Secularism: State and Islam (2)

Historically the concept of secularism is confined to those countries only where the majority of people follow Christian religion. It is conspicuously absent in the Islamic world. Islamic world – since the origin of Islam in Arab in 628 AD – did neither believe in this principle of the separation of state from the religious institutions nor follow it in any country where Islam is in power. Why is it so? The reason is that Islam did not experience the mental awakening till now, which could evoke scientific queries and produce discoveries. Islam prohibits such queries if they go against its holy book and punishes them under blasphemy law. It has no space for people to freely speak their mind. Why Islam is unable to follow secularism? It is so because, while Christianity had abolished long ago the law of blasphemy, Islam has been unable to do so till today. While the non-Muslim world is moving at breakneck speed to uncover the scientific secrets of Nature, the Muslim world is mired in blasphemy, terrorism and violent Jihad.

The inner and outer structure of Islam and Christianity, both, is such that they cannot survive without preying upon other religions, which are incompatible with them. They say they are the only true ones and the final words of God (strangely, they both claim an exclusive God and His final word in their holy books, but do not agree with each other on that God and His words). Being the exclusive claimants for (their) God, they cannot allow a rival similar claim and, as of necessity, must devour any rival claimants, and assimilate their body within their own self. The build of their thinking and their organization is solely directed at killing all those who are foreign to them in thinking. They feed on their corpse. These two religions cannot coexist with other religions. With the invasion of India by Islam under Mohammad bin Kasim in 712 AD, for the first time a very strange situation arose in India. India had not witnessed such a situation during its long past. The Islamic State, which was integrated with that religion, disallowed Indians any kind of religious dissent. Even an attempted dissent of any kind against Islam was labeled as blasphemy and this blasphemy was declared a crime. This crime was punishable with death by the Islamic State. The medieval Indian history of Islamic rule is soaked with the blood of Indian people who were following faiths different from Islam – like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and many more like them. These hapless Indian people were declared by Islam as living in the ‘Age of Ignorance’ (Jahilya) and forced to convert to Islam under the threat of murder. Those who refused or resisted, were put to death mercilessly and their women and children were enslaved for sex (Gilmas). Their property was looted as war booty (Mal-e-Ganimat). Those of them who somehow escaped death and still survived, were imposed an exorbitant heretic tax named Zazia. A vast collection of their books – the treasure of precious knowledge – kept in libraries were burnt. In one such unfortunate incident of burning of books kept in the library of Nalanda University, a Muslim religious zealot named Bakhtiar Khilj gave an astonishing logic in justification of his act (of burning). He said, “If these books in library say what Koran has said, they are superfluous and deserve to be burnt. If they say against Koran, they are dangerous and deserve to be burnt. They say either what Koran has said or against Koran. In both cases, they need to be destroyed.” Millions of people following Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and their other sects and sub-sects were killed by Muslims simply because they believed in something that was not Islam and they refused to convert to Islam. It is estimated by some scholars that Islam committed in India the greatest genocide in the human history. This crime was committed against the Indian people because of their religious dissent.

The first attempt to carry the victorious banner of Islam into India was made by Mohammad bin Kasim in 718 AD, who came to Sindh and assaulted there the reigning Hindu king Dahir Deshpati. In the contest after numerous conflicts king Dahir was defeated by Kasim and killed, his wife was converted to Islam and given away to some soldier of Muslim army, and his two daughters sent away as gift to Caliph Omar II (13th Caliph) in Baghdad.  It was a new and unexpected experience for Hindu India. Still, it was only a probing exercise and Sindh was again attacked around 775 AD during the reign of Caliph Al Mansoor (21st Caliph) and finally conquered, and the name of the Shindh capital ‘Arore’ was changed  into ‘Mansoora’. An attack was made around 833 AD on Chittore by one Mahmood, where the Chittore’s Hindu king Khomman defeated him and made prisoner. But nothing more was done by India to safeguard itself against the future Islamic incursions into this country. For twenty years or so this India did not see any serious attempt of its violation by Islam, until 975 AD when Soobektegin of Gazni accompanied by his son Mahmood Gazni made incessant military incursions into India (some say, 16 times in number) to destroy alleged ‘Kufr’ (Hinduism) convert people to Islam and was defeated in his attempts every time. But still nothing was done by India to safeguard its future. This Mahmood Gazni, the son of Soobektegin, continued the legacy of his father, attacked the Hindu king of Delhi Prithvi Raj Chauhan in 1192 AD but was defeated and made prisoner by Prithvi Raj. On his making a promise never to attack India again and praying for saving his life, clemency was given by Prithvi Raj and was allowed to go back to Gazani. But true to his fanatic religious belief, this Mahmood Gazni broke his solemn promise, attacked Prithvi Raj in 1193 AD (called the Second War of Tarain), defeated him, carried him as prisoner to Gazani and killed him there.

Since that time of Islamic victory in 1193 AD, Hindu India has undergone untold miseries, which cannot be fathomed by those who are unaware of its history of Islamic rule. Hindu India is the only country – the single country – in the entire world that did not surrender to Islam and convert to Muslim religion. Iran, Afghanistan and many more countries in Europe, Africa and Asia completely surrendered to this religion and today are Islamic countries with misconceived pride. But this Hindu India relentlessly fought the ferocious wars against the long chain of India’s Islamic rulers. This India was never – ever – completely under the sovereignty of Islam. There were relentless pitched battles in dreaded wars by Hindu kings against the enemy of their faith. It was a routine feature of these dreaded wars that the entire Hindu population to the last of their able-bodied person had gone to the battle field – while knowing fully well that they would not return back alive from that war – to fight the enemy of their faith and that their women prepared funeral pyre and jumped into the fire to perish, so that their female chastity  was not violated by the victorious Islam. No country in the world had such courage, conviction and determination in the face of a dreaded enemy like Islam. In 1533 AD in the so called “Second Saka or Jauhar” (self immolation by females) alone 13, 000 Hindu women of Chittore jumped into fire and perished. It is said that there were seven similar Hindu “Sakas” in Rajasthan alone. It is only because of such courage and dedication of Hindus of India to their faith that, while none of the countries that was invaded by the sword of Islam could retain its native faith, India is still 80% Hindu today.

