islamic republic of india

subroto · January 5, 2005

PLease read this article by a pakistani high court advocate recently printed in their newspaper

All the self-importance the Bharat has been making a show thereon, have been the Indian Muslims heritage. Right from their legendary drummer, namely Allah Rakha Khan to the Nuclear Scientist, Abdul Kalam Khan, including the overwhelming number of the most celebrated poets, writers, historians, geographers, architectures, sport stars, film stars, musicians, singers have been Muslims. Similarly all their world fame fascinating architectural monuments have been Indians Muslims made. So much so that Hindus do not have the name for their country of theirs and thus have swindled us of our name “India” - which had been ours exclusively.

Indian Muslims on either side of the border have never been ‘Pakistanis’ and Hindus on either side of the border have never been ‘Indians’ - We have been ‘Indians Muslims’ throughout and they have been ‘Bharati Hindus’ throughout. Similarly Indian Muslims have never ever named their homeland as Pakistan during their 1000-year rule - and ‘Bharati Hindus’ have never ever named their homeland as India, before the Muslims rule. During the entire Muslims Era, we the Indian Muslims had always named our country as ‘Hindustan’ or ‘Hind’ as a nickname, in the local languages and ‘India’ in the western languages, before the great divide. Similarly Bharati-Hindus have always named their country as Bharat even after the partition, in Hindi language - and still today their official name in their constitution is Bharat. Bharat has never ever been ‘India’ - and ‘India’ has never ever been ‘Bharat’ before the partition.

The name ‘India’ therefore has nothing to do with ‘Bharat,’ ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindus’. Bharati-Hindus have, like so many other symbols of our highly prestigious heritage and of our great pride, plagiarized, stealthily and slyly - and have been committing the most serious and grievous misnomer in regard of her name. ‘Bharati Hindus’ always keep their real face, trick and every task concealed, for their ‘realities’ look much ominous and injurious. So simply for this reasons they have displayed, our owned name, ‘India’ - which is exclusively our property and pride - and have sent their real name, ‘Bharat’ in the background, for they know that they can neither throw away their real name ‘Bharat’ nor they can escape therefrom so openly - hence by applying their traditional duplicity, they displayed the stolen name ‘India’ on the forefront and kept their real name ‘Bharat’ hide and behind. Their real name has been Bharat throughout - even in the period far before than Ashoka the Great, which falls far before the Christ - while one Raja Bharth was reigning the huge country of its time. The name of that very country, more or less the now Bharat was ‘Jambu Devipa’ - and hence after the death of the Raja Bharth, the Hindus used to call the land as ‘Bharth Versh’ (i.e. land of the Bharth). In this way the present name of ‘Bharat’ is the corruption of ‘Bharth’. And it is for this reason that their religious and orthodox political pundits have named their most rabid pack as ‘Bharatia Janata Party’ (BJP) - and due to this cause the Hindus have been calling their country as ‘Bharat Matha’ (i.e. Mother Bharat). And now they have named their first ever so called spaceship as “Bharateena”

The Muslims have ruled exclusively, the whole Indian sub continent for round about 1000 years - if the name ‘India’ had any link with ‘Hinduism’ or Hindus, the Muslim powerful rulers, particularly the emperor Aurang Zeb Alamgeer would have smashed it into the dustbin of the history. They have grabbed our exclusively owned entity and property, the name ‘India’ - as they have grabbed Junagarh, Manader, Haiderabad Deccan, Siachin, Kargil and Kashmir. How they did it, I borrow the quotation from the famous book, ‘Freedom At Midnight’ of the two renowned co-authors, Mr. Larry Collins & Mr. Dominique Lapierre:

"AT THE OUTSET CONGRESS CLAIMED THE MOST PRECIOUS ASSET OF ALL, THE NAME "INDIA". REJECTING PROPOSAL TO NAME THEIR NEW DOMINION "HINDUSTAN", CONGRESS INSISTED THAT SINCE PAKISTAN WAS SECEDING, THE NAME INDIA AND INDIA'S IDENTITY IN GROUPS LIKE U.N. REMAIN THEIRS".

Now let trace the base of the name ‘India’. There is no denying the hard fact that the Greek word ‘Indos’ and the Latin word ‘Indus’ have been the ancient names of the mighty River, ‘Sindh’ (i.e. Indus) respectively - and the ‘Sindhus’ as well as India have been derived from the words ‘Sindh’ and ‘Indus’ respectively. One of the world most ancient civilizations has been the ‘Indus Valley Civilization’ which came out more than before 3230 BC - flourished and cherished in the Indus Valley - and when it perished, after the intrusion of the Aryans Settlers - it was buried also in its nativity. Thus the Indus Valley Civilization was also native of the Indus Valley. And ergo it also derived its name from the very river, ‘Sindh, (i.e. Indus) - whose Greek and Latin names were/are pronounced as ‘Indos’ and ‘Indus’ - and so that ancient most civilization is remembered in the history, as “Indus Valley Civilization.” Though it had the most ‘contemporary’ features. Its main ‘Mausoleums,’ the largest sites with citadels, have also been discovered in Pakistan, ‘Mohenjo-daro’ on the lower Indus plain in the South at Larhkana (in Sindh province) and ‘Harappa’ on the upper Indus plain in the north, at Sahiwal (in Punjab province).

