There are over 35,000 Hindus living in Larkana, making up around nine percent of the city’s population. And so when the ever-ready Muslim mob conjured the blasphemy card, in turn torching a temple and a dharamshala in the city on March 16, the religious tension in the city was as palpable as it gets. The reverberations of said tension were felt in Osta Muhammad and Dera Murad Jamali as well, as the Pakistani Muslim’s ancestral animosity towards Hindus, coupled with a baseless allegation of Holy Quran’s desecration, spilt bigotry all over the country.
It is very important for Pakistani Muslims (97 percent of the population) to differentiate themselves from Hindus. After all it’s precisely this difference that became our state’s raison d’etre in 1947. And differentiating is the first step en route to the development of hatred that eventually inflates into bigotry.
For the average Pakistani Muslim this bigotry wards off the increasingly looming identity crisis, and reaffirms the illusions of historical and religious grandeur.
[quote]Mehmood Ghaznavi was Shia-phobic [/quote]
The destruction of the Somnath Temple in 1,025 AD by Mahmud Ghaznavi is one of the “proudest” moments in the “history of Pakistan” that ostensibly began when the first Muslim (Muhammad bin Qasim) entered the region in the 8th century. During his endeavour to destroy the temple, Ghaznavi also butchered 50,000 Hindus – about the same number of people that the Pakistani Taliban have obliterated in over a decade with significantly deadlier arsenal. Such is the status of destroying a Hindu temple in defining the ideology of Pakistan that the fact that Ghaznavi invaded Multan in 1,005 AD to ruthlessly massacre Ismaili Shias is conveniently forgotten.
Ghaznavi was Shia-phobic, a murderer and plunderer; however, his massacre of Hindus and destruction of temples elevates his status to a ‘national’ hero even though he had died 900 years before the idea of this nation was conceived. It goes without saying that had Ghaznavi been alive he would have been very proud of the mob that destroyed the Hindu temple in Larkana.
An excerpt from Tipu Sultan’s – another hero and role model for Pakistanis – letter to Bekal’s governor, Budruz Zuman Khan in 1790 tells us more about him than the thousands of Hindu massacres that he orchestrated and the multiple coerced conversions that he oversaw;
“Don’t you know I have achieved a great victory recently in Malabar and over four lakh Hindus were converted to Islam? I am determined to march against that cursed Raman Nair (Rajah of Travancore) very soon. Since I am overjoyed at the prospect of converting him and his subjects to Islam, I have happily abandoned the idea of going back to Srirangapatanam now.”
From Ziauddin Barani’s Fatwa-i-Jahandari calling for “an all-out struggle against Hinduism” under Muhammad bin Tughlaq to Muhammad Ali Jinnah dubbing Pakistan’s establishment “essential to prevent Hindu imperialism spreading into the Middle East” in the lead up to August 1947, Muslim rulers and leaders in the Indian subcontinent often established antagonism against the Hindus as an integral part of their governance and policy making.
The bile against Hinduism that Pakistani school curricula spew has been well documented and condemned by liberal quarters. “The foundation of Hindu set-up was based on injustice and cruelty” (Grade 6, Social Studies Book); this is one of the many gems from the books that our children are taught to further proliferate xenophobia inside their already jingoistic heads. However, the significance of hating Hindus for Pakistanis is a lot more than just biased historical narratives or pumping up bigotry under the garb of patriotism.
[quote]It is not being implied that Hindus do not – or have never – reciprocated these sentiments[/quote]
It is very important to realise here that it’s not being implied that Hindus do not – or have never – reciprocated these sentiments. The stereotypical Hindu of ‘secular’ India manifests similar communal antagonism. And the nation might very well be on the verge of electing a communalist as their next prime minister in the shape of Narendra Modi. However, what needs to be understood and underscored here is that an Indian Hindu manifesting communal bigotry contradicts the ‘idea’ of India, while a Pakistani Muslim by doing so conforms to the ‘idea’ of Pakistan. Opposition to Hindus, and antagonism between Hindus and Muslims, form the founding principle of Pakistan.
Ideally the Islamo-fascist clamours of the 1940s, that became patriotic anthems of the movement for Pakistan, should have no relevance to events in modern day Pakistan. But how can you expect Hindu-Muslim harmony in a state that was created through fanning the embers of Hindu-Muslim disharmony? How can Pakistan expect the Hindus and Muslims inhabiting the country to evolve into one nation, after creating a state that owes itself to the principle that Hindus and Muslims of the Indian subcontinent are two different nations and cannot survive in unison?