This unflinching courage of Hindus amid the moments of great calamity that had befallen on their ancestors, their steadfastness in keeping to their native faith in the face of such barbarism and the fact that this India is still a Hindu country, should be a matter of pride for all those who are Hindus today and whose ancestors were once Hindus. It is most humane and justified for all those who are converted ones today but whose ancestors were once Hindus to feel pity for their ancestors for all that pain which they had undergone and and honor them. There are millions and millions of people – in India and in Pakistan both – who still bear the Hindu surnames – like Rana, Chauhan, Bajwa, Khokhar, Tomar, Sindhu etc. – with their personal names as medals. It is a matter of pride, and it should be a matter of pride, to them. It shows their Hindu roots and it should not be a matter of shame. Hindus are as good as any other religious group of people and Hindu religion is not an ignorance. The persecution of Hindus by Islam was wrong. The medieval history of India is the dark history of religious persecution of Hindus by its Islamic rulers.

Since the times of Mohammad bin Kasim (718 AD) the pathetic conditions of the religious persecution  of Hindus continued till the British took over the rule of India. The intolerance of Hindu religious ideas by the Islamic religion, which was integrated with its State and vested in its religious head called Caliph, continued till 1858 AD, when the British took over the State power from the last Indian Islamic ruler, king Bahadur Shah Jafar. With the British in command, the relation of State in India with religion(s) followed their peculiar imperialist strategy, of which legacy the free India’s secularism is still following without putting any thought into it. The British imperialist policy in dealing with Muslims and Hindus both was, “We are Christians. You are Hindus; and you are Muslims. Each one of you are free to do what your respective religion teaches you. But we are the State and as ruler have the power to arbitrate in disputes between both of you”. During the Indian freedom struggle, for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity against the British imperialism, it was propagated by the Indian political leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawahar Lal Nehru that the imperialists adopted a policy to “divide Hindus and Muslims and rule over them”. This statement was factually wrong. Hindus and Muslims were already divided for centuries when the British came to India. This painful fact is testified by the occurrence of Hindu-Muslim riots on almost regular basis in united India from 1858 to 1947.  What the British imperialists did was only to utilize this communal chasm between them to their advantage. They nurtured this divide further by taking sides, when and which way it suited them. By this strategy they often sided with the weak and vanquished the strong. It was only because of this strategy that they were able to rule this vast country despite having at their disposal in India a very small contingent of English military force.

This British policy continued till 1947 when India was partitioned on religious lines into two countries – one part called Pakistan for Muslims, where they were free to lead their life according to Islam; and another remaining part of the once united India for Hindus, where they were free to lead their life according to Hinduism or whatever they liked. The British rulers partitioned India and made Hindus and Muslims both free and choose their own path and future. The first part – Pakistan – chose Islam, which was well in accord with the Islamic philosophy as advocated by its founding father Mohammad Ali Jinnah and sung by famed Islamic poet Mohd. Iqbal. Both of them – the leader and the poet – had a mindset of the bygone era of Mohd. bin Kasim. In fact, Pakistan was the fulfillment of what Muslims had sought to achieve in united India since 712 AD but could not achieve. Once they got their feet on the ground of their own country – Pakistan – they immediately engaged with more vigor with their incomplete Islamic agenda of destroying Hindu-India. For Muslims of Pakistan, from the day one, India was a Hindu-India, whether it professed secularism or not. In their heart of hearts, they cared a hoot for secularism of India. This is the reason why the left-over part of this new India – or supposedly a Hindu-India – did not see from the day Pakistan was created a moment of peace. And this India is not likely to have that peace any day soon.

Now, what did the remaining part of this once united India do in choosing its path and future? The first thing it did was to declare in its Constitution that India is not a Hindu country; that it equally belongs to Muslims; that it will be a secular country; that Hindus and Muslims (and all other religions) will have equal right to carry on the objectives – aims – of their respective religions; that they all will have the constitutional right to not only practice but also propagate what their respective religion teaches them. It was not an ordinary legal right but a fundamental right, which was guaranteed to them and could not be taken away even by the Parliament of India till eternity. The great leaders of free India who drafted the Indian Constitution did not realize the serious dangers to the very existence of this remaining India, which were inherent in such a constitutional approach.

Firstly, they did not realize that if it was possible for Muslims to carry forward their religious objectives in the united India, there was no need at all for them to demand and create their own country separate from the Hindus. Secondly, they did not realize that it was wrong to think that all those Muslims who were religiously bigots and wanted to live in their own separate country according to Islamic religion had migrated to Pakistan; and that other remaining Muslims who chose to stay back in India were not so religious bigots as to once again demand second Pakistan like their their brothers going to Pakistan had done. Moreover, there was no reason for these Indian leaders to suppose that the future generations of these Indian Muslims would always find it suitable to live along with Hindus of this remaining India. Such supposition – or expectation – of these Indian leaders was unreasonable; it was like hoping that the Indian Muslims would be unlike their forefathers who had gone to Pakistan; it was hoping that that these left-over Indian Muslims would never demand their separate country once again. Such supposition, expectation or hope was against reason and without any foundation. Generations of people succeed generations and each new generation of people think as it best suits them in their times and circumstances. There is no justification to suppose that once a generation of Muslims had demanded the creation of Pakistan out of India, another succeeding generations of Indian Muslims would not so demand again. This rational conclusion is testified by the fact that since 1947 nothing drastic has changed on their religious front in India that may give this India a hope in the change of their attitude. This assumption or expectation of those Indian leaders was vain is proved beyond any shadow of doubt by the fact that in ‘India of 2019’ an Owaisi, an Azam Khan and many more like them can openly threaten Hindus in India with violence against the established Indian law. It is also proved by the fact that sectarian Muslim organizations like Indian Muslim League and similar other organizations (which openly uphold Islamic agenda and once had spearheaded the creation of Pakistan) are still popular among Indian Muslims. Such people still harbor the sentiments of their forefathers who had once demanded the creation of Pakistan. It is not a secret and anyone with open mind and eyes can see this reality of the remaining India.

Secularism: State and Christianity (1)

India proudly proclaims in its Constitution it is a secular country. Let us examine the substance of this Indian secularism and what it has returned back to India during the period of over half a century.

Let us be honest and examine the facts first.

