Any self-respecting citizen of India, who has even the slightest sense of loyalty towards motherland has not yet forgotten the brutalities and massacre carried out by the soldiers of Allah on Indian armymen and civilians in the recent Kargil conflict. The systematic massacre of Kashmiri Hindus, the merciless killing of little children and the barbaric rape of Hindu women over last 15 years still ring in our ears. The typical Islamic way of genital mutilation of the six Indian soldiers in the Kargil war are still fresh in our minds. But President KR Narayanan is definitely an exception.

On July 29, 99 KR Narayanan, President of India, displayed another layer of his ugly anti-national behavior when he described Urdu as a "lively link" with the people of Pakistan, a country which has been supporting, promoting and nurturing the worst kind of Islamic terrorism in various parts of India over last few decades.

Narayanan who does not think twice to insult the great Hindu sage Shankaracharya, showered plenty of praise for Urdu and described it as "the depository of the composite culture of India". The term "composite culture" deserves little elaboration as this is one of the most favorite terms used by so called secularists and communists of India.

When a secularist or a communist uses the term "composite culture" with respect to India, he/she invariably means one or all of the following:

The composite culture of India is primarily the outcome of the mingling of Hindu and Muslim cultural streams
The Hindus of India should be thankful to Muslims for the latter's contribution towards this composite culture
This composite nature of Indian culture is of ultimate importance and acts as a glue for the communal harmony and national integration.
The secularists of India do not stop there in their effort to explain the term 'composite culture'. Most of the time, they also try to explain that everything was fine between Muslims and Hindus before the inception of British rule in India. Some of them, in a desperate attempt to show their love for "secularism", even take great pains to pay tributes to the barbaric Muslim invaders of India who were notorious for the worst kind persecution of Hind population.

In its true sense, the concept of cultural harmony is nothing new to India. The Buddhist, Jain, Sikh or other such cultures of Indian origin which are considered as various offshoots of Hindu culture found no problem in the process of national assimilation.

Its also important to remember that Islam was not the first foreign element in the grand tree of Indian culture whose seed lies in Hinduism. A sect of Jews from Israel and Parsees from Iran who were persecuted in their own homelands by the soldiers of Islam, got asylum in India to live like human beings. Even a large number of Pre-Islamic Arabic traders were welcomed in India and used to receive handsome grants as well as encouragement from the Hindu rulers. None of them posed any coexistantial problem to others in India.

In fact, almost all the foreign hordes invading or entering India before the advent of Islam, such as the Greeks, the Parthians, the Sakas, the Hunas, the Gujaras, the Kushanas, the Scythians, etc were assimilated to the cultural mainstream by Hindu inclusivism. Most importantly, the process of assimilation had been non-violent and peaceful althrough primarily because of the inherent peace-loving nature of Hinduism.

On the other hand, right from the invasion of Mohammed bin Qasem till the downfall of Tipu Sultan, Islam has been the acting as a carcinogenic agent to deliver a deathblow to the equilibrium, exuberance and cosmopolitan character of the Indian socio-religious framework. If one wants to find out the reason, one needs to study the basic postulates of Ummah (Muslim culture/community) or the basic principles of Quran neither of which know any cooperation on the basis of equality or peaceful coexistence with the Kafirs (or non-muslims). Islam provides kafirs with at most three alternatives: The sword, slavery or Jizyah. I said "at most" because, non-Hanafaite Muslim law allows survival on payment of Jizyah to the Jews and the Christians only and no Muslim law permits any non-Muslim faith within Arabia.

Lets take a look at a few of the innumerable instances when Muslim Kings felt divine joy when they carried out their religious duties by oppressing or killing Kafirs (in this case Hindus) of India by the sword of Islam. Its important to point out that Muslim historians took great pride in documenting these type of events as these demonstrated the Muslim Rulers' adherence to "great" teachings of Quran. Muslim historian Diya' ad-Din Barani explains one such event in his book, "Shahifah-i Nat-i Muhammadai". The author describes a situation when Sayyid Nur as-Din Mubarak Ghaznawi Suhrawardi, at once a leading Sufi, a leading Muslim divine, and the Shaykh al-Islam of Sultan Iltutmish, led a deputation to the Sultan and advised him to give an ultimatum to the Hindus to embrace Islam or face death. The Sultan's prime minister pleaded powerlessness on his behalf to do so. Then the Shaykh offered an alternative suggestion:

".... The king should at least strive to disgrace, dishonor and defame the Mushkrik (polytheists) and idol-worshipping Hindus....The sign of the kings being protectors of the faith is this: When they see a Hindu, their faces turn red and they wish to swallow him alive...."

A very similar suggestion was made to Jalal ad-Din Khalji, who returned ruefully:

"...Don't you see that Hindus, who are the worst enemies of Allah and of Islam, pass daily below my royal palace to the Jamuna beating drums and playing flutes, and practise before our eyes the worship of the idols with all the rituals ? Fie on us unworthy leaders who declare ourselves as Muslim Kings! ...Had I been a Muslim ruler, a real king, or a prince and felt myself strong and powerful enough protect Islam, any enemy of Allah and the faith of the Prophet of Islam would not have been allowed to chew betels in a care-free manner and put on a clean garment or live in peace..."

The above quote summarizes the basic viewpoint of Muslims, which takes its root from the teachings of Islam. It needs on emphasis that the bulk of Muslim rulers in India were preoccupied with uprooting Hindu religion and culture. India's secularists and communists have however found this behavior of Muslim rulers of India as a beautiful attempt to harmonize and assimilate Islamic culture with the Hindu way of life.