The rather popular “Arabisation” of and obsession with our Islamic identity is the direct corollary of the Pakistan movement, since the Muslim inhabitants of this region were told that they had nothing in common with the Hindus of the region. This has obviously resulted in Pakistanis considering their country as a quasi-Arab land.
Refusing to acknowledge the commonalities between Hindus and Muslims of the Indian subcontinent is a part of the legacy of our founding fathers, and the reason why Pakistan was created in the first place. We might castigate the Pakistan Studies curricula all we want, but if anti-Hindu material is taken out of these books, the curriculum designers and the narrators of Pakistan’s version of Indo-Pak history would find it really hard to justify the creation of Pakistan.
Jinnah might have told the Pakistani Hindus on August 11, 1947 that they are “free to go to their temples,” but as long as his separatist movement and the cult of Ghazvani and Tipu Sultan is extolled, the Pakistani Muslims would continue to feel equally “free” to torch these temples.
For Pakistan to achieve religious harmony and existential stability it would inevitably have to question its founding ideology. That’s the paradox staring the country in the face right now.
This article glosses over certain facts of history, paramount among them the fact that Jinnah was the only leader to be called the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity. Nor was Jinnah alone in fearing caste Hindu domination. B R Ambedkar who wrote the Indian constitution is on the record writing against caste Hindu domination using far more intemperate language than Jinnah ever did. Another Hindu leader who supported Jinnah was E V Ramaswamy Naicker of the Dravidistan Movement. The Communist Party of India, largely dominated by Hindu leftists, supported Jinnah both materially and philosophically.
Pakistan’s founding ideology was never anti-Hindu. This is a persistent myth. At the height of the Pakistan Movement, Jinnah appointed Jogindranath Mandal to represent the Muslims in the interim government. This gentleman – a Hindu- became the first law minister of Pakistan. Those who inevitably support Islamization or Arabization of Pakistan were without exception opposed to the creation of Pakistan. It was the state’s responsibility to guard its founding ideology but it was unfortunately outsourced to the same Mullahs who had opposed the creation of the state.
Pakistan’s existence nor its founding principles are dependent on a hatred for Hindus. Both the extreme that wants to wage Ghazwa-e-Hind and those like the writer of this piece who conflate Pakistani ideology with anti-Hindu narrative are wrong. Pakistan was a movement of Muslim petit bourgeoisie trying to find an economic and political balance in the inevitable post-British period.
I am not sure what therefore the author wants… Pakistan exists. It is a reality. Ideas can only contribute. Pakistan needs to revert back to the 11 August speech. Jinnah did not merely tell the Hindus that they were free to go to their temples. Jinnah wanted the Hindu and Muslim identities to dissipate altogether in a political sense though not in a religious sense.
The author therefore contradicts himself when he narrates the history of Muslim-Hindu antagonism which continues to this day and then blames everything on what he perceives to be the “anti-Hindu” nature of Pakistan’s “founding ideology”. Such an exercise apart from being completely a-historical is also counter-productive.
Allow democracy to work. Let fundamental rights triumph. Ultimately Hindu-Muslim antagonism as well as intra-Muslim antagonisms will wither away as Jinnah predicted in his 11 August speech. It would not happen if the debate is narrowly construed without question around the existing nationalist mythologies in Pakistan and India.
You say Pakistan was never based on anti-hindu sentiments. Yet, ur holy book teaches nothing but hatred & bigotry against the ‘kafirs’. The 2-nation theory is nothing but the concepts of ‘Dar-Al Islam’ & ‘Dar-Al Harb’.
The caste-divide/domination you talk about (Ambedkar) was ONLY ‘among’ hindus. Even today the lower-caste people in south-India convert to Islam or other religions because once they convert, they are treated as ‘equals’. You should read what Ambedkar thought of Islam & how critical he was of it. In fact, he castigated Gandhi for not speaking out against ‘jihad’ in India.
This hatred/bigotry against non-muslims can be seen everywhere:
– In your constitution which distinguishes against non-muslims from holding high-constitutional posts by law
– In your school textbooks where you poison minds of innocent children
– In your army which never recruited a single hindu/sikh in the last 60yrs (1st sikh officer recruited in 2005 and it became a headline)
– In the tales of kidnap, tortures/attrocities, demands of jizya & emigration of Pakisani hindus
– the ongoing genocide of shias, and outcasting of ahmedis (as they are the next ‘kafir’ targets now)
– In how the minority population in pakistan has been reduced from 22% to 2% now..