India is a country that is home to millions of people who are devoutly religious by nature. These people profess different religions – Hindus, Muslims, Shikhs, Christians, Parsees and many more. Almost all religions of the world and their vast number of sects and sub-sects find a place for their profession in this country. Out of all these religions, Hindus account the most – they are more than 80% of the population. These Hindus here engage their whole life dedicated to achieve the fruits that are declared by their religion to be the highest desirable thing in this world, which they call ‘Mukti’ or emancipation from the bond of life, death and rebirth – again and again.

Then, there are millions of Muslims living in India whose whole life is entirely devoted to fulfill the mandates of their Holy book ‘Koran’. There are likewise a great multitude of people in India who are Christians and they are completely devoted to accomplish the mandates of their Holy book ‘Bible’. There are also considerable number of Sikhs, Jain, Parsi and similar other religious groups of people in India who are devoutly religious by temperament.

For all these highly religious people this world and this world’s institutions – whether these institutions are political or social in nature – are only secondary in importance to their religious objectives.

But the paradox of the situation is that these very people are expected to elect and man their government, which government is supposed to have nothing to do with (their) religion. They themselves become the part and parcel this government. But they have their varying religious allegiances. They are mandated by their particular religions – Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc. – to carry forward their religious duties and mission in their private and public life. And, these religious duties and missions are mostly clashing in their nature with each other. While electing their government or becoming part of the Indian State, these people who mentally submerged in their clashing religious fervor do not and cannot divorce their personal allegiance to the objectives of their religion. In fact, they advance the agenda of their particular religion.

It is but natural. It cannot be otherwise. It is normal human nature to advance the cause of a thing that one cherishes the most. This paradox becomes clear when one finds that historically there is an incompatibility among these diverse religions and their followers.

It becomes an ironic thing when such people with their diverse religion and with their clashing missions are called upon to elect and run their government in the secular manner.

What is a religion? Materialist philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx famously described religion as the opium of people. He is wrong there; it is not so. Humans are not animals because they have evolved themselves above animals. Humans are motivated like animals in their daily activities by the basic necessities for their survival, like food, shelter, cloths and amenities. But in these activities, humans unlike animals are guided by their emotions, like love and hate, and their mental thoughts and ideas. Only these mental thoughts and ideas make humans separate from animals.

Religion – and everyone of them – is a bundle of peculiar ideas, with which most part of the humanity is afflicted. Religion divides people on the basis of their different ideas. Religion puts them into separate groups, which are bound by their common interests. Religion is a reality for humans.  Animals are immune to religion because they are animals. And in this way religion is an indicator too of human evolution. But it splits them; it divides them. And these divisions are real. All religious groups are bound together with their common interests.

Most often, these religious groups are so vast that they populate the entire country or even a number of countries. Religious ideas firmly grip the mind of common people, make them separate in identity and put them against each other. It is the reality of human society. One cannot overlook this reality of human society.

What is secularism? The essence of secularism is, ‘State has no institutional connection with religion; State is independent of religion’. It is defined by the Oxford dictionary as the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions. The origin of this principle lies in the Christian history. The invention of this social device was made in the context of Christianity. Apart from this context with Christianity, secularism has no connection with any major religions of the world.

It is a fact that secularism is the invention of western Christian democracies. It originated in England of the sixteenth century. It was invented there to tide over a peculiar difficulty that was being faced by the rationally awakened common masses of Europe. This difficulty arose out of a clash between the Christian religious dogmas, which had behind them the power of State controlled by the Christian religion, and the new scientific ideas, which were being discovered then by the mentally enlightened scientists. Christian dogmas and the newly discovered scientific ideas were incompatible with each other. Only one out of the two could be true and accepted as such. But there was the Christian State power behind the Christian dogmas. This State power was legally bound to punish the new incompatible scientific ideas. It was a horrific situation for those who were mentally awakened and dared to put new scientific ideas before the public. Christian dogmas pricked the common sense of these awakened people but they could not do anything against the Christian State.

The seventeenth century Europe was witnessing a renaissance of mind. It was making new scientific discoveries, which were showing the utter falsity of the views held by Christian Cardinals but were enforced by the might of Christian state power. For example, a new scientific discovery was made by an Italian scientist Galileo Galilei that Sun is the center – the point – around which Earth revolves and, therefore, it was false on the part of Christianity to claim that Earth is the center around which this universe and Sun revolve. And, he demonstrated this truth with the help of his newly invented telescope. This scientific discovery was making an unwelcome impact on the mind of ordinary masses following Christianity. As this scientific fact went against the Christian holy book – Bible (which stated Earth is the center of universe and Sun), there was a fundamental clash between the two. It was pricking the common sense of people and eroding their faith Christianity. It was a serious thing for Christian authorities and a dangerous one for the people. They could not believe in such new ideas openly because the Christian State had a power over their life.  They could be made to pay with their life for this heretic blasphemy. They believed in the new scientific truth but they also saw with their own eyes that Galileo had to pay a heavy price for telling this truth. Galileo was first accused of challenging Church in 1616 and then imprisoned in 1633 for life by the Christian State for telling this truth. He died in prison. It was his crime of blasphemy against Christianity.

What was the way out from this horrific situation? It was solved by inventing the principle of separation of State from the religious institutions. It was called secularism. Secularism owes its genesis to these difficult conditions prevailing in the seventeenth century Europe. It was a solution invented by the political thinkers and endorsed by the popular will. This popular will forced the Christian State to accept it.

“Cow a Celestial Being” – Book Review

Parmanand Pandey, Advocate, Supreme Court (Secretary General IPC)

There are three inanimate and most revered ingredients of Hinduism and they are the Gai (Cow), the Ganga, and Gayatri. The importance of all three has been described in the Hindu scriptures. While the Gai and Ganga are worshipped in the mundane form, Gayatri mantra serves as the means of spiritual exaltation. Hinduism is a pantheistic religion but these three are kept at the highest pedestal.

Two advocates: K.M. Shukla and the Senior S. Balakrishnan, who mainly practice in the Supreme Court, have jointly written a remarkable book titled ‘Cow a Celestial Being’, which takes one’s breath away by their knowledge and research soaked with sincerity and devotion. In their well-informed book, the writers have championed the cause of ban on the cow slaughter in the most spirited manner. They demonstrated with their sound logic that Cow is not a mere animal but it is a ‘being’, which has virtually been brought on the surface of the earth from heaven to bestow worldly as well as a divine pleasure to all who seek and serve her.