Lets take a look at what famous Muslim scholar Amir Khusru says in this regard in the book, "Mathnawiyy-i Dawal Rani Khizir Khan". While eulogizing the role of the sword of Islam in ravaging Hinduism, Khusur gives an interesting picture of the phenomenon, which is proudly referred to as "Hindu-Muslim cultural union" by our secular historians:


Tamami Kishwar az tegh-i ghiza-kar
Chu Kharistan'zi atish gashtah bi-khar
Zamin-ash ser-khurd-i ab-i-shamsir
Firau khuftah ghubar-i kufr dar zir
Zabardastan-i Hindu gashtah pamal
Firau-dastan hamah dar daddan-i mal
Badin izzat shudah Islam mansur
Badan khari saran-i kufr maqhu
Ba-dhimmah gar na budi rukhsat-i shar
Na mandi nam-i Hindu'zi'sl ta far

The English translation is as follows:

"Thanks to the sword of our holy (Islamic) warriors, the whole of this land has become a forest denuded of its thorns by fire. The land has become saturated with the water of the sword, and the dust of Kafir (nonbelievers in Islam) is lying underground. The strong among the Hindus have been trodden under foot, and are constrained to pay tribute with their hand under that of the tribute collector...Islam became triumphant so gloriously and leaders of Hinduism suffered the scourge of Islam so ignominiously that, had not the Shariah (the Hanafite Muslim law) granted exemption from death by payment of Jizyah (poll tax), the very name of the Hindu would have been extinct root and branch..."

Its needless to point out that the Muslim rule in India, as else where, was wedded to the cause of Islam, to the propagation of Islam and to the blotting out of Kafirs/Hindus altogether. In its eyes, Hindu society was nothing more than a hunting ground for the Muslims. It was a rule of the Muslims, for the Muslims and by the Muslims. Historian K.S.Lal in his book "In the medieval Indian chronicles" describes that during Islamic era, "the sovereign was always mentioned as the 'king of Islam', the territories of his empire were referred to as the 'land of Islam', its armies as 'soldiers of Islam' and its religious and judicial head as 'Shaikh-ul-Islam'." Such a religion or culture or rule has never been and will never be a part of the integral culture of India.

The Urdu language and literature of modern India also reflect the same typical mentality which is proud of its Arabic/Muslim origin and which acts as a vehicle for the anti-national thoughts and deeds Muslims have been displaying right from the advent of Islam in India.

Lets take example of the famous Urdu poet Iqbal who feels ashamed of his Indian elements but is literally proud of his Muslim root:

"Ajami khum hain to kya, May to Hijazi hain meri
Naghmah Hindi hain to kay, lay to Hijazi hain meri"

English translation is as follows:


"..So what even if my jar is non-Arabic or barbarian, my wine is purely Arabic. So what even if my song is of Hindus, my tune is purely Arabic.."

In another Urdu couplet, Iqbal goes one step further and showers praise for Aurangzeb, the Muslim invader who is repressible for mass-scale killing of Hindus and conversion of thousands of Hindu temples to mosques.


"Darmiyan-i karzar-i Kufr-o-Din
Tarkash-i ma ra khadang-i akhirin
Tukh-i ilhad-i ki Akbar parwarid
Baz andar fitrat-i Dara damid
Haqq guzid az Hind Alamgir ra
An faqir sahib-i shamshir ra
Barq tigh-ash khirman-i ilhad sokht
Smah-i Din dar mahfil ma bar-farokht"

The English translation is as follows:


"...Aurangzeb was the last arrow in our quiver in the war between Kufr and Islam. Akbar sowed the seed of irreligion, which grew in the character of Dara...But the lightning of his (Aurangzeb's) sword burnt down the barn of irreligion and lighted the lamp of Islam in our convivial assembly"

So such is the language of Urdu, which has been used primarily by the Muslim writers to express their hatred and anti-nationalism towards India and Hinduism is general. Even in modern times, 90 percent of the Urdu dailies of the nation serve to the purpose of inciting communal hatred and riots in India by publishing outright false and anti-national information. Indian President KR Narayanan however found the increasing growth of the Urdu dailies quite satisfactory and said "during the last two decades the Urdu press showed a phenomenal increase according to official statistics. The rate of growth is higher than that of the Indian dailies in all languages put together."

Its about time that common Indian public starts realizing the fact that a culture which has taken birth from a religion devoid of any conception of coexistence with any other religion can never aid to any sort of composite culture in any nation, let alone India. In every arena of knowledge, whether its science, literature, architecture or philosophy, it has been the barbaric Muslims who have learnt and gathered information from the ancient Hindu culture of India. The only way Islam ever 'contributed' to the so called "composite culture of India" is by destroying Hindu temples, modifying them to build mosques on top, burning thousands of Hindu libraries and converting millions of Hindus forcefully to Islam.

It is this variety of "composite culture" that people like Kr Narayanan wants Indians to take pride in. Its a matter of utter shame to the whole political system of India that leaders like KR Narayanan want to promote a culture where the citizens of the country are encouraged to take pride in the barbaric foreign elements responsible for destruction and oppression of their own people. By his recent speech on Urdu, President Narayanan has proved that when it comes to backstabbing India, he can very well match the Islamic skills of the Ghoris, Ghaznavis or the Auranghzebs of the Indian history.