This is not just about Pakistan, its the same story anywhere Islam exists. Xinjiang, the only place in China which has muslims, and guess what they wanna separate too. Problems THROUGHOUT the world: Denmark, Sweden, Paris, Switzerland, Russia, UK, US, Australia, China, Sri Lanka, India, Burma, Nigeria, Middle-East, Israel, Palestine. Tell me a place where there isn’t any problem coz of Islam…
It is true that both Ambedkar/Dalits and Dravidians were worried about Hindu domination. But as history showed, their fears were inflated. Ambedkar was handpicked to write the constitution of India. His followers (specifically Mayawati) have ruled the most populous state of India, Uttar Pradesh.
Jinnah was basically a smart Gujarati lawyer who won Pakistan through the force of Direct Action (as in the riots in Bengal and Rawalpindi). He was no leader, just a shallow, short-sighted man.
YLH mentions about Jogindranath Mandal. What he does not mention that Mandal was disenchanted with the Islamisation that took place right from the birth of Pakistan as a nation. He sent his resignation letter from the ministry, and the same is available at:
Very soon afterwards, he migrated to India.
The whole problem is that the intellectuals in Pakistan are in a state of denial. Only when they see the reality, will there be enduring solutions to the problems between India and Pakistan.
@YLH (Yasser Latif Hamdani):
Your scholarship on Jinnah is recognized and appreciated. We all know how much depth you have on Jinnah to the exclusion of anything else. While that is respected, hopefully, you can include readings on other people and other interpretations/differing views rather than look at everything (the world, history, philosophy, religion, governance) through your dogmatic, Jinnahesque prism. You have the same random and spare examples to push a worn out, thin argument. You cite the very barest of bare things about Ambedkar without weighing why he said what he said or the context or even what he said about Muslims! You cite the Mandal example. Come on! Where did Mandal end up? Can you enlighten us? In any case those examples don’t even scratch the surface of Shahid’s sound argument. Your superficial argument is ok for the ether of the forum where you publish your Jinnah column and the very emotional and volatile (if under-educated) Pakistani commenters and the equally philistine Indian trolls. Now, I’m NOT being snob but giving you a taste of your own medicine. Isn’t the manner and language in which you conduct your forum on your columns and spared no grace or intellectual respect (whether you agree or disagree) for Shahid? All that said, I recommend you read people like Khalid Duran, Ayesha Ahmed, MA Khan (all natives!), if not Ali Sina to get a better understanding of the roots of the exclusivist, exceptionalist Muslim concept. Of course, I’m not suggesting at all that they are right or that you must agree with them but perhaps you’ll see other dimensions. Thank you!
Jinnah was just one person who struggled to create Pakistan. Behind him was a mass-menace that was bred to hate hindus. Without them he could not have got his islamic paradise of Pakistan. In fact it was for them that he toiled – whether he knew it or not.
Hating, ridiculing, devilizing, humiliating non-muslims is part of the islamic narrative and encouragement and even entitlement since 1400 years.
Jinnah was a an apostle of hindu-muslim unity only so long he did not take islam and muslims’ self-glorifying claims and slanders against non-muslims seriously.
Whether a human being succeeded or not cannot be decided in one year. It may need 40 or 60 years. So now admit that Jinnah failed – and he failed because he lied constantly after 1939 AD.
Thank you KKS for the article. How can Pakistan guarantee them any security when Shias, Ahmadis and Ismailis are being butchered every day.
The founding ideology of Pakistan was and is anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh. The founding fathers forgot that 99% of the Pakistanis have Hindu ancestors and have lived together for thousands of years.