They have profusely quoted the religious books like Vedas, Puranas and the Bhagwad Geeta, and also the well-documented theses, which prove cow’s enormous utility in the worldly life. The Hindu mind is accustomed to referring to the supreme divine as a Goddess and as the Universal Mother. Out of the infinite attributes by and through which the universal mother manifests herself, the Cow is one of them.  The Cow has been named in the Vedas as ‘Aghyna’, which means ‘inviolable’ and her other name is ‘Ahi’, which means ‘not to be killed’ and another one is ‘Aditi’, which means ‘never to be cut into pieces’. Thus, the most sacred book of Hindus i.e. Vedas unequivocally prohibits the killing of Cows.

   The advantages of having the Cow are innumerable and beyond description. The ‘Panchgavya’ i.e. the five materials made from the Cows by-products have the immense economic and medical use. It must be mentioned here that ‘Panchgavya’ is made from a mixture of five products from the Cow, which are milk, curd, ghee, urine and dung, which are scientifically proved to be immunity- booster and disease-healer. Many judgments of the Apex Court have also been discussed in the book which has upheld the legality of total ban on the slaughter of the cows. The Constitution of India, in deference to the feelings and sentiments of the overwhelming majority of Indians, has included in the directive principles for the prohibition of the cow slaughter. All native Indian religions like; Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism valiantly defend the ban on the cow slaughter, even Islam and Christianity too do not encourage it. The Bible is very clear, which says ‘He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man’. Many Muslim rulers in India had banned the killings of the cows.

   While the opposition to the slaughter of cows has extensive and ancient roots in the Indian history, the earliest known such protests against Cow slaughter are traceable to Sikhs of Punjab, who opposed the cow slaughter in the 1860s. Thereafter, the founder of the Arya Samaj, Swami Dayanand Saraswati made it a massive movement in the late 19th century, which was carried forward by Mahatma Gandhi in the early 20th century, though not with the same zeal and vigour that was found in the movements of Sikhs and Arya Samaj. Although, the cow protection movement is mostly connected with India, yet it is applicable in Sri Lanka and Myanmar also. In India the cow slaughter ban is in place throughout the country except for Kerala, West Bengal and part of the North-East States; even in the Muslim majority state of Jammu and Kashmir nobody can kill a Cow.

   The writers have discussed the issue of cow protection by juxtaposing it with cow slaughter. They have used all the weapons of the armoury of their logic from different angles and have succeeded in bringing their points home that the article 51A (h) of Indian Constitution should be adhered to by every citizen of the country to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.  The word humanism has been supplied emphasis by them and therefore, the cow protection is perfectly in consonance with the constitutional spirit.

The writers have also laid more emphasis on a point that it is the majority community which has the greater responsibility for protecting the cows by providing theme care in their old age or when they stop yielding milk. Another startling fact, which has been given by them is that ‘Meat is a second-hand food which is responsible for global warming and hunger.’  The book is written in simple language and convincing style.  It is not only worth reading but for preserving it as well.

बथुआ: यह शाकाहार गुणों की खान

मोहम्मद मन्नान, एडवोकेट, उच्चतम न्यायालय

बथुआ सबसे अच्छा आहार है जिसे अँग्रेजी में Lambs Quarter कहा जाता है और जिसका वैज्ञानिक नाम Chenopodium Elbum है।

बथुआ का साग और रायता बना कर अनादि काल से खाया जाता जा रहा है। लेकिन बहुत कम ही लोगों को यह बात मालूम होगा कि विश्व की सबसे पुरानी महल बनाने की पुस्तक, शिल्प शास्त्र में लिखा है कि हमारे बुजुर्ग अपने घरों को हरा रंग करने के लिए प्लस्तर में बथुआ मिलाते थे। स्त्रियां सिर से जूँ व रूसी (डैंड्रफ) साफ करने के लिए बथुआ के पानी से बाल धोया करती थीं। बथुआ गुणों की खान है।

बथुआ में कौन-कौन से विटामिन और मिनरल्स हैं?

बथुवा विटामिन B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B9 और विटामिन C से भरपूर है तथा बथुवे में कैल्शियम, लोहा, मैग्नीशियम, मैगनीज, फास्फोरस, पोटाशियम, सोडियम व जिंक आदि मिनरल्स हैं। 100 ग्राम कच्चे बथुवे यानि पत्तों में 7.3 ग्राम कार्बोहाइड्रेट, 4.2 ग्राम प्रोटीन व 4 ग्राम पोषक रेशे होते हैं। कुल मिलाकर 43 Kcal होती है।

जब बथुआ मट्ठा, लस्सी या दही में मिला दिया जाता है तो यह किसी भी मांसाहार से ज्यादा प्रोटीन वाला व किसी भी अन्य खाद्य पदार्थ से ज्यादा सुपाच्य व पौष्टिक आहार बन जाता है। साथ में बाजरे या मक्के की रोटी, मक्खन व गुड़ की डली हो तो इसकी तुलना नहीं हो सकती किसी भोजन से।

जब हम बीमार होते हैं तो आजकल डॉक्टर सबसे पहले विटामिन की गोली ही खाने की सलाह देते हैं। गर्भवती महिलाओं को खासतौर पर विटामिन बी, सी व लौह तत्व के लिए गोली बताई जाती है। लेकिन बथुआ में वो सब कुछ है। बथुआ पहलवानों से लेकर गर्भवती महिलाओं तक और बच्चों से लेकर बूढ़ों तक केलिए अमृत समान है।इसका साग प्रतिदिन खाने से गुर्दों में पथरी नहीं होती। बथुआ आमाशय को बलवान बनाता है। गर्मी से बढ़े हुए यकृत को ठीक करता है।

