Naseeruddin, ‘refugee’ and who is ‘your’?

Why was Pakistan created? The active role of imperialist Britain and the Left in the partition of India is well known. But could the British and the Communists have succeeded in this gruesome game without the local support they had received from a large section of the Muslim society of the then India? We can see this divisive mindset in a recent interview of famous Bollywood actor Naseeruddin Shah, which he gave to a purely leftist web portal. This time he has spoken of civil war, showing the fear of genocide to the Muslims. Apart from this, he has described the Islamic invader Mughals as ‘refugees’ and contributors to nation building. Not only this, development of Ayodhya and Kashi in Naseeruddin’s view is an open display of his personal faith by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. I am not personally acquainted with Naseeruddin. But I am aware of the mentality of him and those who directly or indirectly support him. naseeruddin shah mughals furious

Naseeruddin is calling the Mughals ‘refugees’ and calling them positive and creative participants in the country’s civilization and culture. But the truth of these invaders is clear from the memoirs written by them and the fascinating accounts of contemporary writers. There are many such places in the country like Kashi, Mathura, Delhi, etc., where the evidence of crushing the faith, identity and self-respect of the local people by Islamic invaders is evident.

If the Mughals or other Islamic invaders from abroad have ‘own’ for the people like Nasiruddin etc., then in what line will they put the British? In fact, the Mughals and other Islamic rulers were attested to the aggressive religious tradition and the ‘Kafir-Kufr’ concept started in 712 AD by Muhammad bin Qasim. This is the reason why Qasim’s dismantling of the then Hindu kingdom of Sindh, the starting point of the creation of Pakistan, is described on the official websites of Pakistan.

The truth is that every Islamic invader, whether he is a white, ‘idol-breaker’, not only Ghazni, Qutubuddin, Alauddin, Timur, Babur – they are ‘Kafir’ Sanatan culture and ‘Kufr’ here with the intention of plundering India. He wanted to hoist the Islamic flag by demolishing the temples and landmarks, which was carried forward by his followers (including Jahangir, Aurangzeb, Tipu Sultan). The Mughals whom Nasiruddin has been calling ‘refugees’, that Mughal Empire was established (1526) by the brutal Babur on the strength of ‘Jihad’ to ‘protect Islam’ from ‘Kaffir’ Rana Sanga and his huge army, on whose instructions Later, along with many other temples, the ancient Ram temple in Ayodhya was also demolished. Could this be the mentality of a ‘refugee’ or someone who has immigrated to a new country?

The post-independence educational system, which has been glorifying Islamic invaders (including the Mughals) for decades by hiding the reality of them, is influenced by external Marx-Macaulay thinking. When Bakhtiyar Khilji came to India with the religious philosophy of his father- Qasim, Ghori, Ghaznavi etc., he destroyed many ancient universities full of Indianness here. This includes the Nalanda University, which was burnt by him in 1193, where students from all over the world came. In fact, Bakhtiyar had not only demolished the universities then, but he destroyed India’s timeless and age-old intellectual heritage in every field, including medicine, leaving India’s future bleak for many centuries.

Most of the prestigious European universities operated after the Islamic invaders had destroyed the indigenous universities of India. Meanwhile, when the Industrial Revolution was born out of the discoveries provided by the European educational system, India was caught in the colonial web. Till the year 1850, there was no organized educational system in India for research, knowledge and research. Individual efforts in this area continued, but then there was a complete lack of institutional efforts. As a result, India fell behind in the world.

The British established three universities in 1850 at Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The main objective of the British was not to educate the local people from these institutions, but to produce Manasputras who would fulfill their interests. In this they also succeeded. This education system developed such generations of Indians, who hated their native culture, identity and became intellectually paralyzed in distinguishing between friend and foe. This distortion was later reinforced by the Left in line with their anti-Hindu philosophy and with the blessings of the early leadership of independent India. As a result, the truth of the Islamic invaders did not become a part of Indian discourse even decades after the British left in 1947.

Pakistan is a reflection of the same mentality from which the Islamic invaders (including the Mughals) took inspiration from the narrow thinking that destroyed the temples and destroyed the local culture. There too most Hindu-Buddhist temples and many Gurudwaras were demolished, while non-Muslims (including Hindu-Sikhs) became insignificant. In fact, Pakistan, like a section of Muslim society in the Indian subcontinent, regards itself as the successor of the same Islamic invaders, as is evident from most of its missile-warship names- Ghazni, Ghori, Babur, Abdali, Tipu, etc.

Who created Pakistan? Weren’t they ‘his’? Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali and President Iskandar Mirza were born in India and so were Zia-ul-Haq, Pervez Musharraf. Mamnoon Hussain, the 12th President of Pakistan, was also born in Agra. The elections held in 1946 before partition and its result was a kind of plebiscite, in which most of the Muslims openly supported the Muslim League demanding Pakistan in the name of Islam. Then the League had won 87 percent of the 492 Muslim reserved seats i.e. 429 seats. Most of the seats won by the league were in present-day India. Then the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, also contested elections from any area of ​​present-day Pakistan- Lahore, Rawalpindi, Peshawar, Sindh or his native Karachi, but from Bombay’s Byculla seat and won. Interestingly, many of those who were demanding Pakistan before partition, remained in fragmented India.

Is ‘Civil War’ mentioned for the first time within Muslim society? Frustrated by the defeat of the Muslim League in the 1937 provincial election, Muhammad Iqbal wrote a letter to Jinnah on 28 May 1937 and said, “…without an independent Muslim state, the observance and development of Islamic Shariat in this country is not possible.. If it happens, civil war is the only other option…. Is it not true that even after the ‘secular’ mobilization of jihadis-leftist-liberals since the year 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has twice got a thumping absolute majority, which is annoyed by the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (2019-20) anti-violent protests and farmers’ movement. 2020-21) seen in the violence? Seven decades later, the threat of ‘civil war’ again – is there a sign of a new threat?

People News Chronicle

People News Chronicle author account is for interns, who are just new to our news agency. They are taught basics of wordpress and publishing through this account.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button