The two nation theory has become one nation for Sunni Islam only.
above comment quotes ambedkar in such a way that e was in support of pakistan but opposition to domination of one section of society doesnt mean support to partition.. and accepting that creation of pakistan was truly motivated for economic gains and power hunger shows cheap mentality of early pakistanis that they can divide country, call for riots just for money and power.. though pakistan’s creation was for nawab, and jamindar’s interest to protect their hold on power, property in times of democracy, call for pakistan and support was definitely garnered in the name of islam..and stress was on how muslim are different from hindu where as in reality despite way of worshiping both of them had similar food habits, dress sense, local culture, language etc.. anti hindu angle was definitely part of campaign ….. only educated, rich top 20 % muslim had right to vote otherwise pakistan had no much support from poor muslims also.. it would have not been created if all could vote..and i mean Jina, atheist who brilliantly provoked religious emotions of people to create country too must have known that this free hindu in pakistan contradicts with what he had created. so lets say he was very good lawyer without ethics, compassion to understand his side and his methods were wrong but anyway he won the case by partition..
final reality can be summed up by author’s quote only
an Indian Hindu manifesting communal bigotry contradicts the ‘idea’ of India, while a Pakistani Muslim by doing so conforms to the ‘idea’ of Pakistan.
YLH’s comment above is nonsensical (“Dravidistan” LOL!). The fact is that the Hindutva movement under people like Savarkar attained its shrill and sharp edge due to developments in the movement to split the Motherland by a collusion of the Muslim Ashraf elites and their British masters. The basic premise of Hindutva is that one ought to be Indocentric – that’s all. There’s no “religious” angle to this communalism, it is a civilizational angle. Most of its leading lights like Savarkar were practitioners of the school of “nireeshwar-vaadi sankhya yoga” – an agnostic form of Sankhya. The Hindu ethos is fundamentally pluralistic, which is why a genuine saint like Baba Farid or Bulleh Shah finds a place in Hindu hearts. The fundamentals of Islam, however, are different. Islam within the Indian Subcontinent has always been a case of an Ashraf elite of Arab-Irani-Turani heritage managing a flock of converted sheeple (including some Hindu aristocrats who converted to preserve status) by constantly pumping them with hate and pitting them against their ancestors in a mission to control and expand. This is the root cause, and it is ridiculous to expect any self-respecting member of India’s classical civilization to even try to “compromise” with such an imperial cult. So Hindutva will not “compromise” with this cult, but it certainly wishes to resolve issues. In the words of Savarkar in his book “Hindupad Padshahi” –
“We ought to read history, not with a view to finding out the best excuse to perpetuate the odl strife and stress, bickerings and bloodsheds, whether in the name of our blessed motherland, ‘of our Lord God’, that divided man from man and race from race, but precisely for the contrary reason of finding out the root cause that contributed to, and the best means to the removal of that stress and strife, of those bickerings and bloodsheds, so that man may be drawn towards man because he is man, the child of that our common father – God – and nursed at the breast of this our common mother – Earth – and wield humanity in a World-Commonwealth.”
Savarkar never practiced any Hinduism , whatsoever. Where did you find samkhya …as far as I know ,the Atheist Samkhya school is dead for more than a millenium now.
Savarkar was a modern-day Atheist much the same way as you see in the West. Please read his criticisms of Hinduism – that Cow veneration etc.
@YLH, If discrimination (a very vague word) by caste Hindus was a reason you providing as justification for creation of Pakistan than how come the Dalits today enjoy more rights, reservations in educational institution and jobs than the caste Hindus? Empowerment of Dalits in Indian society is complete and they have an upper hand in today’s India which is a good thing.How come the population of Muslims has grown many fold in India even after the country was divided in the name of Islam while population of Hindus have declined so sharply in a country that you claim was not based on anti-Hindu principles ? Hiding behind BR Ambedkar or EV Ramaswamy Naicker is equally preposterous as neither of these two demanded a separate country. In fact, BR Ambedkar is father of India’s constitution. There are countless statements given by eminent non-Punjabi Pakistanis about discrimination by Punjabis in Pakistan.
Author has provided specific text book examples of how hatred is inculcated in the minds of young in Pakistan, can you provide one example of any Indian textbook ? Its impact is seen in today’s Pakistan. It is systemic, not something sporadic. I agree India’s secularism is not perfect but given a chance hardly any Muslims in India will choose to migrate to Pakistan. On the other hand no Non-Muslim will miss a chance to leave Pakistan if offered a chance to migrate to India despite its imperfect secularism.
The fact is this that Jinnah was over-ambitious and though himself not anti-hindu but used religion to fulfill his own ambitions. He did not lay a foundation of a country which will be home for Muslims, he rather built a castle where there will be no Nehru to challenge his ego otherwise why he could not convince his own family to come Pakistan ? Now Islamists want a true Islamic republic, where Muslims can live as Muslims.
