.
During this time more than 90 pillar bases in 17 rows were exposed. This meant that the structure was imposing and large. This structure discovered was that of a temple below the Babri Mosque which dated back to the 12th century AD, confirmed Muhammed.
The archaeologists also discovered the temple ‘pranala’. The expert then goes on to talk about the historical significance of the ‘pranala’ in Hindu culture.
We have to bathe the deity and the ‘abhishek jal’ flows through ‘pranali’. The pranali is mostly ‘makara pranali’, having a crocodile face, he explained. Crocodile is a symbol of river Ganga. In some of the temples before reaching the ‘garbha griha’ (sanctum sanctorum), on the one side, there would be a lady standing on crocodile and on the other side there would be a lady standing on a tortoise, which meant taking a symbolic bath in rivers Ganga, the Yamuna and the underground Saraswati. After cleansing yourself of all the previous sins, you are going to the main God.
This ‘makara pranali’ was excavated, exclaimed the expert saying that these are exclusively the property of a temple. Also, on top of the temple just below the ‘kalasha’, there is another architectural member known as ‘amalka’. It was also excavated. Below the ‘amalka’ there is the ‘grivah’ and also the ‘shikhara’, portion of a temple in North India. These were all excavated during the 2003 procedure.
Moreover, 263 pieces of terracotta objects of various gods and goddess, human figures and female figures were excavated from the disputed site in Ayodhya, informed Muhammed.
Apart from all these things, a ‘Vishnu Hari Sheela Phalak’ inscription was also found in two pieces from the site. Though this finding was not a part of the excavation, it was discovered after the demolition of the Babri structure. However, it forms crucial circumstantial evidence, which clearly says the temple has been dedicated to Lord Vishnu who had killed Bali and a 10-headed person.
The team hired by the Waqf Committee said the structure at Ayodhya was another mosque before the Babri Mosque. While they call it a structure, we call it a temple, said the expert, authenticating the presence of a temple under the Babri tomb, which the Muslim counsel has been disputing in the SC hearing.
Had it been a mosque, how could you get these terracotta objects of various living beings? Reiterated the expert claiming that depiction of any living being is prohibited in Islam.
Then how could you get sculptures of living beings had it been a mosque? So, it was not a mosque.
When asked as to what proof was there that the second excavation was impartial, Muhammed confirmed that firstly the entire process was videographed, and apart from the archaeologists, court-appointed judicial members were present at the time when the excavation was being carried out.
Besides, the excavation team which comprised off several eminent Muslim archaeologists namely, Ghulam Syeddin Khwaja from ASI, who retired as director of Arabic and Persian epigraphy at Nagpur, Atiqur Rehman Siddiqui who retired as a superintending archaeologist of Agra, Zulfikar Ali, who presently is the superintending archaeologist of Chandigarh circle and AA Hashmi, who retired from Chanderi, not only carried the excavation but they also were co-authors of the report which was submitted to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad HC. The report was highly fool-proof, claimed the former director, KK Muhammed.
The report’s conclusion was simple- there was a pre-existing temple under the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya which was dedicated to Lord Vishnu.
Muhammed remembered that though there was no dissenting view, some hired experts of the Waqf committee, who had differing opinion had tried to crate confusion then. But the Court Commissioner’s report is crucial and final.
When asked whether the findings will have an impact on the Supreme Court’s decision, Muhammed said that “I only believe that the Supreme Court cannot come out with any other kind of judgement” since the archaeological evidence is fully in favour of a Hindu temple, but even if for some reason they do give another kind of judgment, the chances of which are bleak, that would be a decision which would not be able to implement, since a lot of Hindu emotions are attached to that place.
The second aspect- Literary evidence:
The expert moves on to talk about the second important aspect of the case, that is the literary aspect to prove that Hindus continued to worship at that place in Ayodhya.
In Ain-e-Akbari Volume III, Abu Fazal says that Ayodhya was worshipped by Hindus in the month of Chaitra.