बथुआ के साग का सही मात्रा में सेवन किया जाए तो निरोग रहने के लिए उत्तम औषधि है। बथुआ का सेवन कम से कम मसाले डालकर करना चाहिए। नमक नहीं मिलाया जाए तो ज्यादा अच्छा है। स्वाद के लिए मिलाना पड़े तो काला नमक ठीक होता है और देशी गाय के घी से छौंक लगाना चाहिए। बथुआ का उबाला हुआ पानी पीना अच्छा लगता है तथा इसका दही में बनाया हुआ रायता स्वादिष्ट होता है। किसी भी तरह से बथुआ नित्य सेवन करना बहुत ही फायदेमंद होता है। बथुआ में जिंक होता है जो कि शुक्राणुवर्धक होता है और जिस्मानी कमजोरी को भी दूर कर देता है। बथुआ कब्ज दूर करता है। पेट साफ रहने पर तो कोइ भी बीमारी शरीर में लगेगी ही नहीं जिससे ताकत और स्फूर्ति बनी रहती है।

इस मौसम में नित्य इसकी सब्जी खाना चाहिए। बथुआ का रस या इसका उबाला हुआ पानी पीएँ तो और यह खराब लीवर को भी ठीक कर देता है। पथरी हो तो एक गिलास कच्चे बथुआ के रस में शक्कर, चीनी नहीं, मिलाकर नित्य पिया जाए तो पथरी टूटकर बाहर निकल आती है।

स्त्रियों के मासिक चक्र रुका हुआ हो तो दो चम्मच बथुआ के बीज को एक गिलास पानी में उबाला जाए और आधा रहने पर छानकर पी जाने पर खुलकर साफ हो जाता है। आँखों में सूजन या लाली हो तो प्रतिदिन बथुआ की सब्जी खाना चाहिए। पेशाब के रोगी को चाहिए कि आधा किलो बथुआ को तीन ग्लास पानी में उबाले और फिर पानी को छान कर और फिर उबले हुए बथुआ को निचोड़कर, उससे भी पानी को निकालकर, छाने हुए पानी में मिला लें। स्वाद के लिए नींबू, जीरा, थोड़ी सी काली मिर्च और काला नमक मिला कर पीए।

हमारे पूर्वज कहा करते थे कि हमने तो सारी उम्र अंग्रेजी दवा की एक गोली भी नहीं ली। उनके स्वास्थ्य व ताकत का राज बथुआ भी रहा होगा। घरों की रंगाई से लेकर खाना व दवा बनाने तक में बथुआ काम आता है। यह सिर के बालों के लिए प्राकृतिक शम्पू भी है।

लेकिन अफसोस है कि हम ये बातें भूलते जा रहे हैं और इस दिव्य पौधे को नष्ट करने के लिए अपने अपने खेतों में जहर डालते जा रहे हैं। तथाकथित कृषि वैज्ञानिकों (अंग्रेज व काले अंग्रेज) ने बथुआ को भी कोंधरा, चौलाई, सांठी, भाँखड़ी आदि जैसे सैकड़ों आयुर्वेदिक औषधियों को खरपतवार की श्रेणी में डाल दिया है और हम समझ भी नहीं पाये।

विज्ञान की रोशनी में विभिन्न धर्मो की स्तिथी

इस धरती पर अधिकांश लोग बुद्धि का इस्तेमाल करते हैं। फिर भी कुछ लोग ऐसे हैं जो अपनी बुद्धि का इस्तेमाल नहीं करना चाहते, खास तौर पर गंभीर मामलों में। वे अपनी रोज मर्रा की जिंदगी में – फायदे और नुक्सान के मामलों में – तो बुद्धि का इस्तेमाल करते हैं पर गंभीर मामलों में अपनी बुद्धि के इस्तेमाल करने में दूर दूर तक वास्ता नहीं रखते। जो बुद्धी का इस्तेमाल नही करना चाहते उन्हें इससे आगे पढने की जरूरत नही है और जो बुद्धि से तनिक भी वास्ता रखते हैं, वे आगे पढें।

जो लोग बुद्धिमान हैं और जिन्होंने अपना जीवन इस खोज में लगाया है कि इस दुनिया का रहस्य क्या है वे इस नतीजे पर पहुंचे हैं कि इस दुनिया को चलाने वाला कोई तो है।  वे सभी मानते हैं कि इस ब्रह्माण्ड में सब कुछ इतने सुनियोजित ढंग से चल रहा है कि कोई बहुत बड़ी ताकत तो है जो इसे चला रही है। और वह ताकत सोचती – समझती है यानि जिन्दा है, वह सचेतन है, वह सब कुछ जानती है और सब कुछ समझती है। वह ताकत सर्व शक्तिमान भी है, वह हम इंसानों से कहीं अधिक जानने वाली और ताकतवर है। उसे इस दुनिया के सभी समझदार लोग भगवान कहते हैं, गॉड कहते है, अल्लाह कहते हैं।  उस सर्व शक्तीमान ताकत के अलग अलग धर्मों में,  अलग अलग भाषाओँ में, देशों में अलग अलग नाम हैं। पर इस बात पर सब एकमत हैं कि वह ताकत सर्व शक्तिमान है।  कुछ धर्म – जैसे कि बौद्ध धर्म – भगवान को इस रूप में नहीं मानते पर वे भी मानते है कि यह दुनिया एक नियम में बंध कर चल रही है; जब महात्मा बुद्ध से यह पूछा गया कि क्या भगवान् हैं तो वह मौन हो गए; जब पूछा कि क्या भगवान नहीं हैं तो भी वे मौन रहे। उनका यह आचरण यही बताता है कि इस सवाल का जवाब बहुत गम्भीर है, इन्सान की समझ से परे है, आम इन्सान को इस पचडे मे नही पडना चाहिये। आम आदमी तो केवल इतना भर समझ लें कि यह स॔सार नियमो से बन्धा है, नियमो सै चल रहा है।  इस संसार का नियम बद्ध होना ही एक सर्व शक्तिमान ताकत – या सर्व शक्तिमान नियम –  को मानना है। उस रहस्य को जानना ही बोध्तव (Enlightenment) को प्राप्त करना है या भगवान को प्राप्त करना है। कुछ लोग – नास्तिक लोग – सर्व शक्तिमान ताकत का वजूद नहीं मानते, वे भी मानते हैं कि स॔सार नियमो से बन्धा है। पर उसकी संख्या दुनिया में कम ही है।

एक तरफ एक भगवान् हैं जोकि सर्व शक्तिमान हैं और दूसरी तरफ इंसान हैं। लेकिन इंसान भगवान को नहीं जानते। उसे कैसे जाना जाये ?