Thats why I squarely blame Pakistan for the bad relationship with India. If India can live with 170 million within India what problem and have good relationship with Muslim countries as such why would they not live with Pakistan ? On the other hand Pakistan which cannot tolerate even a few million Hindus within Pakistan how can it live with a Hindu majority country ?
Here goes YLH again. Yes ambedkar did say bad things about caste system, but he forgets that Hindu reformers said same or worst things about the same caste system. Even he can find lot things in upanishads about rituals and caste system.
Babasaheb ambedkar didnt join Jinnah to pakistan or converted to Islam. He choose a dharmic religion of Buddhism.
And about the EV Ramasamy naicker and his dravidasatan movement, he was a racist caste propagator, he asked his followers to beat the brahmins where ever they found. Now in Tamil Nadu no body cares about his legacy and BJP set to win another 10 seats in coming elections.
Coming to what Jinnah said, YLH is not denying the fact of Jinnah said ““Hindu imperialism spreading into the Middle East” or his famous call for killing hindus with “Today we forged a pistol and ready to use it” This is the reason Jinnah didnt call to stop the violence in the direct action day. Once Hindus and Sikhs grouped to defend the attacks against them , then bengal chief minster fallen to Gandhi’s feet to save the muslims. And Gandhi believing those muslims asked the hindus. Gandhi had his shock of life time when his words are not heeded in the navkali where muslims killed all the hindus.
Pakistan’s ideology is killing of hindus. No amount of skullduggery going to change that fact.
The dwindling number of Hindus in Pakistan , and 2nd grade treatment meted out to Hindus itself says it all that Pakistan establishment is full of hatred for Hindus. Live telecast of conversion ,raped and forced to live with Muslims are normal life of Hindus girls in Pakistan. What is happening now is that Pakistanis them self do not know who they are . They like Bollywood movies but cannot repel islamisation of Pakistan.this is creating a inferiority complex in Pakistanis , which is causeing irrational behavior.The brain washing and Islamic propaganda of 50 yrs has made whole of Pakistan a country full of psychopaths. Any liberal voice is taken as attack on Islam which as usual violently crushed . All hope is lost. Now only thing left is balkanisation of Pakistan
Three Cheers to the author for writing the piece. It requires courage of conviction to write frankly and put a hand on the Achilles heel of Pakistan. It is sad but true that anti Hinduism is the basis for the creation of Pakistan, what ever else the leaders might say. Brainwashing of the school students should stop if Pakistan is really serious of fostering genuinely good relations with India and Hindus in particular. Let the students get the full picture and decide for themselves rather than being given a totally tinted view of history.
The sad part is that Tipu the barbarian is considered to be a freedom fighter and his heroic wars and final defeat in the hands of the British is well written in our (Indian) textbooks. The books fail to mention his religious bigotry and opportunism. After defeating this maniac, the British restored the kingdom of Mysore to the earlier Wodeyar rulers. Thank God for the Brits!
Die of your hatred you Hindus! We Muslims lead you for 1000 years, will lead you for 100,000 years in future inshallah…. we existed, expanding and will keep growing as force of Lord to beat you ‘force of darkness’…
Yes we admit we will never accept extreme factors in you who burns our brothers in Gujrat! Massacre Kashmiris! and claims of ‘world largest democracy’ … Shame on you all!
Mehmood smashed your high esteemed idol god Somnat! and as you also know history repeats itself….
Quid erat demonstrandum…
Quod erat demonstrandum.
All muslims in India, please note, we will send you back to Pakistan once Narendra Modi comes to power. If you don’t obey, we will simply slaughter you and feed you to pigs.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or actual thinking pattern of a person. If this dude is serious, I guess some asylum for the criminally insane recently got an internet connection.
As another Proud Indian Hindu, I am ashamed of the kind of comment Proud Hindu Nationalist posted. S/he does not represent us nor our thinking.
we should live in brotherhood ; hindus and muslims whether in INDIA or PAKISTAN os BANGLADESH or IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD.
days had have bygone with the advancement of mind and culture. For extremist reasons hatred should not come between the communities. All are secular in India. It is only the politicians are branding other parties as non-secular only for VOTES ; which is neither in the benifit of minorities nor in the benifit of the nation building. It is for sure for the personal gains which we ; as the common public should realise, contest and bring in happier days to both the countries in the years to come.