Now let go back a little more. The intrusion of the Aryans started in waves after waves in about 3000 BC, and continued for about 1000 years - those Aryans were not a single tribe or race but they were comprised of an assortment of tribes from the Central Asia. So in first instance, those Aryans settled in the upper part of the mighty river; ‘Sindh/Indus’ namely, ‘Sindh Valley’ or ‘Indus Valley’ - which were then known as ‘Saptasindhva’ or ‘Sapta Sindhus’ meaning, land of the seven rivers (i.e. Sutlaj, Bias, Ravi, Chanab, Jehlum, Sindh and the now extinct river Saraswati).

Bode Roy Punjabi quoting Dr. Abinas Chandra Das as under,

"The land in which the Vedic Aryans lived is called in Rigveda by the name of Saptasindhva or the land of seven rivers, which includes the Indus or Sindhu with its principal tributaries on the west and the saraswati on the east. The Ganges and the Yamunas have certainly been mentioned once or twice but they have not at all been included in the computation of the seven rivers that gave the country its name”

Bode Roy Punjabi himself writes in his book, ‘Saptasindhva’ as under:

“ Thus the area now forming Kashmir, the Punjab, the NWFP, Eastern Balochistan and Sind was the area of Aryan Settlement”.

So merely as a common noun from the word “Sapta Sindhus” and simply for the reason of their new common nativity and to denote those Aryan Settlers: they were first called as ‘Sindhus’ and ‘Sindhi’ in some of the local and eastern languages. And exactly for the same reason and as a common noun from the word ‘Indus’ they were called as Indians in most of the western languages. Thus none of those Aryans was either Hindu nor that was possible, for Hinduism was not yet handcrafted. Similarly the heartland of the Indus Valley Civilization, making a part of Pakistan is called even today as Sindh (i.e. sindh province) and its natives as ‘Sindhi’ because of the river ‘Sindh/Indus’ - exactly as natives of Punjab (i.e. land of five rivers) are called Punjabi, as a common noun.

Now how the erstwhile common noun ‘Sindhus’ transmuted subsequently into the ‘Hindus’- the proper noun - that implied subsequently, one pertained to Hinduism. Or to simplify this question a little more, how the then simple common noun ‘Sindhus’ from the word ‘Sindh’, corrupted into ‘Hindus,’ the complicated noun - which turned into as a certain creed specific. In fact the word Hindu has no link whatsoever with the subsequently developed creed, ‘Hinduism’. Because emerge of the word ‘Hindu’ was far more ancient than the surge of the creed, ‘Hinduism’. And as a matter of fact the word ‘Hinduism’ have been coined far more later (i.e. round about after 2000 years) for the creed of the ‘caste-rule’ (i.e. Vern Ashram) by the western orientalists - and thus the word ‘Hindu’ had not been derived from Hinduism, for that could have not been done. The word Hindu is admittedly a corruption of ‘Sindhu’ - a native of ‘Sindh - Valley’ (i.e. Indus - Valley). And today also the local natives of Sindh, in Pakistan, are called Sindhi, as a common noun from the word Sindh; the local name of the river Indus. Actually when the closest neighbors Iranians invaded the India, in about first half of the first BC millennium, they pronounced the word ‘Sapta Sindhus’ as ‘Haft Hindus’, for in Persian language the word ‘haft’ also denotes seven - and as such the word ‘Haft-Hindus’ is the Persian corruption of ‘Sapta Sindhus’ the then name of the Sindh Valley or Indus Valley. In this way if the word ‘Hindu’ is admittedly the corruption of ‘Sindhu’ - then the word ‘Hindi’ is obviously the corruption of Sindhi. And this is the reasons that all Arabs even today call, all the Indian Muslims, including the Pakistanis as ‘Hindi’ whereas the believers of caste rule specifically as Hindus - exactly and similarly the whole world call all the natives of India as Indians but the believers of the caste rule (i.e. Hinduism) as Hindus. Even the Hindus do not and cannot dare to use the word Hindu for other than them. The meaning of ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hindi’/’Indian’ are so distinct right from the birth of Vern Ashram that in Arabic language the words ‘Hindu’ or ‘Hindukki’ are used simply for the believer of Hinduism - and its plural has been ‘Hindoos’ or ‘Hanadic’ - whereas the plural of the word Hindi (i.e. Indian) has also been clearly distinct as ‘Hanud’ - from the former plural.