इस बारे में दो तरह के मत हैं – दो तरह के विचार हैं।

एक मत कहता है कि अगर भगवान् है तो उसे जाना भी जा सकता है, उसे कोई भी इंसान जान सकता है, जानने का रास्ता चाहे कैसा भी हो, कोई भी हो। दूसरा मत कहता है कि उसे – यानि भगवान को – कोई भी नहीं जान सकता, चाहे कोई कुछ भी करे। इन्सानों की इस परेशानी को हल करने के लिये भगवान अपने एक “प्रतिनिधी” की चुनता है और उसके द्वारा अपना “पैगाम” भेजता है। वह भगवान एक इंसान को चुनता है यह बताने के लिए कि वह क्या है। वह भगवान केवल उसी एक इंसान को बताता है कि वह क्या है, कैसा है, क्या चाहता है, क्या कहता है, वगैरा। यह कुछ ऐसा ही है, जैसे भगवान ने अपना एक “प्रतिनिधि” नियुक्त कर दिया हो, जो भगवान के स्थान पर खुद ही इन्सानों से बात करने का अधिकार रखता हो।  वह भगवान  क्या कहता है, क्या चाहता है, केवल उसके उस प्रतिनिधि की ही बात मानी जाएगी। उसी एक इंसान का नाम पैगम्बर है। ईसाई और मुस्लिम धर्म के अपने अपने पैगम्बर हैं।

एक मामूली सी भी बुद्धी रखने वाले इन्सान को इस मत को सही स्वीकार करने में दो बडी दिक्कतें हैं।

पहली समस्या:

भगवान का “एकमात्र प्रतिनिधी” बनने  का पूरा मामला केवल उस प्रतिनिधी और भगवान के बीच का है। संसार के बाकि इंसानो के लिये यह गुप्त है। वे प्रतिनिधी के इस दावे की सच्चाई नही जान सकते। वे भगवान से नही मिल सकते और पूछ सकते कि क्या उस प्रतिनिधी का दावा सही है। यदि कोई झूठे ही ऐसा दावा कर दे तो उसकी सच्चाई कैसे परखी जाये? आखिर इन्सान झूठ भी तो बोल देते हैं। इसक क्या ईलाज है? फिर, बात यहीं खतम नही हो जाती। यदि वह “प्रतिनिधि” यह दावा करने लगे कि क्योंकि वह जो कह रहा है वह उसके शब्द नहीं हैं बल्कि खुद भगवान ही उसके मुख से बोल रहे हैं तो सच्चाई पता करना और भी मुश्किल हो जाता है।  यदि वह “प्रतिनिधि” उससे भी आगे बढ़ कर यह कहने लगे कि उसके मुख से जो भगवान कह रहा है उसे यदि स्वीकार नही जाएगा – उस पर अविश्वास किया जाएगा – तो यह भयंकर अपराध होगा और उस अपराधी को मार दिया जाएगा – और ऐसा वह नहीं कह रहा बल्कि भगवान ही कह रहें हैं – तो उस दावे की सच्चाई पता करने के सभी रास्ते बंद हो जाते हैं। एक तरफ सर्व शक्तिमान भगवान है और दूसरी तरफ इंसान हैं, जो उस भगवान् को नहीं जानते और – दावा किया जाता है – ना ही वे (इंसान) उस भगवान् को जान सकते हैं। बीच में एक “प्रतिनिधि” आ जाता है और कहता है कि वह भगवान् को जानता है और इंसानों को बताएगा कि वह भगवान् कैसा है और क्या कहता है। यह सब एक तरह से इस दुनिया में ऐसा रास्ता खोल देता है जहाँ कोई भी व्यक्ति ताकत के बल पर ऐसा दावा कर सकता है और दुनिया में मार काट मचा सकता है। ऐसे में वे सभी लोग – सामान्य इंसान – जिनके पास बुद्धि है और समझ बूझ है बेबस हो जायेंगे और उनके पास कोई तरीका नहीं बचेगा कि वे इस तरह के दावों की सच्चाई जान सकें।

दूसरी समस्या:

यदि भगवान् का स्वयं “प्रतिनिधि ” होने का दावा करने वाले दो अलग – अलग लोग खड़े हो जाएँ और उन दोनों की बातें आपस में मेल ना खाती हों – एक दूसरे के उलट हों – तो किस की बात सही मानी जाए? एक सामान्य आदमी तो यही समझेगा कि पहला “प्रतिनिधि” दूसरे “प्रतिनिधि ” को झूठा बता रहा है और दूसरा “प्रतिनिधि” पहले “प्रतिनिधि” को झूठा बता रहा है। कम से कम, एक सामान्य आदमी यह तो कहेगा ही कि दोनों “प्रतिनिधीयो” में से एक तो अवश्य ही झूठा है। फिर यह कैसे पता चले कि दोनों में से कौन सा झूठ बोल रहा है? पैगम्बरवाद के दावों के अनुसार (कि उसकी कही गयी बातों पर अविश्वास नही किया जा सकता) तो यह बंदूकों से लड़ कर ही तय होगा कि किसका दावा सही है। इस तरह की बातें और दावे इंसानों को गुमराह करने और आपस में मार काट मचाने का काम नहीं तो और क्या हैं ? पैगम्बरवाद के इस तरह के दावो के कारण ही इस धरती पर पिछले २००० सालों से मार काट मची है और खून खराबा होता आया है।

तो क्या सर्व शक्तिमान भगवान् नहीं है? बहुत ही समझदार – बुद्धीमान – लोग और सामान्य बुद्धी (common sense)  रखने वाले लोग सभी इस नतीजे पर पहुंचते हैं कि कोई तो ताकत है जो इस ब्रहमान्ड को नियमो मे बान्ध कर चला रही है।

इस बारे में सनातन धर्म का द्रष्टिकोण आम आदमी की समझ मे आने वाला और कही अधिक तर्क संगत है।

बुद्धिमान और सामान्य बुद्धि वाले  लोग इसी नतीजे पर पहुँचते हैं कि कोई सर्व शक्तिमान ताकत तो जरूर है, जो इस ब्रह्माण्ड को कायदे से नियमों में बांध कर चला रही है। उस ताकत को कोई भी नाम दिया जा सकता है और उसके अलग अलग नाम होने से कोई फर्क नही पडता।