It seems, the author and most of the comments conflate very basic and fundamental arithmetic, which is majoritarianism and the minority rights. Jinnah struggled for minority rights in undivided India and his 11 August speech must be read in this vein, in continuity, if the subsequent course the country’s history took, it wasn’t that there was something wrong in its idea, but the failure to realize the responsibility of a majority when no longer in minority. Irrespective of whatever is the idea of India, or Pakistan, both the places are not without their share of minority issues. One visit to Juhapura will contradict an idea of India to affirm another India, similarly, something might be contradicting the possibility of a Pakistan? But, if this is the idea of Pakistan, as this scribe perceive it to be, then it has either achieved perfection, or a place of no redemption; then, why this hue and cry? three cheers to Ghaznavi and Tipu!
Yes, Jinnah did advocate minority rights, although doing so solely in the matter of religion and explicitly in the name of Islam greatly undermined his political legacy. Colonial India was a big, complex place, and there were many kinds of minorities and marginalized. There also seems to have been a rather absurd asumption that the majority was some kind of monolith, even on matters of secularism.
I agree with the author that the Pakistan movement has to be questioned for Pakistan to reach peace with itself. However, the creation of Pakistan was about insulating the larger portion of India’s Muslims from the extreme right-wing Hindu elements, who Jinnah and others (correctly) predicted would eventually become a major political force in India. This goal is perfectly understandable, and I am sure if we Hindus were in the position that India’s Muslims found themselves in the 1930s, we might have asked for something similar.
For my Indian compatriots, if you want to understand why Pakistan was created, think of why Tamil Nadu was created, and Maharashtra, and Uttarakhand, and Telangana. Communities need physical and political space, if for nothing else, to unburden their minds from the fear of perpetual domination, and forcible assimilation.
In truth, the main thing that has checked some kind of a Hindutva takeover of India has been the politicization of caste, and the fact that religious minorities make up a significant chunk of the electorate. The secular Constitution, Gandhi’s heroics in Bengal, Nehru’s in UP (assuring Muslims of safety) and Congress’s cohesiveness also stabilized the country in the crucial early stages of the Republic.
But there was no way Jinnah could have known all this in 1945. He diagnosed the problem correctly, and made a forceful case for Pakistan. But he did not have level of control over the League that Gandhi had over the Congress. And once, Pakistan (which meant different things for different people) was obtained, he was pushed aside by the same reactionary forces that he had opposed all his life.
All this being said, it is unlikely that Pakistani Hindus will remain in Pakistan. And the new government in India, whatever party it is, should facilitate their move to India. Perhaps the creation of a new Sindh state, by transferring Daman to Gujarat, and incorporating Diu and nearby areas into a new state will do the trick, and close that chapter of the Partition.
This article by KK Shahid is quite excellent.
The dilemna facing the people of Pakistan is that its culture is most definitely Vedo-Sanskritic; not Arabic. This is evidenced, for example, by the fact that Urdu is grammatically much closer to Hindi than it is to Persian (and is definitely quite ‘remote’ from Arabic).
It is the Arabisation of Pakistan’s Islam that has exacerbated the murderous bigotry of some of its people, which we see today in the form of the Taliban and Lashar-e-taiba etc. The binary nature of this dilemna, on which Pakistan’s immediate future balances on a dangerous knife edge, is whether or not Vedic/Sanskritic Islam can resurge, overcome and defeat the evil and bigoted version of Islam that currently is ‘in power’.
India’s problem is similar. That is why I welcome Modi’s election. India (if not the whole world) must always remain Vedic (not Hindu); the monotheistic Vedic Dharma as espoused by the founder of the Arya Samaj movement, Dayanand Sarasvati, is underpinned by ahimsa (non-hatred and non-violence that begins with strict vegetarianism) and shaanti (peace). Secularism is a dangerous nonsense that is the legacy bequeathed to India by the British imperialists that created Pakistan, using Gandhi – Jinnah alone could not have done it – to father the Islamic state.
In conclusion, Modi is necessary to ensure that the Islam that prevails in India is of its vedo-sanskritic form, and not Arabic. The latter is starting to raise its ugly head in India and so must be crushed.
The dream for India is that that a renaissance of the Vedic Dharma, likewise, results in the purification of India so that Hinduism as we know it now eventually disappears. For this India will need to, as a first step, begin to regard Dayanand as its founding figure (Gandhi as a religious philosopher was a nonentity who India must forget). Only thus, will all of India (and then eventually the whole world) start uniting under one God.