Now let go a little further deeper. Actually after about 2000 years of the Aryans mega migration, round about in 1000 BC, with the passage of time, some of the Aryans Settlers, like other ancient idol worshipers developed a ‘sculpture based culture’ and as such some of them first attracted to, then converted to and finally adopted that culture as a creed. So those were the circumstances, in about 1000 BC, when the metamorphosis of the ‘sculpture based culture’ into the Vern Ashram (i.e. Caste Rule) was underway - and the newly debuted ‘sculpture based creed’ thus started rising up and swelling up in the shape of Vern Ashram. But as yet, no one had ever called that culture or creed as Hinduism - they used to use the word ‘Vern Ashram’ (i.e. caste rule) and subsequently ‘Sanatan Dharma’ (i.e. the Eternal Way) for the newly emerged creed, as evident from their basic most, primitive most and the sacred most, four religious books, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda and the Atharva-Veda of Hindus. And it is for the reason of this most primitiveness - that they are also known as childhood of Hinduism. Thus with the passage of further time, when some more extraordinary distinction in regard of the ethnicity as well as in beliefs, inter-se the Aryan Settlers, developed and protruded, then the common nouns, the ‘Aryans’ and the ‘Sindhus’ or ‘Hindus’ lost its original sense and were therefore no more meaningful or conclusive, for all the Aryan Settlers did not adopt Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) or the sculpture based culture. Thus those Aryan Settlers who adopted the sculpture based culture, as his/her creed, they were called the ‘Hindus’ specifically as a proper noun and the rest simply the ‘Sindhi’/’Hindi’ in the local as well as in the eastern languages and the ‘Indians’ in the western languages, as a common noun. So one can say that as the ‘Hindus’ word is the corrupted form of Sindhus - similarly the ‘Hindus people’ are the corrupted viz converted form of some Aryans, who adopted the Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) as their creed. Thereafter when the Aryans Settlers spread throughout the whole sub continent, the whole subcontinent was also emerged as ‘Barsagheer-Hind’ in the eastern languages and as ‘Indian subcontinent’ in the western languages - and its natives as Hindis/Indians respectively - irrespective of their different religions, creeds and ethnicities, for the words Hindi/Indian simply denoted the native of Hind/India - and had nothing to do with any religion - whereas to denote believers of the ‘caste rule’ or ‘Vern Ashram’ the specific word ‘Hindus’ were/are used for them, in all the languages of the world. Exactly as Asians implies natives of Asia, irrespective of the creed of the Asians. Even today all the natives of India are called Indians but the believers of Islam in Bharat are called the Indian Muslims, the believers of Christianity are called the Indian Christians, and the believers of Sikhism are called the Indian Sikhs and so forth: as I said earlier that Aryans were not a single tribe but were multitude of tribes and were of multi-ethnical origin - hence after the mass exodus when the difference in their creeds also developed with the passage of time - then the word Hindu turned as creed specific and the word Sindhi/Hindi or Indian kept its originality, as nativity specific. Actually Hindus never had any specific name for their creed. Now we must ask the question, why the Hindus creed had been nameless right from the beginning? In fact firstly, in the beginning the Hindus creed did not come out as a regular religion - secondly, unlike all others man-made creeds, Hindus never had any founder persona, neither in the sky nor on earth, as a founder of their creed. Hence no one was there to be attributed their creed thereto. Conversely, the Honorable Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Lao-tzi, Mahavira, Mormon, Guru Nanak Sahib, have been the Founder Personas of the Buddhism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Jainism, Mormonism, Sikhism respectively. Actually in the start the creed of ‘Vern Ashram’ was simply a jumble of some rituals of the assorted peoples, in the shape of a culture. Subsequently and gradually it transformed into a larger blend of the available respective cultures, pertaining to the host of Aryan Settlers along with the host of the local Dravidians - which was emerged subsequently as Vedic Civilization, solely based on the Vern Ashram (i.e. the caste rule). And as such it was their native name Hindu, wherefrom the name of their creed was coined after about more than two millenniums of the surge of the creed.

A renowned Hindu scholar, Nirad C. Choudhry writes in his book, “The Continent of Circe”

"I am surprised to find how many people even among those who are well-educated think that we are Hindus because we have a religion called Hinduism and that word is comparable to 'Christian' or 'Muslim’. It had no such association for the Hindus or for their neighbors in former times. This crept in when Modern European Orientalists began to study the religions of India. They found that the Hindus had no other name for the whole complex of their religious feelings, beliefs and practices except the phrase ‘Sanatan Dharma or the Eternal Way. They did not have even a word of their own for religion in European sense; and so the Orientalists coined the word Hinduism to describe that complex of religion. Actually we Hindus are not Hindus because we follow a religion called or understood as Hinduism; our religion has been given the very imprecise label ‘Hinduism' because it is the jumble of the creeds and rites of a people known as Hindus after their country. On this analogy the Greek religion might be called Hellenism and Graecism".

Another Hindu scholar, Pundit Shiv Kishan Kaul writes in his book, ‘Wakes up Hindus’:

“The word Hinduism derived from Hindu, a Corruption of Sindhu.The Punjab in Vedic times called Sapta Sindhu (The land of seven rivers). This was pronounced by Iranians as, Haft Hindu and so the inhabitants of the Punjab came to be called Hindus by Muslims invaders."

To tell the truth, the Indus River is exclusively a ‘Muslim River’ (though I use this term as a phrase) -for, which has been as steadfast as a Muslim should have been. In spite of all the hurdles and the unjust divide of our owned India, this mighty, impressive and striking river after forming its identity as such has been flowing throughout in the now Muslim India (i.e. the Pakistan) - and by hinting towards the destiny it ends its journey at the Arabian Sea, in the Ocean - the Ocean which itself has not only being contributed by the former with fresh water but had also been contributed, by this splendid and refined river, with an identity and name - (i.e. the Indian Ocean).

The phrase I have used for the Indus River can be judged not only from its nativity but also from its originality, openheartedness, cleanliness and candidness. This superb River has also given identity to many other entities, nations and regions, so openly - and none of them has any nexus whatsoever with Hinduism. For instance,

Indian Ocean; the ocean wherein the mighty river, Indus is emptied and has been taking bath, since the time immemorial.

Indonesia; a Muslim country comprised of nearly 13000 islands, situated in the Indian Ocean.

Indochina; the now Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam etc. - once were comprised of a peninsula called Indochina, for its inhabitants had been or considered to be the cross-breed of Indians and Chinese.

West Indies; the chain of islands, Jamaica, Barbados, Dominica etc. which includes about 23 entities, situated in the Caribbean Sea, to the west of the Indian Ocean - given this reason the Indonesia along with Madura and south Borneo were once called East Indies, for they were located in the southeast of the Indian Ocean.

Red Indians; the Native Americans or the aborigines, inhabiting north and South America, they are considered as the Indians who crossed the now Bering Strait (in Atlantic) through the ice-bridge in the ancient ice age of Pleistocene epoch. So the main region of those Red Indians have been given officially, the name and status of ‘Indiana state’ as the 19th state of the USA. In this regard my reliance is on the following borrowed excerpts from the world class, the world best selling and amazing Multimedia Encyclopedia; ‘ENCARTA’

“The Native Americans of North America are believed to be descendants of the Mongoloids, early hunters and gatherers who migrated from Asia to North America in waves possibly from as early as 30,000 BC. These Stone Age peoples crossed an ice-age land bridge across what is now the Bering Strait during the Pleistocene epoch”.

Furthermore, “Indiana entered the Union on December 1, 1816, as the 19th state. Three 19th-century US presidents—William Henry Harrison, his grandson Benjamin Harrison, and Abraham Lincoln—lived in Indiana for substantial periods. Manufacturing became the chief economic activity in the early 20th century, but at the start of the 1990s the state was also a major producer of farm commodities, especially corn, soya beans, and pigs. The state’s name, which refers to Native Americans (“Indians”), was coined in the 1760s and applied to a private tract of land in Pennsylvania; the name was officially adopted when Indiana Territory was formed in 1800. Indiana is known as the “Hoosier State”. Its major cities are Indianapolis (the capital), Fort Wayne, Evansville, Gary, South Bend, and Hammond”.

I also reproduce the opinions of the world-renowned geographer, Hecataes (549-52) and of the world-renowned historian, Herodotus (484-425 BC), considered as “father of history” - in the following borrowed words:

‘India was the country in the neighborhood of river Indus and this was the ultimate country on the face of the earth. Beyond this lay the “ Deserta Incognita” unknown desert or “ Marusthali” (i.e. place of death)’.

It shows that the now Pakistan was India and not the now Bharat.

Now when it is an established fact that Hind/India have been derived from the grand river Sindh/Indus (even in the northern regions of Pakistan, including Malakand division the name of this river has been ‘Aba Sindh’ - meaning, father of rivers) - then this name is exclusively our entity and property and hence amongst other prides, this also must be our sanctity and identity, not of others who has no right whatsoever upon it - and we alone have the right to snatch it back - and rename our country as ‘Islamic Republic Of India’ - or ‘Muslim India’ to be more appropriate.

The reasons for my this urge and drive are very much compelling and pressing, for instance,

1. The foremost and the prime question has been that what is the nationality and what is our nationality? In my view every live nationality, in this world has two inescapable ingredients, the soul (i.e. the religion) and the body (i.e. the region - or the nativity) - as these have been inevitable for a living being. Religion has been optional, hence can be chosen and be changed any time - but nativity has been non-optional, hence can neither be picked out, nor can be replaced. This is why that after embracing Islam, the soul or nucleus of nationality of the Arabs, Persian and Turks and many others, changed forthwith - and they all became Muslims - but so far their nativities were concerned all of them have been intact and will be intact - hence they are the Arab Muslims, the Persian Muslims, the Turks Muslims and so forth. So much so that the renowned Companions of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAW), Bilal (RA) has been Bilal Habshi, (RA) - (i.e. Bilal the Ethiopian, RA), Salman (RA) has been Salman Farsi (RA) - (i.e. Salman the Persian, RA), Suhaib (RA) has been Suhaib Rumi (RA) - (i.e. Suhaib the Roman, RA) - and one of the Ummahat-ul-Mu’mineen (RA), namely, Omul Mu’mineen, Maria (RA), Mother of Ibrahim (RA), the Prophet Mohammad’s son, has been ‘Maria Qibthiya’ (i.e. Maria the Egyptian, RA) - and Malka of Saba, AS (i.e. Sabean Queen, AS) has been ‘Malka Saba,’ AS (Queen of Saba) - even after they all embraced Islam. As such the ‘Muslim Millat’ (i.e. The Muslim Grand Nation) has been composed of Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turk Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Berber Muslims, Tartar Muslims and so forth. And when the reference is to be made to the ‘Muslim Grand Nation’ or Muslim Millat - then the whole world is their Grand Nativity’. This is one of the edges the Muslims Nations have got over other nations, for there is no conception of Millat in ‘them’ - because in Muslims the nucleus of their nationalities has the same i.e. Islam - whereas in them the both the nucleuses as well as the peripheries are different. In seeking the answer of the question my reliance is on the Holy Qur’an: “O MANKIND! LO! WE HAVE CREATED YOU FROM MALE AND FEMALE - AND HAVE MADE NATIONS - AND TRIBES THAT YE MAY KNOW ONE ANOTHER. LO! THE NOBLEST OF YOU, IN THE SIGHT OF ALLAH, IS THE BEST IN CONDUCT. LO! ALLAH IS KNOWER - AWARE.” (SURAH AL-HUJURAT, 39-13). By going through and thinking through this Holy Verse along with many others relevant to the subject - what I have gathered, as a petty student of the Holy Qura’n therefrom is that in classification of the humankind the inter se distinction among the nations has been emphasized more overtly while sorting out the various nations. Ergo the following are the criterions/yardsticks for the classification of the mankind:

A- Humanity; humanity has been used as the first criterion or the yardstick to distinguish the human race from all other beings, as evident from the addressee as well as from the discloser of the commonality of their descendant, in the Holy Verse. And as such it has been established, firstly; that as human beings we all are one and the same entity - and secondly; that human being is second to none vis-à-vis other beings.

B- Loyalty to a faith; now to define and distinguish the humankind inter se, faith has been used as the second criterion or yardstick - and thus the believers of Islam has been declared as the “Muslims” - whereas the believers of Judaism are called Yehuda i.e. Jews, the believers of Christianity are called Nazareth or Christians - and so forth were the nations of Aad, Thamud and Sab-i-een accordingly in the ancient periods.

C- Nativity; But as obvious from the day one that the humankind at variance in religions are found all over the world at variance in regions or nativities - so solely on the basis of the loyalty towards a particular religion without giving reference to the respective region or nativity, the inter se distinction could have neither being made in Muslims nor in the believers of other religions. Hence due to this reason, in the aforementioned Holy Verse as I have been referring to, the most emphasis has been given on the inter se distinction of the various nations and tribes. Now so for the tribes are concerned even in them the inter se distinction cannot be established without giving reference to the respective progenitor or nativity thereto. Hence in the same way, nations of same belief all over the world could not be distinguished without giving reference to the respective region or nativity. And thus it is for this reason that the words nations and tribes have been used in plural, in the Holy Verse, which signifies that nations as well as the tribes have been more than one. Thus to distinguish the Muslims inter se as well as the Non-Muslims, the respective religion along with the respective region (i.e. nativity) has to be used inevitably to consolidate the definition as well as the distinction of various Muslim nations as well as the Non-Muslims all over the world. To stress a little more I mean to submit that neither alone a religion could be made the sole basis for a living and a distinctive nationality - and nor alone the nativity. And ergo both the definitions of nationality unleashed by the two most celebrated and great scholars, at the juncture of formation of this country; one on the sole basis of religion and the second on the lone basis of region (i.e. nativity) with due respect were suffering extremely from extremism. Thus in my opinion both the religion as well as the region (i.e. nativity) have been as vital for a living and a distinctive nationality, as a nucleus and its periphery have been vital for a viable atom. And it is due to this cause that even today the people of Germany, America, United Kingdom, France, Sweden, and Russia etc are as different nations simply on account of their different nativities - as the Buddhists, Sikhs and Chinese have been, on account of their difference in religions as well as in nativities.

Now the next part of my question is, what is our nationality? In our case too Islam has been the Soul or Nucleus of our nationality and the ‘Indian’ nativity has been the natural body or the natural periphery of our nationality. We could choose the religion of our choice, that we have done well, but we can neither choose the nativity nor substitute, for that is not a matter of choice or substitution - it is always granted - and we have been bestowed upon, the ‘Indian’ nativity - the original most, the natural most, the ancient most, the magnificent most and the elegant most. We have been Muslims by religion and Indian by region/nativity. As such we have been ‘Indian Muslims’ - as others are Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turks Muslims. Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Tajak Muslims, Uzbek Muslims, Kazakh Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Maldivian Muslims, Sri-Lankan Muslims, Moroccans Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Muslims and so on. And if all the Muslim nations, the world over have retained and have been retaining their respective nativity, they have had long before embracing Islam - why we the Muslims of this subcontinent could not retain ours? Whereas in fact our nativity has been more ours exclusively and has been more original and natural, as compared to others. But the funny thing has been that we were staunch and sturdy ‘Indian Muslims’ at 12.00 midnight, on August 13, 1947 and before - but simply a little after i.e. at 12.01 AM, August 14, 1947, all of a sudden we became Pakistani Muslims - altogether a new brand and breed. And as such we stunned and shunned all the pride we had been the custodians thereto, for round about one millennium. This is an unprecedented national tragedy and a comedy simultaneously.

2. Every live nationality in the world has been comprised of a nucleus (i.e. the religion) and the periphery (i.e. the nativity). Hence we observe that there have been, Arab Christians, American Christens, Russian Christians, Bharati Christians and so forth.

3. The secular Turkey (or say with the feeble soul of religion) can survive easily but the most religious Chechnya and the Palestine (without the control of their respective regions) could not - or survive hardly.

4. We as Indian Muslims had no free homeland after fall of the Muslim empire and before the freedom - but yet we were a formidable nation, as ‘Indian Muslims’ and as such we had retained our identity and nationality, though we were in search of free homeland desperately. But the amusing thing is that the moment we seized a marvelous homeland - we left behind our identity and lost. And hence before the freedom we were in search of a homeland: but after the freedom, our homeland has been in the search of her nation. Simply because of the simulated and childish replacement of our natural nativity - and this is why, still we are bewildering in the search of identity and nationality.

5. By fabricating and calling ourselves as Pakistani Muslims, instead of Indian Muslims, we severed and cut off the root of the two-nation theory on one hand and admitted the ‘Bharati Hindus’ as ‘Indian Hindus’ and the left over Muslims i.e. the ‘Indian Muslims’ as Bharati Muslims, in Bharat, on the other.

6. As Indian Muslims we had played the most dominant, commanding and vital role as an impressive nation in the world history - but simply because of the concoction and impersonation in respect of our nationality, no one knows even today, what is Pakistan and who are Pakistanis? And all the historical pride belonging to the word India was bequeathed to the stingy Hindus, our bloodthirsty archenemy.

7. The word, Pakistan had never ever been, a civilization, a culture, a creed or even a city, let alone a country.

8. The word, Pakistan has no real historical meaning and had never ever been a word or entity that had been written or entered in any dictionary or encyclopedia in any part of the world.

9. All the Muslims on either side of the border admit with pride that they have been the Indian Muslims but none of them could understand to admit with pride that how they became Pakistani Muslims and the left behind Muslim brethren as Indian Muslims, hence an identity perplexes developed - and so due to the absence of natural nativity, the artificial locality were being contrived, retrieved and erected instead.

10. The word ‘Pakistan’ has been as alien for us as it has been for the rest of the world, hence some intentionally while others unintentionally pronounce it incorrectly - very recently, Mr. Blair as well as Mr. Bush pronounced the Pakistanis, as the “Pakis” in an internationally televised speech, which is a nude slang.

11. The Bharati Hindus and the Zionists Jews in particular, because of their old mischievous habits, have been mispronouncing it in more offending way as “phukis” and as such throughout the internet they have been using the slang “pakis” as a nickname for Pakistanis. Both the Hindus and Jews have the old genetic nexus and hence both have been the ‘senior’ slangy twins. Hence once the Almighty Allah had to intervene when the elderly slangy Jews, by giving extra stress and strain malafidely to the word “Ra’ina” (i.e. Listen to us) - while talking to the Prophet Mohammad (SAW) and used to mispronounce the same as “Ra’aina” which was a slang hence the Almighty Allah commanded the believers forthwith in these words; “O YE WHO BELIEVE, SAY NOT (UNTO THE PROPHET): “LISTEN TO US” (RA’INA) BUT SAY LOOK UPON US” (UNZURNA). (SURAH ALBAQARAH 2-104) Thus so much has been the offensive effect of the mispronounced words.

12. The Hindus were in a high dilemma about the name of the left over country, Bharat, at the time of partition - but it was the late Choudhry Rehmat Ali who answered their problem within no time.

13. No one including Choudhry Rehmat Ali has/had the right to propose a name for the nation simply for entertainment and amusement - like a big choudhry use to propose a name for the newly born baby in their outcaste, in ‘pind’ (village) - they call them, ‘kami kamin (i.e. base-born persons), as ‘nathu’ or ‘khairi’.

14. China, Germany, Korea, Yemen and many others have been mangled for centuries but yet none of the part has ever deserted its nativity.

15. Religion has been the best rope to be tied with and to keep tight and unite a nation of course but still even a wise woodcutter never tie the bundle of the wood with a single rope, he usually apply three ropes, lest the one let loose, in the intricate journey.

16. Religion has been the greatest integrating force indeed but its fire (i.e. warmth and excitement) need constant fanning by a very fabulous, extraordinary and legendary pious leader - who does not born so frequently but rather very very rarely - whereas so far nativity is concerned, it has been self fanning and self fueling all the time, like the jungle fire.

17. Religion needs nice and virtuous people to be attracted to and blended together - but in case of nativity, even the beasts have been the most loyal and devoted followers. You may throw away a cat for hundred times but it will never leave her native home.

18. Every living being has been granted with two legs at least, no one, if normal has ever been seen as a single footed, for no one can stay at a single foot, like a Hindu jogi (i.e. Hindu ascetic) for longer - so how a nation can stay on a single foot for so longer, particularly when the nation has been surrounded by, with a little exception (i.e. of China, Sri Lanka) - the evil most neighbors, which have been pushing the nation right from the very beginning. So this was one of the reasons due to which our country was dismembered by the over time pushing neighbor, the bulky and Brahman Bharat, which herself has been fastened foxily, simply with the rope of nativity we left behind.

19. Religion has been but not always a strong source of convergence – some time it become the source of divergence, when it falls in the hands of illiterate fanatics, hence a nation must be always kept tied with the second rope viz nativity too, for none can leak out therefrom.

20. To re-catch, reclaim and maintain the lineage and relation with the past glory it is the only way out to rename our country with reference to the context.

Now the mind haunting question, I know is, how I exclude the Hindus from the Indian nativity? The reasons are so many but to cut short, I submit a few,

They have never ever named their country India before, even before the Christ and before Ashoka the Great.

Even today they believe the Indian Subcontinent as ‘Bharth Versh’ right from the demise of their Rajah Bharth, far more before the Christ, so they must not be bashful to follow their belief.

In their constitution their official name has been as Bharat, right from the beginning and never India so they must not feel embarrassed to follow their constitution.

The English translation for Bharat has never been India so they have no right to play with the grammar of an international language.

The name “Hindustan” is purely a Persian word and the name “India” is purely its English version - and none of them has anything to do with Sanskrit at least - the suffix “stan” has always been used exclusively by Muslims as suffix with the names of Muslim countries, e.g. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Daghistan, Kirghizistan, Afghanistan and hence were used by Muslims as well their rulers in the case of India during the 1000 years Muslim rule. Whereas both, the original name “Bhart” and its corruption the now “Bharat” have its origin from Sanskrit.

They have neither any share in, nor any regard for the river Sindh/Indus - rather they have been jealous and envious towards it, hence they have no right to get share and regard therefrom.

Their own Hindu and the most sacred rivers have been Ganges and Yamunas, hence they should borrow name therefrom, if they like their own rivers.

Hindus have been 99% in Nepal but they have never claimed the name India, for they know that they or their creed have no connection whatsoever, with the India or Indian nativity - and they have been proud of their own nativity namely, ‘Nepalese’ - which further cements the fact that Hindus, have nothing to do with the word India.

barney · January 5, 2005

On the anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition (December 6, 1992), it is important for Hindus (and Muslims) to understand the importance of the event in the context of Hindustan's history, past and recent, present and the future.

Savages at a very low level of civilisation and no culture worth the name, from Arabia and west Asia, began entering India from the early century onwards. Islamic invaders demolished countless Hindu temples, shattered uncountable sculpture and idols, plundered innumerable palaces and forts of Hindu kings, killed vast numbers of Hindu men and carried off Hindu women. This story, the educated-and a lot of even the illiterate Indians-know very well. History books tell it in remarkable detail. But many Indians do not seem to recognise that the alien Muslim marauders destroyed the historical evolution of the earth's most mentally advanced civilisation, the most richly imaginative culture, and the most vigorously creative society.

It is clear that India at the time when Muslim invaders turned towards it (8 to 11th century) was the earth's richest region for its wealth in precious and semi-precious stones, gold and silver, religion and culture, and its fine arts and letters. Tenth century Hindustan was also too far advanced than its contemporaries in the East and the West for its achievements in the realms of speculative philosophy and scientific theorising, mathematics and knowledge of nature's workings. Hindus of the early medieval period were unquestionably superior in more things than the Chinese, the Persians (including the Sassanians), the Romans and the Byzantines of the immediate proceeding centuries. The followers of Siva and Vishnu on this subcontinent had created for themselves a society more mentally evolved-joyous and prosperous too-than had been realised by the Jews, Christians, and Muslim monotheists of the time. Medieval India, until the Islamic invaders destroyed it, was history's most richly imaginative culture and one of the five most advanced civilisations of all times.

Look at the Hindu art that Muslim iconoclasts severely damaged or destroyed. Ancient Hindu sculpture is vigorous and sensual in the highest degree-more fascinating than human figural art created anywhere else on earth. (Only statues created by classical Greek artists are in the same class as Hindu temple sculpture). Ancient Hindu temple architecture is the most awe-inspiring, ornate and spell-binding architectural style found anywhere in the world. (The Gothic art of cathedrals in France is the only other religious architecture that is comparable with the intricate architecture of Hindu temples). No artist of any historical civilisation have ever revealed the same genius as ancient Hindustan's artists and artisans.

Their minds filled with venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim chroniclers and others of the time. A number of temples were merely damaged and remained standing. But a large number-not hundreds but many thousands-of the ancient temples were broken into shreds of cracked stone. In the ancient cities of Varanasi and Mathura, Ujjain and Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi and Dwarka, not one temple survives whole and intact from the ancient times.

The wrecking of Hindu temples went on from the early years of the 8th century to well past 1700 AD a period of almost 1000 years. Every Muslim ruler in Delhi (or Governor of Provinces) spent most of his time warring against Hindu kings in the north and the south, the east and the west, and almost every Muslim Sultan and his army commanders indulged in largescale destructions of Hindu temples and idols. They also slaughtered a lot of Hindus. It is easy to conclude that virtually every Hindu temple built in the ancient times is a perfect work of art. The evidence of the ferocity with which the Muslim invaders must have struck at the sculptures of gods and goddesses, demons and apsaras, kings and queens, dancers and musicians is frightful. At so many ancient temples of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, for example, shattered portions of stone images still lie scattered in the temple courtyards. Considering the fury used on the idols and sculptures, the stone-breaking axe must have been applied to thousands upon thousands of images of hypnotic beauty.

Giving proof of the resentment that men belonging to an inferior civilisation feel upon encountering a superior civilisation of individuals with a more refined culture, Islamic invaders from Arabia and western Asia broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan. So morally degenerate were the Muslim Sultans that, rather than attract Hindu "infidels" to Islam through force of personal example and exhortation, they just built a number of mosques at the sites of torn down temples-and foolishly pretended they had triumphed over the minds and culture of the Hindus. I have seen stones and columns of Hindu temples incorportated into the architecture of several mosques, including the Jama Masjid and Ahmed Shah Masjid in Ahmedabad; the mosque in the Uparkot fort of Junagadh (Gujarat) and in Vidisha (near Bhopal); the Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra right next to the famous dargah in Ajmer-and the currently controversial Bhojshala "mosque" in Dhar (near Indore). Hindu culture was at its imaginative best and vigorously creative when the severely-allergic-to-images Muslims entered Hindustan. Islamic invaders did not just destroy countless temples and constructions but also suppressed cultural and religious practices; damaged the pristine vigour of Hindu religion, prevented the intensification of Hindu culture, debilitating it permanently, stopped the development of Hindu arts ended the creative impulse in all realms of thought and action, damaged the people's cultural pride, disrupted the transmission of values and wisdom, cultural practices and tradition from one generation to the next; destroyed the proper historical evolution of Hindu kingdoms and society, affected severely the acquisition of knowledge, research and reflection and violated the moral basis of Hindu society. The Hindus suffered immense psychic damage. The Muslims also plundered the wealth of the Hindu kingdoms, impoverished the Hindu populace, and destroyed the prosperity of Hindustan.

Gaze in wonder at the Kailas Mandir in the Ellora caves and remember that it is carved out of a solid stone hill, an effort that (inscriptions say) took nearly 200 years. This is art as devotion. The temple built by the Rashtrakuta kings (who also built the colossal sculpture in the Elenhanta caves off Mumbai harbour) gives proof of the ancient Hindus' religious fervor.

But the Kailas temple also indicated a will power, a creative imagination, and an intellect eager to take on the greatest of artistic challenges.

The descendants of those who built the magnificent temples of Bhojpur and Thanjavur, Konark and Kailas, invented mathematics and brain surgery, created mindbody disciplines (yoga) of astonishing power, and built mighty empires would almost certainly have attained technological superiority over Europe.

It is not just for "political reasons" that Hindus want to build grand temples at the sites of the (wrecked) Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, and the Mathura idgah. The efforts of religion-intoxicated and politically active Hindus to rebuild the Ram Mandir, the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir, and the Krishna Mandir are just three episodes m a one-thousand year long Hindu struggle to reclaim their culture and religion from alien invaders.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992 was just one episode in the millennial struggle of the Hindus to repossess their religion-centered culture and nation. Meanwhile, hundreds of ancient Hindu temples forsaken all over Hindustan await the reawakening of Hindu cultural pride to be repaired or rebuilt and restored to their original, ancient glory.