वह परम शक्ति केवल एक है।

और यदि वह वजूद में है तो उसे जाना भी जा सकता है।  यदि उसे एक इन्सान जान सकता है तो उसे सभी इंसान जान सकते हैं। उसे जानने का “विशेषाधिकार” केवल किसी एक ही आदमी के पास नही हो सकता। विशेषाधिकार के इस तरह के दावे मुर्खतापूर्ण और स्वार्थो से भरे हैं।

भगवान को जानने के लिये इंसान को किसी बिचोलिये की जरूरत नही है।

उसे कोई भी इंसान जान सकता है, हालाँकि उसको जानने की कुछ शर्तें, कायदे या नियम तो हो सकते है। पर उस भगवान को जानने के लिए किसी भी बिचोलिये पर विश्वास करने या निर्भर रहने की जरूरत नहीं है।

कोई भी इंसान उन शर्तों को पूरा कर के खुद भगवान से मिल सकता है, उसे देख सकता है, उसे जान सकता है, उस अतिभोतिक स्तिथी को प्राप्त कर सकता है। भगवान महावीर ने यही समझाया है। भगवान बुद्ध ने यही समझाया है। भगवान कृष्ण ने यही समझाया है। भारतवर्ष में उपजे हुए सभी धर्म यही समझाते हैं।

यही सिद्धान्त आधुनिक विज्ञान भी हमे समझाता है। सत्य को जानने के लिये “प्रयोग” करना होता है; उस “प्रयोग” को कोई भी और कहीं भी कर सकता है और हर बार सत्य वही निकलेगा। कोई एक आदमी – अकेला आदमी – सत्य जानने का दावा नही कर सकता। ऐसा दावा कुदरत के नियम के खिलाफ है। कुदरत सबके साथ एक जैसा बर्ताव करती है। कुदरत कभी भी ऐसा नही करती कि केवल एक आदमी ही उसको जाने। जिसने भगवान को देख लिया है, उसके दर्शन कर लिये हैं, वह बाकी आम आदमियों के लिये एक शिक्षक तो हो सकता है, एक मार्ग दर्शक तो हो सकता है पर इससे अधिक और कुछ भी नही, फिर चाहे वह पैगम्बर हो या कोई महान सन्त महात्मा हो। भगवान बुद्ध ने तो इस बारे में यहां तक कहा है कि “अप्प दीपक भव” यानि व्यक्ति को खुद ही उस “अन्तिम सत्य” को पाना होगा, दूसरा आदमी – पैगम्बर समेत – केवल मदद कर सकता है, मार्ग दिखा सकता है।