Secondly, the travelogue of a traveller known as William Filch (1608-1611), who visited India during the time of Jahangir said a lot of people assembled and worshipped at this place in Ayodhya.
In 1631, during the time of Jehangir and Shah Jahan, a Dutch geographer John Daeleat also speaks about the worship of the place by Hindus.
Thomas Herbert (1606-1682) also speaks about the Hindu worship of the place at Ayodhya. And moreover, one Joseph Taissen Thaler, who wrote in 1766, also wrote about the erection of a cradle at the place. It was for the first time, he said that the temple was destroyed either by Babur or Aurangzeb.
The third aspect- Social or emotional aspect:
Muhammed in his detailed interview to TOI divulged on the third and last aspect, which is the social issue. The emotional connect of the Hindus to this place is what he said is the last aspect which leaves no doubt on the existence of a temple at the disputed spot.
He said that Ram Temple at Ayodhya is as important for Hindus as Mecca an Medina is for Muslims.
Since this place is not of any emotional value to the Muslims as it is neither associated with Prophet Mohammed nor any Auliya like Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti of Ajmer, neither Nizamuddin Auliya of Delhi or Salim Chisti of Fatehpur Sikri, so Muslims should willingly hand it over to Hindus.
“If Muslims had shown a willingness on their part, many of the problems that they facing might have been automatically solved. That would have generated goodwill among Hindus also”, said KK Muhammed.
He further adds that the Muslims are trapped by the Marxist historians and therefore are not being able to think independently and prudently. “Even now the time has not elapsed. Before the Supreme Court gives its judgment, Muslims should hand over the place to Hindus and create an example. That is my humble request to them”, said the eminent archaeologist.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Gogoi has set October 18 as the tentative date to finish the hearing in the case. He had also said that the parties involved in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case were free to settle the matter, through mediation as well if they so desired. However, senior lawyer CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, said yesterday that he did not want to take part in the mediation any further and would like a judicial decision from the bench.
According to an exclusive report by Times Now, Indian Army has taken over the Indian Air Force base at Amritsar including the ATC tower. Army took over the security of the airbase from CISF following specific inputs that Pakistan based terrorists are planning to attack it using drones or other aircraft including hijacked planes, the report claims.
SUPER #EXCLUSIVE| Amritsar Air Force station has been fortified.
Army takes over ATC towers.
TIMES NOW’s Nikunj Garg has accessed a SENSATIONAL intelligence report.
More details on @thenewshour with Navika Kumar. | #AirHijackAlertpic.twitter.com/NTXWMdQMiu
The report also says that in an unprecedented move, the army has placed snipers at the airbase. Nikunj Garg of Times Now said that the request to deploy army at the airbase came from the Indian Air Force itself. He said that snippers are posted on the top of ATC tower as well as fire safety towers.
BREAKING & EXCLUSIVE: In An Unprecedented Move Air Force Has Got Snipers Placed At The ATC & Fire Safety Watch Towers At Its Amritsar Station & Got @CISFHQrs Men Replaced By An ARMY Contigent To Patrol The Base..An Air-Borne Threat To Air Assets From Drones on The Radar. https://t.co/q5NCEfZx6z
The report says that security forces are not only suspecting a ground-based attack, but also attack from the air using drones, gliders or other kinds of aircraft. Nikunj Garg said that the fact that snippers have been deployed points to the threat of an air-based attack, as if the intelligent reports were about attack from land route only, increasing protection around the airbase would have been enough.
In an ambitious move, the government has decided to introduce seaplane service in the state of Assam to boost connectivity in the area. Airports Authority of India (AAI) will introduce water aerodrome or seaplanes in three locations in Assam for the first time, a top AAI official said.
Three locations have been selected to for the seaplane service, and the water aerodromes are expected to be launched by the year 2021. This includes two locations on Brahmaputra river, Guwahati and Kaziranga National Park, while the third location is Umrangso reservoir in Dima Hasao district.
AAI regional executive director Sanjeev Jindal said that these three locations were selected after a countrywide study to launch the service for the first time in the country. He said that not much investment is required to commence the seaplane services in Assam. “Three jetties would be built in three locations at a cost of Rs 50 crore. Some other small works have to be done before launching the new ferrying mode,” he added.
Contrary to land airports which require high investments in construction of runways, seaplanes or amphibian plans can use any open water surface of sufficient dimension for taking of and landings. Only terminal facilities need to be constructed on land, where planes can be docked and passengers can board and deboard the planes.
The seaplane service will be launched under the UDAN (Ude Desh ka Aam Naagrik) scheme, a regional connectivity scheme aiming to develop regional airports to increase the penetration of air travel in the country.
Earlier the government had planned to launch seaplane services in several cities in the country. In December 2017, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had travelled in a seaplane in Ahmedabad which was flown as a demonstration for the service. However, commercial operations could not be started due to various reasons. Kerala government had to abandon a proposal to launch seaplanes in the state due to protests by fishing communities due to apprehensions that the project can affect their livelihoods.
Now the government has renewed the initiative to start seaplane services in the country, and plans to start it with launching the service in Assam within 2 years.
Balochistan which has been long bleeding in the hands of Pakistan has risen to demand justice. A video has emerged in which activists of the Baloch National Movement (BNM) were seen holding protests outside 10 Downing Street, the residence of the British Prime Minister, to raise the issue of the enforced disappearance of Baloch women and children from the southwestern province of Pakistan.
The protestors who were seen holding placards captioned: ‘UK stop Baloch genocide’, ‘restore Human Rights in Balochistan’, ‘Pakistan is a terrorist state’, ‘+25000 Baloch are missing’ etc, were also sloganeering against Pakistan.
The protestors alleged that the Pakistan Army was behind the abduction of hundreds of Baloch women and children from the province.
The Baloch activists have further initiated a social media campaign with hashtag #SaveBalochWomen to raise the issue on the global platform.
On May 14, Hani Gul Baloch, a student of medicine in Karachi, was abducted along with her fiance, Naseem Baloch. She was kept in military torture cells where she was tormented for three months. Upon her release, she was expelled by the Hamdard Medical University.
“Pakistan’s intelligence agencies recently adopted a new policy of abducting Baloch women and children to pressurise the Baloch political activists, who are fighting against the injustices committed by the Pakistani military establishment in Balochistan. The situation is becoming worse. Now, we have information that there are more than 100 Baloch women who have been abducted by the Pakistani security forces,” Hammal Haider Baloch, Foreign spokesperson of BNM said during the protest.
The people from Balochistan holding the protests said that they wanted to apprise the British authorities of their worsening conditions in Balochistan.
Hakkim Baloch, president of BNM (UK) said: “We wish to make the world aware that the Pakistan Army is abducting Baloch women. Recently they abducted women from Awaran, Dera Bugti, Bolan and various other parts of Makran. They are also abducting women from Karachi. We want to let the world now that they must take action against such inhuman acts of Pakistan”.
The insurgency in Balochistan is a guerrilla war waged by Baloch nationalists against the governments of Pakistan. Balochistan Nationalists have been demanding complete independence from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
On September 15, Balochistan rights activists had organised a poster campaign and protests in Geneva to highlight Pakistan’s “egregious infractions” in Balochistan where “enforced disappearances and killings” have assumed “epidemic proportions”.
Significantly, this ‘Stop Baloch Genocide’ poster campaign and protests, organised by the Balochistan Human Rights Council (BHRC) at the Broken Chair monument area had coincided with the 42nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
On August 15, when India was celebrating its 73rd Independence Day, Balochistan activists reached out to India to help in their struggle for their freedom from Pakistan.
In fact, on July 22, speaking exclusively to OpIndia, one such freedom fighter, Dr Allah Nazar Baloch, founder and chief of Balochistan Liberation Front, who has been fighting in the trenches for the better part of his life, said that the step-motherly treatment that Balochistan has got is evident from the social indicators and the extreme lack of basic development that the thin population of Balochistan has to deal with.
Speaking about the atrocities heaped on the people of Balochistan by the Pakistani establishment, Allah Nazar Baloch said that “Pakistan is plundering Balochistan and we appeal PM Modi to support the freedom struggle”.
From 2000 to 2016 itself, the dead bodies of over a 1000 political activists of Balochistan were found. The relatives of most of these victims said that they were picked up by the Pakistani establishment, only to turn up dead.
After the partition, Muhammad Ali Jinnah had negotiated the independence of Balochistan with the Britishers. Before the partition of India, Balochistan consisted of 4 Princely states, Kalat, Lasbela, Kharan and Makran. The three other princely states were beholden to Kalat in one manner or the other. The Government of Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state in treaty relations with the British Government with a status different from that of Indian States.
Jinnah then had a ‘change of heart’ and decided to annex Balochistan. The Balochistan Assembly had categorically rejected even the suggestion to join the Pakistan state. However, Jinnah had other plans. It bodes well to remember that essentially, Balochistan was an independent and sovereign state that was forcefully annexed by Pakistan by the barrel of the gun. You can read OpIndia’s exclusive interview with Dr Allah Nazar Baloch of Balochistan Liberation Front here.
McDonald’s fast-food chain in India seems to have landed itself in trouble. In August 2019, The global fast-food chain network, McDonald’s, had admitted to discriminating against non-Muslims as part of their business model in India. All their restaurants are Halal certified. As we have reported earlier, Halal is the Islamic method of slaughter which cannot be carried out by non-Muslims.
Owing to this admission, social worker, one Harish Sharma had filed a legal notice to McDonald’s India through advocate Ishkaran Bhandari. The legal notice was sent to McDonald’s India, Mr Amit Jatia (Joint Venture partner and McDonald’s India’s Managing Director) and Mr Vikram Bakshi (Joint Venture partner and McDonald’s India’s Managing Director).
The notice refers to the statement made by McDonald’s India in August where it asserted that all the meat used by them is Halal meat. The notice seeks clarification from the food chain about their policy with regards to Jhatka meat which is more humane and also, is slaughtered and consumed mostly by Hindus and Sikhs as opposed to Halal meat, which is, by Sharia, slaughtered only by Muslims. Since Halal guidelines mandate that only Muslims are involved in the entire slaughtering and packaging process, the notice also says that McDonald’s is discriminating against other religions who are involved in the business and denying them the equal opportunity to earn.
The notice further says that the tweet makes it evident that the food chain serves only Halal meat and not Jhatka or Kosher meat, and hence, choosing to serve only a specific kind of meat amounts to social, racial and religious discrimination and violates basic fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution. Further, it says that certain sects are barred from eating Halal meat since the process of slaughter is extremely painful for the animals and hence, by serving only Halal meat, McDonald’s is hurting the religious sentiments of such groups.
The legal notice also includes statements by McDonald’s UK and Canada that specifically say that their eateries do not serve Halal meat and have no plans of introducing the same any time soon.
As explained on our website, none of our food is certified as Halal, and McDonald’s U.K. has no current plans to introduce Halal food to the menu at any McDonald’s restaurant. Thanks.
McDonald’s Canada has too reiterated several times that they do not use Halal meat and not certified to that extent.
The notice had demanded a response from the food chain within 15 days. McDonald’s has now responded to the legal notice denying all charges but also asking for more time to respond to the legal notice in details.
While the time asked by McDonald’s is now coming to an end, Advocate Bhandari says that he is preparing to send a reminder notice to the food chain.
The practice of buying Halal meat exclusively by McDonald’s could also invite charges under the SC/ST Act, OpIndia has learnt from Ishkaran Bhandari. This, since Jhatka meat, is mostly slaughtered and processed by members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