Nathuram Godse, Sadhvi Pragya and Great Controversy

Parmanand Pandey, Advocate, Supreme Court (Secretary General IPC)
  One fails to understand as to why there is so much hullaballoo on Sadhvi Pragya saying that Nathuram Godse was a patriot? He was the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi and he always confessed it but that does not make him unpatriotic.
What is ‘patriotism’? Patriotism is a term, which has not only more than one meanings but also it is an anathema to some people, religions and political ideologies. Hindus take it as the love for their ‘Matribhumi’ or Motherland. Muslims view the entire world as an open field for waging a war to bring it under Islam, where nations and countries cannot be an isolated object of their love or special affection. Likewise, the battle cry of Communists is, “Workers have no country of their own” and “Workers of the world, unite!” Many educated people also go beyond nationalism and praise humanism.
Then, what is the essence of “patriotism” of those who are attached to it, like Godse or Sadhvi Pragya? In fact, the issue involved in this attachment to and affection for a nation by some people – particularly in the context of Hindus and India – is much deeper than it looks on the face of it while talking about patriotism.
Patriotism even when it is loved by some people has not a uniform meaning – it has different meanings for the people of different countries. Patriotism of, say, Russia or Germany is not like the patriotism of Kurd and Yazidis of Iraq, Jews of Israel,  Hindus of India etc.
Why it is so? It is because of their peculiar history. Though in its essence, patriotism of a people may be defined as their love to their motherland. But different countries have different history, and so the context of their patriotism is different in each case. The patroitism of Godse – and the defence of his patriotism by Sadhvi Pragya – has to be evaluated on this understanding of this word ‘patriotism’.
India was a vast – if not the vastest – country in the world a few thousands years ago. It has a very long history. Its history is rich in culture and civilization values. Indian people, particularly Hindus who were 90% half a century back and still are 80% here, are not a dead civilization – they are alive to their this long history and cherish it. But this Hindu India has suffered much pain and injury, which pinch them. Starting with Mohd. Bin Kasim around 728 AD, through Mohd Ghori, Mohd Ghazani, Khiljis, Mughals to Aurangzeb, this Hindu India has suffered much. They smart under agony.
If one objects to this reference to past as this being only a matter of history, which cannot be changed or undone now, then let him be reminded by us that everyday is the making of history of tomorrow – the history of tomorrow is being made today. Then, everything being done today is justified as the things done in the past had been justified then. Trifle things don’t convince people and one must come to the substance of the matter.
Now on to Godse!
Just see what had been advocated for and done to India under the national leadership of Mahatma Gandhi in 1947 ! Gandhi advocated, Hindu India must face religious violence of Muslim League and its criminal goons with love and non-violence! Many a times, many Sikhs and Hindus did practice this nonsense – and in the consequence they were murdered by Muslim criminals, who were burning under religious zeal of creating a pure land of Islam – called Pakistan – and waging a war of Jihad against Kafirs.
Once when a Punjabi – whose entire family was murdered by Muslim mob in Pakistan, weeping in agony asked Gandhi, “Bapu, my all family members have been killed; what am I to do now?” Gandhi replied, “Face the mob without violence from your side; how did you come back alive; go back to that place again and face those killers with love” (available on internet resources). One has to see and judge Godse and his patriotism on the anvil of such historical events. What was done to Guru Teg Bahadur by Aurangzeb? What is the religious mission of a Muslim Caliph in the world? And why did Gandhi advocate the support (by Hindus) for the Khilafat Movement of Muslims and himself worked for its restoration? While judging the virtue or vice of Godse’s patriotism, it has to be answered by those who think the taking of the name of Godse is the greatest sin.
One has to add one more thing – a weight – to the scale while judging Godse’s patriotism. A leader – be he Mahatma Gandhi or someone else – is supposed to be aware of the history. Gandhi was supposed to know why Guru Teg Bahadur was beheaded; why Prithviraj was killed by Mohd Ghori; or why Mohd bin Kasim was killed Raja Dahir. The list is long.
If Gandhi is supposed to be aware of the Indian history, why did he insist that Muslims should not go from India to Pakistan? In Pakistan there were 23% Hindus who chose to stay there in 1947 and now in 2019 they are about 2% – why did Gandhi in 1947 not anticipate this inevitability falling on Hindus of Pakistan? Even supposing everything in favor of Gandhi, Gandhi has to answer why there have been so many Hindu-Muslim communal riots in India since 1947? Why Owaisi openly threatens Hindus in India? Should Gandhi not have anticipated in 1947 the inevitability of such threats to Hindu in future? It is not said in vain by some one, “Sometime the generations are made to suffer for centuries because of the wrong committed in a fleeting moment by a person.” Let Godse be judged of what he did with this understanding of Indian history.
In his book ‘The Murder of the Mahatma’, Justice GD Khosla has written that ‘Nathuram Godse had declined to be represented by a lawyer and had made a prayer that he should be permitted to appear in person and argue his appeal himself. This prayer had been granted, and so he stood in a specially constructed dock. His small defiant figure with flashing eyes and close-cropped hair offered a remarkable and immediately noticeable contrast to the long row of placid and prosperous-looking lawyers who represented his accomplices. (Page 18)
Arguing his appeal in the High Court he said that ‘If devotion to one’s country amounts to a sin, I admit I have committed that sin. If it is meritorious, I humbly claim the merit thereof. I fully and confidently believe that if there be any other Court of justice beyond the one founded by the mortals; my act will not be taken as unjust. If after death there be no such place to reach or to go to, there is nothing to be said. I have resorted to the action I did purely for the benefit of humanity. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack (sic) and ruin and destruction to lacs of Hindus”. (Page 46)
Justice Khosla further writes, ‘the audience was visibly and audibly moved. There was a deep silence when he ceased speaking. Many women were in tears and men were coughing and searching for their handkerchiefs. The silence was accentuated and made deeper by the sound of an occasional subdued sniff or a muffled cough. It seemed to me that I was taking part in some kind of melodrama or in a scene out of a Hollywood feature film. Once or twice I had interrupted Godse and pointed out the irrelevance of what he was saying, but my colleagues seemed inclined to hear him and the audience most certainly thought that Godse’s performance was the only worthwhile part of the lengthy proceedings.’ (Page 47)
Now look at those people who stood solidly behind the ‘tukade tukade gang’ for saying ‘hamen chahiye aazadi’ and ‘azmal hum sharminda hain , tere quatil zinda hain’ in the name of freedom of speech and expression and who did not sleep for many nights at the killing of the terrorists of Batala house are shamelessly asking that Sadhvi Pragya Thakur should be hanged only for saying that Godse was a terrorist. As far as the criticism of Mahatma Gandhi is concerned even Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar, who although did not participate in the freedom struggle even for a day, has ripped apart the duplicity of Gandhi ji in all his writings.
Supporters of Arundhati Roy and Zakir Naik, who are asking for the skull of Sadhvi ji, will have to know that they have been championing the cause of the disintegration of the country. On the other hand, Godse, even while being taken to the gallows, kept on shouting for Akhand Bharat. And those who supported the vivisection of the country are now crying for the blood of the saffron-robed Sanyasin for saying a simple fact that Godse was a patriot. He was guilty of the assassination of Gandhi ji and got the capital punishment for that but that does not make him less patriotic than even the staunches patriot. Sadhvi needs to be supported in her assertion about Godse. Her patriotism is unquestionable and those who are asking for her head cannot be the believer in the constitution of India.

Mongoose and Snake cannot Work for the Common Cause

Parmanand Pandey, Advocate, Supreme Court (Secretary General IPC)

Nothing is impossible in politics if rank opportunism becomes the guiding principle and it has been proved beyond any shadow of a doubt after the swearing-in of Udhav Thakre as the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The alliance of Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party and Congress party and the support of the Samajwadi Party was unthinkable a few weeks ago. Thus, this alliance is nothing less than a miracle but the Yaksha Prashna will continue to haunt everybody about its longevity and capacity to deliver to the people of the state.
Maharashtra is one of the richest states of the country, Mumbai as the financial capital of the country, but on the other hand, the farmers are nowhere in as much distress as they are in this state. Let us hope and pray that the government of diametrically opposite ideologies, whose leaders have been the bitter enemies of one another would work in unison, at least, for the cause of the people of the state.
It is indeed the mockery of the democracy, but some say it is the beauty, that the largest party, the BJP, having won nearly two or two and half times more seats than any of the allying parties is out of power. In a way, it is against the mandate of the people, who voted the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance to rule. It is also true that the strike rate of the BJP in the assembly election was nearly seventy per cent i. e. it won almost 70 % of the seats on which it constated. The strike rate of Shiv Sena, the second-largest party, was less than 45 per cent. Therefore, not going by the pre-poll alliance is an appalling betrayal with the people of the state.
There is no point in discussing the whataboutery of the breaking of the alliance, which is as clear as daylight that the overambitious tantrums of the Shiv Sena were the root cause. In this backdrop, one point must always be kept in mind that the alliance has always been an anathema to the Congress unless, of course, it has been in the driving seat. It has always refused to play the second fiddle. Take the example of Chaudhari Charan Singh, who had to resign even without facing the trust vote in the Lok Sabha. Chandrashekhar had to go in less than four months. Devegowda and Inder Kumar Gujral had to suffer all insults and indignities but even they were not spared. Very recently, the Congress Party made HD Kumaraswamy of Karnataka eat the humble pie.
The alliance of Shiv Sena, NCP and the Congress is bound to crumble due to their pulling of power in different directions. Therefore, the people of Maharashtrians will have to keep their fingers crossed about the Thakre government. The snake and mongoose cannot live together in peace for a long.

Previous Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: