ॐ Hinduu Nation ॐ

Sent: February 24, 2017 11:16 PM

Subject: Fwd: Fw: Why India did not hard-sell the release of 93,000 Pakistan POWs at the Shimla Summit. 1972?

A vital old secret comes out of the mouth of a retired bureaucrat 45 years later.

AAS

Date: Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:43 AM

Subject: Fwd: Fw: Why India did not hard-sell the release of 93,000 Pakistan POWs at the Shimla Summit. 1972?

Why India did not hard-sell the release of 93,000 Pakistan POWs at the Shimla Summit. 1972?

An interesting article for those who may be interested in the history and story of the liberation of Bangladesh.

The untold story of why PM Indira Gandhi decided at the end of the Bangladesh War 0f 1971 not to hard bargain Pakistan on the issue of the release of 93,000 Pak POWs from Indian custody. Handled differently the Pak POWs issue had the potential to achieve the final settlement of the vexed Kashmir problem.

Sashanka S Banerjee

Eight months after the conclusion of the 13-day India-Pakistan War on 16 December 1971, the Shimla Agreement was signed on 2 August 1972 under which India agreed to send back home all the 93,000 Pakistani POWS taken by the Indian Army at the end of the war. India’s decision kicked up a huge controversy in India questioning why Prime Minister Indira Gandhi missed the golden opportunity of not using the POWs to force Pakistan for the settlement of the Kashmir problem. What motivated the PM to do this? What were behind the scene developments? Were there any compelling circumstances which have remained unreported? If there were any, ideally, they should be placed in the public domain as lessons from history, for the benefit of the future generations. Since I was personally privy to these “behind the scene” developments, I can now as a retired Indian diplomat, although more than 40 years after the event, tell the story.

16 December 1971, the day when Pakistan’s Armed Forces laid down their arms in a Surrender Ceremony in Dhaka before the Joint Command of Indian Armed

Forces and the Bangladesh’s Mukti Bahini was the finest hour in the military history

of both the nations, one old and another new.

However, as the Armed Forces of the two countries were celebrating their military victory, against an unrelenting tormentor, over the creation of a newly minted sovereign independent nation, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s mind, in the post-war scenario, was pondering over other critical issues facing India.

Apart from having to cope with the enormous cost of conducting a War, India was faced with the financial burden of having to look after the 10 million refugees who had crossed over to India from East Pakistan fleeing the horrendous atrocities of the Pakistan Army, better known as Bangladesh Genocide of 1971.

The other big challenge, which was diplomatically quite complex involving national

security and foreign policy issues, requiring delicate handling was now the unforeseen and unbudgeted responsibility of having to look after the 93,000 Pakistani soldiers taken as POWs. India wanted to keep the Pakistani soldiers in comfort, over and above, the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

Indira Gandhi’s paramount concern at that moment of time was how to get back the Bangladesh leader Shaikh Mujibur Rahman alive and well.

Mrs Gandhi was prepared to pay any price to save his life. This much the PM confided to,

at least one member of her so-called Kitchen Cabinet. That person was RNK the RAW Chief.

The PM was acutely aware that Mujib was tried by a Military Court when a verdict of death by hanging on charges of treason was handed to the Bangladesh leader. Also as is typical with Pakistan, its security services did not fail to demonstrate its morbidity in the crudest possible terms. In Mujib’s prison cell a 6.5 ft long grave was dug with an overhanging rope with a loop at the end, serving as a warning that he would face a cruel death any moment by hanging on the rope.

It was a nightmare for Mrs. Gandhi to imagine that if the Pakistan Army carried out the death sentence, Bangladesh would emerge as an orphaned state. For India, who supported the Bangladesh Liberation Struggle, heart and soul, it would be an unmitigated disaster, a dream shattered. So, India would leave no stone unturned to save Mujib’s life, for his sake, for the sake of his family, for the sake of Bangladesh and for well-wisher India’s sake.

Meanwhile the defeat in war for Pakistan at the hands of its perceived arch enemy India was seen as an intolerable insult to its nationhood. What was worse Pakistan lost half of its territory to Bangladesh, leaving Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s two-nation theory – the ideological foundation of Pakistan’s existence – in tatters. Stung by this incalculable catastrophe the Military Dictator, General Yahya Khan, in a flash decision, taking full responsibility for the national disaster, stepped down from his office. He asked Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who was still in New York attending UNSC meetings to return home to Islamabad. Bhutto was also informed by General Yahya Khan that he had resigned from his office and that he (Bhutto) was appointed as the Chief Martial Law Administrator of Pakistan. However, before he took his flight for Rawalpindi, Bhutto was instructed that he must call on US President Richard Nixon, Pakistan’s mentor at that time, in Washington DC.

The Grand Finale – an Unlikely Thriller

Bhutto’s Washington-Rawalpindi flight was scheduled for a refueling stop-over at Heathrow Airport in London.

Having secured an insiders information about the details of Bhutto’s return journey home, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi called an Emergency Meeting of the War Cabinet in New Delhi at her office in South Block. The PM wanted with utmost urgency a contact to be established on Bhutto’s arrival at Heathrow Airport in London and explore what information could be gathered about the only one piece of intelligence India was looking for namely: what was Bhutto thinking about Mujibur Rahman on the verdict of the death sentence passed on him by Pakistan’s Military Court?

The meeting was attended by Durga Prasad Dhar, Policy Planning Minister in the Ministry of External Affairs, Ram Nath Kao, Chief of Research and Analysis Wing, (India’s External Intelligence Agency), PN Haksar, Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary and TN Kaul, Foreign Secretary.

It was under PM’s instructions that Muzaffar Hussain (name slightly changed), who was the Chief Secretary of the Government of East Pakistan, the highest level Civil Servant posted in Dhaka as on 16 December 1971 and now a POW in India, considering his high status was lodged as a VIP guest at the official residence of the Foreign Minister DP Dhar. His wife Mrs Laila Hussain who was visiting London when War broke out on 3 December 1971 couldn’t return home and was stuck in London. Both Mr Hussain (from Delhi) and Mrs Hussain (in London) were communicating with each other through Diplomatic Channels. I was assigned the job of a VIP courier. Thanks to several to-ing and fro-ing, I soon established a useful rapport with Mrs Laila Hussain.

The PM was very much aware that Laila Hussain and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto were intimate friends from the past. And their intimacy had remained unbroken. It was felt at the PMO – Prime Minister’s Office – that she was well placed to play a key role in a Bhutto-Laila Hussain

Track-II one-off diplomatic “Summit” at the VIP Lounge – Alcock and Brown Suite at Heathrow Airport.

I had met DP Dhar several times in London during the 9 months from 25 March 1971 to 16 December 1971 when the Bangladesh Liberation Struggle was in progress. It was at that time that we became friends. He was an unassuming refined literary personality extremely well versed in Urdu poetry. My love of Urdu poetry from my days at the Osmania University in Hyderabad was the reason which forged our unlikely friendship despite the huge gap in official hierarchy. DP was a Cabinet Minister and I was a mere bureaucrat.

Just 2 days before Bhutto was to arrive in London I got a telephone call from DP Dhar in Delhi. DP wanted me to inform Laila Hussain that Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was appointed as the Chief Martial Law Administrator of Pakistan and that he was on his way to Islamabad from Washington. His flight would be stopping at Heathrow Airport for refueling. I was supposed to persuade Laila Hussain to meet Bhutto – for old time’s sake – and ask him in his capacity as the Chief Martial Law Administrator, if he could help getting her husband released from Delhi. Laila knew only too well that I was aware that she had a relationship with Zulfiqar Ali in the past. Beyond Laila Hussain’s husband, how the discussions progressed would be a matter of great interest to us. India wanted to know only one thing: what Bhutto was thinking about Mujib: release him to return home or carry out the court verdict.

I succeeded in setting up the meeting. Thus, two long-lost friends Laila Hussain and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto met at the VIP Lounge at Heathrow Airport. The meeting was marked by great cordiality. It was as convivial as could be. Without a doubt, the Track II “Summit” turned out to be a meeting of great historic significance. It was well and truly a thriller, a grand finale to this narrative.

Bhutto was quick on the uptake. As he was replying to Laila Hussain’s emotional appeal for help in getting her husband released from Indian custody, he had measured up that the lady was in fact doing a biding from the highest authority in Delhi.

With a twinkle in his eye and changing the subject, pulling her aside, Bhutto in a whisper conveyed to Laila Hussain a very sensitive top secret message for the Indian PM. Sourced from Mrs Laila Hussain, I quote “Laila I know what you want. I can imagine you are doing a biding from Mrs Indira Gandhi. Do please pass a message to her, that after I take charge of office back home, I will shortly thereafter release Mujibur Rahman, allowing him to return home. What I want in return, I will let Mrs Indira Gandhi know through another channel. You may now go”.

After Laila Hussain briefed me following the meeting, I lost no time in shooting out a confidential message to the PMO in Delhi reporting Laila Hussain’s input.

Not unexpectedly, Mrs Gandhi was pleased that Bhutto had sent out a positive message, although unofficially through a Track II channel, but her suspicion was could ZAB be trusted? The PM was cautiously optimistic but only just? Was Bhutto trying to mislead India? Was he creating a false dawn with a mischievous motive? She wanted a confirmation of Laila Hussain’s input from our Diplomatic Mission in Pakistan as fast as possible. Meanwhile within hours, a report came back from Islamabad confirming the authenticity of Laila Hussain’s report. At this point PM took matters in her own hands elevating the discourse from the level of bureaucracy to the political level.

At her own level the PM had come to know that Mujib would first land in London and then fly from there to Dhaka or may be via Delhi.

Sharing a secret thought with one of the members of her Kitchen Cabinet, she confided that she now had confirmed information what Bhutto wanted from her in return against Mujib’s impending release.

Bhutto had no option but to release Mujib first, the turn of the POWs would come later. Obviously, Bhutto was relying on Mrs Gandhi’s sense of decency that she will not let him down. It was getting clear that Mrs Indira Gandhi had made up her mind. If Bhutto personally asked her for the release of the POWs, she would have no hesitation in agreeing to it. A gesture of generosity must be met with a matching gesture of grace.

No less.

In a show of manufactured geo-political generosity, known in Pakistan as Biryani Diplomacy, over-ruling the verdict of death handed by a Military Court in Rawalpindi,

ZA Bhutto (read ISI) released Mujibur Rahman on 8 January 1972. On his return Mujib took charge as Prime Minister of sovereign independent Bangladesh on 10 January 1972.

Exuding a spirit of genuine gratefulness for sparing the life of Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh’s Father of the Nation, eight months after he was set free, India ordered the release of all 93,000 Pakistani POWs under the Shimla Agreement of 2 August 1972. The world had never known such decency in the conduct of international relations as India had shown to Pakistan on the POW issue.

The brutal assassination of Mujibur Rahman and his family 3 years and 8 months later on

15 August 1975 by a batch of Abbottabad trained Pakistan Army officers who were now holding senior positions in Bangladesh Army, seemed like a belated fulfilment of an unfinished agenda of the ISI to mete out severe punishment on the Bangladesh leader for his role in unravelling the territorial integrity of Pakistan on 16 December 1971. His release from Mianwali Prison on 8 January 1972 was merely a distraction.

From India’s perspective, the vexed Kashmir problem remained unresolved. Pakistan launched an unrelenting proxy war which has lasted 45 years up until this day.

Thousands lost their lives. The blood never dried; the tears have never stopped flowing.

I conclude by what Justice Abu Said Choudhury, who later became the President of Bangladesh, had to say in a strongly worded letter dated 16 December 1971 addressed to Mrs Indira Gandhi warning her of dire consequences if she decided to go for an Unilateral Cease Fire on the Western Front. It would remain, he maintained, a half-finished business of the Bangladesh War. His concluding line was: “When you chop off the tail of a cobra, its head becomes ten times more venomous”.

The letter arrived on the Prime Minister’s desk a day too late.

———————————————————————————————————————

Sashanka S Banerjee was posted as a Diplomat in the Indian Mission in London in 1971-72.

Among other books he has written, he is the author of “India, Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh Liberation & Pakistan: A Political Treatise” published from the US in 2011. He was awarded a State Honor “Friend of Bangladesh Liberation War” in October 2013 by Prime Minister Shaikh Hasina.

———————————————————

This is a ‘forwarded’ mail. Please do not question its authenticity or source.

If forwarding further, please delete my id, and use the BCC field for addressees, to reduce spam, viruses and identity theft. Thanks!

—————————————————————-

From: Rajput < >

 Presidential address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim League 
Lahore, 1940

Ladies and Gentlemen:

[[1]] We are meeting today in our session after fifteen months. The last session of the All-India Muslim League took place at Patna in December 1938. Since then many developments have taken place. I shall first shortly tell you what the All-India Muslim League had to face after the Patna session of 1938. You remember that one of the tasks, which was imposed on us and which is far from completed yet, was to organise Muslim Leagues all over India. We have made enormous progress during the last fifteen months in this direction. I am glad to inform you that we have established provincial leagues in every province. The next point is that in every bye-election to the Legislative Assemblies we had to fight with powerful opponents. I congratulate the Mussalmans for having shown enormous grit and spirit throughout our trials. There was not a single bye-election in which our opponents won against Muslim League candidates. In the last election to the U.P. Council, that is the Upper Chamber, the Muslim League’s success was cent per cent. I do not want to weary you with details of what we have been able to do in the way of forging ahead in the direction of organising the Muslim League. But I may tell you that it is going up by leaps and bounds.

[[2]] Next, you may remember that we appointed a committee of ladies at the Patna session. It is of very great importance to us, because I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to give every opportunity to our women to participate in our struggle of life and death. Women can do a great deal within their homes, even under purdah. We appointed this committee with a view to enable them to participate in the work of the League. The objects of this central committee were: (1) to organise provincial and district women’s sub-committees under the provincial and district Muslim Leagues: (2) to enlist a larger number of women to the membership of the Muslim League: (3) to carryon an intensive propaganda amongst Muslim women throughout India in order to create in them a sense of a greater political consciousness — because if political consciousness is awakened amongst our women, remember your children will not have much to worry about: (4) to advise and guide them in all such matters as mainly rest on them for the uplift of Muslim society. This central committee, I am glad to say, started its work seriously and earnestly. It has done a great deal of useful work. I have no doubt that when we come to deal with their report of work done we shall really feel grateful to them for all the services that they have rendered to the Muslm League.

[[3]] We had many diffkulties to face from January 1939 right up to the declaration of war. We had to face the Vidya Mandir in Nagpur. We had to face the Wardha Scheme all over India. We had to face ill-treatment and oppression to Muslims in the Congress-governed provinces. We had to face the treatment meted out to Muslims in some of the Indian States such as Jaipur and Bhavnagar. We had to face a vital issue that arose in that littlc state of Rajkot. Rajkot was the acid test made by the Congress which would have affected one-third of India. Thus the Muslim League had all along to face various issues from January 1939 up to the time of the declaration of war. Before the war was declared the grratcst danger to the Muslims of India was the possible inauguration of the federal scheme in the central Government. We know what machinations were going on. But the Muslim League was stoutly resisting them in every direction. We felt that we could never accept the dangerous scheme of the central federal Government embodied in the Government of India Act, 1935. I am sure that we have made no small contribution towards persuading the British Government to abandon the scheme of central federal government. In creating that [state of] mind in the British Government, the Muslim League, I have no doubt, played no small part. You know that the British people are very obdurate people. They are also very conservative; and although they are very clever, they are slow in understanding. After the war was declared, the Viceroy naturally wanted help from the Muslim League. It was only then that he realised that the Muslim League was a power. For it will be remembered that up to the time of the declaration of war, the Viceroy never thought of me but of Gandhi and Gandhi alone. I have been the leader of an important party in the Legislature for a considerable time, larger than the one I have the honour to lead at present, the present Muslim League Party in the Central Legislature. Yet the Viceroy never thought of me. Therefore, when I got this invitation from the Viceroy along with Mr. Gandhi, I wondered within myself why I was so suddenly promoted, and then I concluded that the answer was the ‘All-India Muslim League’ whose President I happen to be. I believe that was the worst shock that the Congress High Command received, because it challenged their sole authority to speak on behalf of India. And it is quite clear from the attitude of Mr. Gandhi and the High Command that they have not yet recovered from that shock. My point is that I want you to realise the value, the importance, the significance of organising ourselves. I will not say anything more on the subject.

[[4]] But a great deal yet remains to be done. I am sure from what I can see and hear that the Muslim India is now conscious, is now awake, and the Muslim League has by now grown into such a strong institution that it cannot be destroyed by anybody, whoever he may happen to be. Men may come and men may go, but the League will live for ever.

[[5]] Now, coming to the period after the declaration of war, our position was that we were between the devil and the deep sea. But I do not think that the devil or the deep sea is going to get away with it. Anyhow our position is this. We stand unequivocally for the freedom of India. But it must be freedom of all India and not freedom of one section or, worse still, of the Congress caucus — and slavery of Mussalmans and other minorities.

[[6]] Situated in India as we are, we naturally have our past experiences and particularly the experiences of the past 2 1/2  years of provincial constitution in the Congress-governed provinces. We have learnt many lessons. We are now, therefore, very apprehensive and can trust nobody. I think it is a wise rule for every one not to trust anybody too much. Sometimes we are led to trust people, but when we find in actual experience that our trust has been betrayed, surely that ought to be sufficient lesson for any man not to continue his trust in those who have betrayed him. Ladies and gentlemen, we never thought that the Congress High Command would have acted in the manner in which they actually did in the Congress-governed provinces. I never dreamt that they would ever come down so low as that. I never could believe that there would be a gentleman’s agreement between the Congress and the Government to such an extent that although we cried [ourselves] hoarse, week in and week out, the Governors were supine and the Governor-General was helpless. We reminded them of their special responsibilities to us and to other minorities, and the solemn pledges they had given to us. But all that had become a dead letter. Fortunately, Providence came to our help, and that gentleman’s, agreement was broken to pieces~and the Congress, thank Heaven, went out of office. I think they are regretting their resignations very much. Their bluff was called off [=was called]. So far so good. I therefore appeal to you, in all [the] seriousness that I can command, to organise yourselves in such a way that you may depend upon none except your own inherent strength. That is your only safeguard, and the best safeguard. Depend upon yourselves. That does not mean that we should have ill-will or malice towards others. In order to safeguard your rights and interests you must create that strength in yourselves [such] that you may be able to defend yourselves, That is all that I want to urge.

[[7]] Now, what is our position with regard to [a] future constitution? It is that as soon as circumstances permit, or immediately after the war at the latest, the whole problem of India’s future constitution must be examined de novo and the Act of 1935 must go once for all. We do not believe in asking the British Government to make declarations. These declarations are really of no use. You cannot possibly succeed in getting the British Government out of this country by asking them to make declarations. However, the Congress asked the Viceroy to make a declaration. The Viceroy said, ‘I have made the declaration’. The Congress said, ‘No, no. We want another kind of declaration. You must declare now and at once that India is free and independent with the right to frame its own constitution by a Constituent Assemhly to be elected on the basis of adult franchise or as low a franchise as possihle. This Assembly will of course satisfy the minorities’ legitimate mterests.” Mr. Gandhi says that if the minorities are not satisfied then he is willing that some tribunal of the highest character and most impartial should decide the dispute. Now, apart from the impracticable character of this proposal and quite apart from the fact that it is historically and constitutionally absurd to ask [a] ruling power to abdicate in favour of a Constituent Assembly. Apart from all that, suppose we do not agree as to the franchise according to which the Central Assembly is to be elected, or suppose the the solid body of Muslim representatives do not agree with the non-Muslim majority in the Constituent Assembly, what will happen? It is said that we have no right to disagree with regard to anything that this Assemhly may do in framing a national constitution of this huge sub-continent except those matters which may be germane to the safeguards for the minorities. So we are given the privilege to disagree only with regard to what may be called strictly safe-guards of the rights and interests of minorities. We are also given the privilege to send our own representatives by separate electorates. Now, this proposal is based on the assumption that as soon as this constitution comes into operation the British hand will disappear. Otherwise there will be no meaning in it. Of course, Mr. Gandhi says that the constitution will decide whether the British will disappear, and if so to what extent. In other words, his proposal comes to this: First, give me the declaration that we are a free and independent nation, then I will decide what I should give you back. Does Mr. Gandhi really want the complete independence of India when he talks like this? But whether the British disappear or not, it follows that extensive powers must be transferred to the people. In the event of there being a disagreement between the majority of the Constituent Assembly and the Mussalmans, in the first instance, who will appoint the tribunal? And suppose an agreed tribunal is possible and the award is made and the decision given, who will, may I know, be there to see that this award is implemented or carried out in accordance with the terms of that award? And who will see that it is honoured in practice, because, we are told, the British will have parted with their power mainly or completely? Then what will be the sanction behind the award which will enforce it? We come back to the same answer, the Hindu majority would do it; and will it be with the help of the British bayonet or the Gandhi’s “Ahinsa”? Can we trust them any more? Besides, ladies and gentlemen, can you imagine that a question of this character, of social contract upon which the future constitution of India would be based, affecting 90 million of Mussalmans, can be decided by means of a judicial tribunal? Still, that is the proposal of the Congress.

[[8]] Before I deal with what Mr. Gandhi said a few days ago I shall deal with the pronouncements of some of the other Congress leaders — each one speaking with a different voice. Mr. Rajagopalacharya, the ex-Prime Minister of Madras, says that the only panacea for Hindu-Muslim unity is the joint electorates. That is his prescription as one of the great doctors of the Congress organisation. (Laughter.) Babu Rajendra Prasad, on the other hand, only a few days ago said, “Oh, what more do the Mussalmans want?” I will read to you his words. Referring to the minority question, he says: “If Britain would concede our right of self-determination, surely all these differences would disappear.” How will our differences disappear? He does not explain or enlighten us about it.

“But so long as Britain remains and holds power, the differences would continue to exist. The Congress has made it clear that the future constitution would be framed not by the Congress alone but by representatives of all political parties and religious groups. The Congress has gone further and declared that the minorities can have their representatives elected for this purpose by separate electorates, though the Congress regards separate electorates as an evil. It will be representative of all the peoples of this country, irrespective of their religion and political affiliations, who will be deciding the future constitution of India, and not this or that party. What better guarantees can the minorities have?”

[[9]] And this is now what Mr. Gandhi said on the 20th of March, 1940. He says: “To me,  Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Harijans, are all alike. I cannot be frivolous” — but I think he is frivolous — “I cannot be frivolous when I talk of Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah. He is my brother.” The only difference is this that brother Gandhi has three votes and I have only one vote. (Laughter.) “I would be happy indeed if he could keep me in his pocket.” I do not know really what to say of this latest offer of his. “There was a time when I could say that there was no Muslim whose confidence I did not enjoy. It is my misfortune that it is not so today.” Why has he lost the confidence of the Muslims today? May I ask, ladies and gentlemen? “I do not read all that appears in the Urdu Press, but perhaps I get a lot of abuse there. I am not sorry for it. I still believe that without Hindu­Muslim settlement there can be no Swaraj.” Mr. Gandhi has been saying this now for the last 20 years. “You will perhaps ask in that case why do I talk of a fight. I do so because it is to be a fight for a Constituent Assembly.”

[[10] He is fighting the British. But may I point out to Mr. Gandhi and the Congress that you are fighting for a Constituent Assembly which the Muslims say they cannot accept; which, the Muslims say, means three to one; about which the Mussalmans say that they will never be able, in that way by the counting of head, to come to any agreenwnt which will be real agreement from the hearts, which will enable us to work as friends; and therefore this idea of a Constituent Assembly is objectionable, apart from other objections. But he is fighting for the Constituent Assembly, not fighting the Mussalmans at all! He says, “I do so because it is to be a fight for a Constituent Assembly. If Muslims who come to the Constituent Assembly” — mark the words, “who come to the Constituent Assembly through Muslim votes” — he is first forcing us to come to that Assembly, and then says — “declare that there is nothing common between Hindus and Muslims, then alone I would give up all hope, but even then I would agree with them because they read the Quran and I have also studied something of that holy Book.” (Laughter.)

[[11]] So he wants the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the Mussalmans; and if they do not agree then he will give up all hopes, but even then he will agree with us. (Laughter.) Well, I ask you. ladies and gentlemen, is this the way to show any real genuine desire, if there existed any, to come to a settlement with the Mussalmans? (Voices of no, no.) Why does not Mr. Gandhi agree, and.I have suggested to him more than once and I repeat it again from this platform, why does not Mr. Gandhi honestly now acknowledge that the Congress is a Hindu Congress, that he does not represent anybody except the solid body of Hindu people? Why should not Mr. Gandhi be proud to say. “I am a Hindu. Congress has solid Hindu backing”? I am not ashamed of saying that I am a Mussalman. (Hear, hear and applause.) I am right and I hope and I think even a blind man must have been convinced by now that the Muslim League has the solid backing of the Mussalmans of India (Hear, hear.) Why then all this camouflage? Why all these machinations? Why all these methods to coerce the British to overthrow the Mussalmans? Why this declaration of non-cooperation? Why this threat of civil disobedience? And why fight for a Constituent Assembly for the sake of ascertaining whether the Mussalmans agree or they do not agree? (Hear, hear.) Why not come as a Hindu leader proudly representing your people, and let me meet you proudly representing the Mussalmans? (Hear, hear and applause.) This all that I have to say so far as the Congress is concerned.

[[12]] So far as the British Government is concerned, our negotiations are not concluded yet, as you know. We had asked for assurances on several points. At any rate, we have made some advance with regard to one point and that is this. You remember our demand was that the entire problem of [the] future constitution of India should be examined de novo, apart from the Government of India Act of 1935. To that the Viceroy’s reply, with the authority of His Majesty’s Government, was — I had better quote that — I will not put it in my own words: This is the reply that was sent to us on the 23rd of December. “My answer to your first question is that the declaration I made with the approval of His Majesty’s Government on October the 13th last does not exclude — Mark the words —  “does not exclude examination of any part either of the Act of 1935 or of the policy and plans on which it is based.” (Hear, hear.)

[[13]] As regards other matters, we are still negotiating and the most important points are: (1) that no declaration should be made by His Majesty’s Government with regard to the future constitution of India without our approval and consent (Hear, hear, and applause) and that no settlement of any question should be made with any party behind our back (Hear, hear) unless our approval and consent is given to it. Well, ladies and gentlemen, whether the British Government in their wisdom agree to give us that assurance or not, but. I trust that they will still see that it is a fair and just demand when we say that we cannot leave the future fate and the destiny of 90 million of people in the hands of any other judge. –We and we alone wish to be the final arbiter. Surely that is a just demand. We do not want that the British Government should thrust upon the Mussalmans a constitution which they do not approve of and to which they do not agree. Therefore the British Government will be well advised to give that assurance and give the Mussalmans complete peace and confidence in this matter and win their friendship. But whether they do that or not, after all, as I told you before, we must depend on our own inherent strength; and I make it plain from this platform, that if any declaration is made, if any interim settlement is made without our approval and without our consent, the Mussalmans of India will resist it. (Hear, hear and applause.) And no mistake should be made on that score.

[[14]] Then the next point was with regard to Palestine. We are told that endeavours, earnest endeavours, are being made to meet the reasonable, national demands, of the Arabs. Well, we cannot be satisfied by earnest endeavours, sincere endeavours, best endeavours. (Laughter.) We want that the British Government should in fact and actually meet the demands of the Arabs in Palestine. (Hear, hear.)

[[15]] Then the next point was with regard to the sending of the troops. Here there is some misunderstanding. But anyhow we have made our position clear that we never intended, and in fact language does not justify it if there is any misapprehension or apprehension, that the Indian troops should not be used to the fullest in the defence of our own country. What we wanted the British Government to give us assurance of was that Indian troops should not be sent against any Muslim country or any Muslim power. (Hear, hear.) Let us hope that we may yet be able to get the British Government to clarify the position further.

[[16]] This, then, is the position with regard to the British Government. The last meeting of the Working Committee had asked the Viceroy to reconsider his letter of the 23rd of December, having regard to what has been explained to him in pursuance of the resolution of the Working Committee dated the 3rd of February; and we are informed that the matter is receiving his careful consideration. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is where we stand after the War and up to the 3rd of February.

[[17]] As far as our internal position is concerned, we have also been examining it, and you know. there are several schemes which have been sent by various well-informed constitutionalists and others who take interest with [=are interested in the] problem of India’s future Constitution; and we have also appointed a sub­committee to examine the details of the schemes that have come in so far. But one thing is quite clear: it has always been taken for granted mistakenly that the Mussalmans are a minority, and of course we have got used to it for such a long time that these settled notions sometimes are very difficult to remove. The Mussalmans are not a minority. The Mussalmans are a nation by any definition. The British and particularly the Congress proceed on the hasis, “Well, you are a minority after all, what do you want!” “What else do the minorities want?” just as Babu Rajendra Prasad said. But surely the Mussalmans are not a minority. We find that even according to the British map of India we occupy large parts of this country where the Mussalmans are in a majority, such as Bengal, Punjab, N.W.F.P., Sind, and Baluchistan.

[[18]] Now the question is, what is the solution of this prohlem between the Hindus and the Mussalmans? We have been considering, and as I have already said, a committee has been appointed to consider the various proposals. But whatever the final scheme of constitution, I will present to you my views, and I will just read to you in confirmation of what I am going  to put before you, a letter from Lala Lajpat Rai to Mr. C. R. Das. It was written, I believe, about 12 or 15 years ago, and that letter has been produced in a book recently published by one Indra Prakash, and that is how this letter has come to light. This is what Lala Lajpat Rai, a very astute politician and a staunch Hindu Mahasabite, said. But before I read his letter it is plain from [it] that you cannot get away from being a Hindu if you are a Hindu. (Laughter.) The word ‘nationalist’ has now become the play of conjurers in politics. This is what he says:

“There is one point more which has been troubling me very much of late and one [about] which I want you to think carefully and that is the question of Hindu-Muhammadan unity. I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim law and I am inclined to think it is neither possible nor practicable. Assuming and admitting the sincerity of Mohammadan leaders in the non-cooperation movement I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind.”You remember the conversation I reported to you in Calcutta which I had with Hakim Ajmal Khan and Dr. Kitchlew. There is no finer Muhammadan in Hindustan than Hakim Ajmal Khan, but can any Muslim leader over-ride the Quran? I can only hope that my reading of Islamic law is incorrect.

“And nothing would relieve me more than to be convinced that it is so. But if it is right then it comes to this, that although we can unite against the British we cannot do so to rule Hindustan on British lines. We cannot do so to rule Hindustan on democratic lines.”

[[19]] Ladies and gentlemen, when Lala Lajpat Rai said that we cannot rule this country on democratic lines it was all right; but when I had the temerity to speak the same truth about eighteen months ago, there was a shower of attacks and criticism. But Lala Lajpat Rai said fifteen years ago that we cannot do so — viz., rule Hindustan on democratic lines. What is the remedy? The remedy, according to Congress, is to keep us in the minority and under the majority rule. Lala Lajpat Rai proceeds further:

“What is then the remedy? I am not afraid of the seven crores [=70 million] of Mussalmans. But I think the seven crores in Hindustan plus the armed hordes of Afghanistan, Central Asia, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Turkey, will be irresistible.” (Laughter.)”I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders. But what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis? The leaders cannot over-ride them. Are we then doomed? I hope not. I hope your learned mind and wise head will find some way out of this difficulty.”

[[20]] Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is merely a letter written by one great Hindu leader to another great Hindu leader fifteen years ago. Now, I should like to put before you my views on the subject as it strikes me, taking everything into consideration at the present moment. The British Govemment and Parliament, and more so the British nation, have been for many decades past brought up and nurtured with settled notions about India’s future, based on developments in their own country which has built up the British constitution, functioning now through the Houses of Parliament and the system of [the] cabinet. Their concept of party government functioning on political planes has become the ideal with them as the best form. of government for every country, and the one-sided and powerful propaganda, which naturally appeals to the British, has led them into a serious blunder, in producing a constitution envisaged in the Government of India Act of 1935. We find that the most leading statesmen of Great Britain, saturated with these notions, have in their pronouncements seriously asserted and expressed a hope that the passage of time will harmonise the inconsistent elements in India.

[[21]] A leading journal like the London Times, commenting on the Government of India Act of 1935, wrote that “Undoubtedly the difference between the Hindus and Muslims is not of religion in the strict sense of the word but also of law and culture, that they may be said indeed to represent two entirely distinct and separate civilisations. However, in the course of time the. superstitions will die out and India will be moulded into a single nation.” (So according to the London Times the only difficulties are superstitions). These fundamental and deep-rooted differences, spiritual, economic, cultural, social, and political havc been euphemised as mere “superstitions.” But surely it is a flagrant disregard of the past history of the sub-continent of India, as well as the fundamental Islamic conception of society vis-a-vis that of Hinduism, to characterise them as mere “superstitions.” Notwithstanding [a] thousand years of close contact, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into onc nation merely by means of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly togdher by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliamentary statutes. What the unitary government of India for one hundred fifty years had failcd to achieve cannot be realiscd by the imposition of a central federal government. It is inconceivable that the fiat or the writ of a government so constituted can ever command a willing and loyal obedience throughout the sub-continent by various nationalities, except by means of armed force behind it.

[[22]] The problem in India is not of an inter-communal character, but manifestly of an international one, and it must be treated as such. So long as this basic and fundamental truth is not realised, any constitution that may be built will result in disaster and will prove destructive and harmful not only to the Mussalmans, but to the British and Hindus also. If the British Government are really in earnest and sincere to secure [the] peace and happiness of the people of this sub-continent, the only course open to us all is to allow the major nations separate homelands by dividing India into “autonomous national states.” There is no reason why these states should be antagonistic to each other. On the other hand, the rivalry, and the natural desire and efforts on the part of one to dominate the social order and establish political supremacy over the other in the government of the country, will disappear. It will lead more towards natural goodwill by international pacts between them, and they can live in complete harmony with their neighbours. This will lead further to a friendly settlement all the more easily with regard to minorities, by reciprocal arrangements and adjustments between Muslim India and Hindu India, which will far more adequately and effectively safeguard the rights and interests of Muslim and various other minorities.

[[23]] It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.

[[24]] History has presented to us many examples, such as the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the sub-continent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many states as there are nations inhabiting them. [The] Balkan Peninsula comprises as many as seven or eight sovereign states. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula. Whereas under the plea of unity of India and one nation which does not exist, it is sought to pursue here the line of one central government, when we know that the history of the last twelve hundred years has failed to achieve unity and has witnessed, during these ages, India always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India. The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet, but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His Majesty’s Government, will be the herald of the entire break-up, with worse disaster than has ever taken place during the last one thousand years under the Muslims. Surely that is not the legacy which Britain would bequeath to India after one hundred fifty years of her rule, nor would Hindu and Muslim India risk such a sure catastrophe.

[[25]] Muslim India cannot accept any constitution which must necessarily result in a Hindu majority government. Hindus and Muslims brought together under a democratic system forced upon the minorities can only mean Hindu Raj. Democracy of the kind with which the Congress High Command is enamoured would mean the complete destruction of what is most precious in Islam. We have had ample experience of the working of the provincial constitutions during the last two and a half years, and any repetItion of such a government must lead to civil war and [the] raising of private armies, as recommended by Mr. Gandhi to [the] Hindus of Sukkur when he said that they must defend themselves violently or non-violently, blow for blow, and if they could not they must emigrate.

[[26]] Mussalmans are not a minority as it is commonly known and understood. One has only got to look round. Even today, according to the British map of India, out of eleven provinces, four provinces where the Muslims dominate more or less, are functioning notwithstanding the decision of the Hindu Congress High Command to non-cooperate and prepare for civil disobedience. Mussalmans are a nation according to any defmition of a nation, and they must have their homelands, their territory, and their state. We wish to live in peace and harmony with our neighbours as a free and independent people. We wish our people to develop to the fullest our spiritual, cultural, economic, social, and political life, in a way that we think best and in consonance with our own ideals and according to the genius of our people. Honesty demands [that we find], and [the] vital interest[s] of millions of our people impose a sacred duty upon us to find, an honourable and peaceful solution, which would be just and fair to all. But at the same time we cannot be moved or diverted from our purpose and objective by threats or intimidations. We must be prepared to face all difficulties and consequences, make all the sacrifices that may be required of us, to achieve the goal we have set in front of us.

[[27]]  Ladies and gentlemen, that is the task before us. I fear I have gone beyond my time limit. There are many things that I should like to tell you, but I have already published a little pamphlet containing most of thc things that I have said and I have been saying, and I think you can easily get that publication both in English and in Urdu from the League Office. It might give you a clearer idea of our aims. It contains very important resolutions of the Muslim League and various other statements. Anyhow, I have placed before you the task that lies ahead of us. Do you realise how big and stupendous it is? Do you realise that you cannot get freedom or independence by mere arguments? I should appeal to the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia in all countries in the world have been the pioneers of any movements for freedom. What does the Muslim intelligentsia propose to do? I may tell you that unless you get this into your blood, unless you are prepared to take off your coats and are willing to sacrifice all that you can and work selflessly, earnestly, and sincerely for your people, you will never realise your aim. Friends, I therefore want you to make up your mind definitely ,and then think of devices and organise your people, strengthen your organisation, and consolidate the Mussalmans all over India. I think that the masses are wide awake. They only want your guidance and your lead. Come forward as servants of Islam. organise the people economically, socially, educationally, and politically, and I am sure that you will be a power that will be accepted by everybody. (Cheers.) 

From: Mohan Alok < >

Some Quotes from modern historians

Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:

“There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.

The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526).”

He also writes in his book “Negation in India”:

“The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.”

Will Durant have argued in his 1935 book “The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage” (page 459):

“The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.”

Francois Gautier in his book ‘Rewriting Indian History’ (1996) wrote:

“The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese.”

Writer Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations (1995), that Islamic rule in India as a

“colonial experiment” was “extremely violent”, and “the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm – burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion, there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burnt, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves.”

Alain Danielou in his book, Histoire de l’ Inde writes:

“From the time, Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of ‘a holy war’ of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races.”

Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

“While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

Mughals hacking children apart, wax statue reenactment in India.

Islamic methods of punishment in India.

“Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage…”

A sample of contemporary eyewitness accounts of the invaders and rulers, during the Indian conquests

The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 – 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ – written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns: “The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river…but many of them were slain, taken or drowned… Nearly fifty thousand men were killed.”

In the contemporary record – ‘Taj-ul-Ma’asir’ by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko – Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.

The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book ‘Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar’ that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twenty thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.

http://ancientindia.co.in/some-quotes-from-modern-historians/

From: Pramod Agrawal < >

वीर शिवाजी जी मुस्लिम नीति एवं औरंगज़ेब की धर्मान्धता- एक तुलनात्मक अध्ययन 

महाराष्ट्र के पुणे से सोशल मीडिया में शिवाजी को अपमानित करने की मंशा से उनका चित्र डालना और उसकी प्रतिक्रिया में एक इंजीनियर की हत्या इस समय की सबसे प्रचलित खबर हैं। दोषी कौन हैं और उन्हें क्या दंड मिलना चाहिए यह तो न्यायालय तय करेगा जिसमें हमारी पूर्ण आस्था हैं। परन्तु सत्य यह हैं की जो लोग गलती कर रहे हैं वे शिवाजी की मुस्लिम नीति, उनकी न्यायप्रियता, उनकी निष्पक्षता, उनकी निरपराधी के प्रति संवेदना से परिचित नहीं हैं। सबसे अधिक विडंबना का कारण इतिहास ज्ञान से शुन्य होना हैं।  मुस्लिम समाज के कुछ सदस्य शिवाजी की इसलिए विरोध करते हैं क्यूंकि उन्हें यह बताया गया हैं की शिवाजी ने औरंगज़ेब जिसे आलमगीर अर्थात इस्लाम का रखवाला भी कहा जाता था का विरोध किया था। शिवाजी ने औरंगज़ेब की मध्य भारत से पकड़ ढीली कर दी जिसके कारण उनके कई किले और इलाकें उनके हाथ से निकल गए। यह सब घंटनाएँ ३०० वर्ष से भी पहले हुई और इनके कारण लोग अभी भी संघर्ष कर रहे हैं। यह संघर्ष इस्लामिक साम्राज्यवाद की उस मानसिकता का वह पहलु हैं जिसके कारण भारत देश में पैदा होने वाला मुसलमान जिसके पूर्वज हिन्दू थे जिन्हे कभी बलात इस्लाम में दीक्षित किया गया था, आज भारतीय होने से अधिक इस्लामिक सोच, इस्लामिक पहनावे, इस्लामिक खान-पान, अरब की भूमि से न केवल अधिक प्रभावित हैं अपितु उसे आदर्श भी मानता हैं। सत्य इतिहास के गर्भ में हैं की औरंगज़ेब कितना इस्लाम की शिक्षाओं के निकट था और शिवाजी का मुसलमानों के प्रति व्यवहार कैसा था। दोनों की तुलना करने से उत्तर स्पष्ट सिद्ध हो जायेगा।
औरंगजेब द्वारा हिन्दू मंदिरों को तोड़ने के लिए जारी किये गए फरमानों का कच्चाचिट्ठा

 १. १३ अक्तूबर,१६६६- औरंगजेब ने मथुरा के केशव राय मंदिर से नक्काशीदार जालियों को जोकि उसके बड़े भाई दारा शिको द्वारा भेंट की गयी थी को तोड़ने का हुक्म यह कहते हुए दिया की किसी भी मुसलमान के लिए एक मंदिर की तरफ देखने तक की मनाही हैंऔर दारा शिको ने जो किया वह एक मुसलमान के लिए नाजायज हैं। 
 २. ३,१२ सितम्बर १६६७- औरंगजेब के आदेश पर दिल्ली के प्रसिद्द कालकाजी मंदिर को तोड़ दिया गया।  
३. ९ अप्रैल १६६९ को मिर्जा राजा जय सिंह अम्बेर की मौत के बाद औरंगजेब के हुक्म से उसके पूरे राज्य में जितने भी हिन्दू मंदिर थे उनको तोड़ने का हुक्म दे दिया गया और किसी भी प्रकार की हिन्दू पूजा पर पाबन्दी लगा दी गयी जिसके बाद केशव देव राय के मंदिर को तोड़ दिया गया और उसके स्थान पर मस्जिद बना दी गयी।  मंदिर की मूर्तियों को तोड़ कर आगरा लेकर जाया गया और उन्हें मस्जिद की सीढियों में दफ़न करदिया गया और मथुरा का नाम बदल कर इस्लामाबाद कर दिया गया।  इसके बाद औरंगजेब ने गुजरात में सोमनाथ मंदिर का भी विध्वंश कर दिया। 
 ४. ५ दिसम्बर १६७१ औरंगजेब के शरीया को लागु करने के फरमान से गोवर्धन स्थित श्री नाथ जी की मूर्ति को पंडित लोग मेवाड़ राजस्थान के सिहाद गाँव ले गए जहाँ के राणा जी ने उन्हें आश्वासन दिया की औरंगजेब की इस मूर्ति तक पहुँचने से पहले एक लाख वीर राजपूत योद्धाओं को मरना पड़ेगा। 
५. २५ मई १६७९ को जोधपुर से लूटकर लाई गयी मूर्तियों के बारे में औरंगजेब ने हुकुम दिया की सोने-चाँदी-हीरे से सज्जित मूर्तियों को जिलालखाना में सुसज्जित कर दिया जाये और बाकि मूर्तियों को जमा मस्जिद की सीढियों में गाड़ दिया जाये। 
 ६ . २३ दिसम्बर १६७९ औरंगजेब के हुक्म से उदयपुर के महाराणा झील के किनारे बनाये गए मंदिरों को तोड़ा गया।  महाराणा के महल के सामने बने जगन्नाथ के मंदिर को मुट्ठी भर वीर राजपूत सिपाहियों ने अपनी बहादुरी से बचा लिया। 
 ७ . २२ फरवरी १६८० को औरंगजेब ने चित्तोड़ पर आक्रमण कर महाराणा कुम्भा द्वाराबनाएँ गए ६३ मंदिरों को तोड़ डाला। 
८. १ जून १६८१ औरंगजेब ने प्रसिद्द पूरी का जगन्नाथ मंदिर को तोड़ने का हुकुम दिया। 
९. १३ अक्टूबर १६८१ को बुरहानपुर में स्थित मंदिर को मस्जिद बनाने का हुकुमऔरंगजेब द्वारा दिया गया। 
१०. १३ सितम्बर १६८२ को मथुरा के नन्द माधव मंदिर को तोड़ने का हुकुम औरंगजेब द्वारा दिया गया। इस प्रकार अनेक फरमान औरंगजेब द्वारा हिन्दू मंदिरों को तोड़ने के लिए जारी किये गए।


हिन्दुओं पर औरंगजेब द्वारा अत्याचार करना 


२ अप्रैल १६७९ को औरंगजेब द्वारा हिन्दुओं पर जजिया कर लगाया गया जिसका हिन्दुओं ने दिल्ली में बड़े पैमाने पर शांतिपूर्वक विरोध किया परन्तु उसे बेरहमी से कुचल दिया गया।  इसके साथ-साथ मुसलमानों को करों में छूट दे दी गयी जिससे हिन्दू अपनी निर्धनता और कर न चूका पाने की दशा में इस्लाम ग्रहण कर ले। १६ अप्रैल १६६७ को औरंगजेब ने दिवाली के अवसर पर आतिशबाजी चलाने से और त्यौहार बनाने से मना कर दिया गया। इसके बाद सभी सरकारी नौकरियों से हिन्दू क्रमचारियों को निकाल कर उनके स्थान पर मुस्लिम क्रमचारियों की भरती का फरमान भी जारी कर दिया गया।  हिन्दुओं को शीतला माता, पीर प्रभु आदि के मेलों में इकठ्ठा न होने का हुकुम दिया गया। हिन्दुओं को पालकी, हाथी, घोड़े की सवारी की मनाई कर दी गयी। कोई हिन्दू अगर इस्लाम ग्रहण करता तो उसे कानूनगो बनाया जाता और हिन्दू पुरुष को इस्लाम ग्रहण करनेपर ४ रुपये और हिन्दू स्त्री को २ रुपये मुसलमान बनने के लिए दिए जाते थे। ऐसे न जाने कितने अत्याचार औरंगजेब ने हिन्दू जनता पर किये और आज उसी द्वारा जबरन मुस्लिम बनाये गए लोगों के वंशज उसका गुण गान करते नहीं थकते हैं।

वीर शिवाजी द्वारा औरंगज़ेब को पत्र लिखकर उसके अत्याचारों के प्रति आगाह करना


वीर शिवाजी ने हिन्दुओं की ऐसी दशा को देखकर व्यथित मन से औरंगजेब को उसके अत्याचारों से अवगत करने के लिए एक पत्र लिखा था। इस पत्र को सर जदुनाथ सरकार अपने शब्दों में तार्किक, शांत प्रबोधन एवं राजनितिक सूझ बुझ से बुना गया बताया हैं।
वीर शिवाजी लिखते हैं की सभी जगत के प्राणी ईश्वर की संतान  हैं। कोई भी राज्य तब उन्नति करता हैं जब उसके सभी सदस्य सुख शांति एवं सुरक्षा की भावना से वहाँ पर निवास करते हैं। इस्लाम अथवा हिन्दू एक ही सिक्के के दो पहलु हैं। कोई मस्जिद में पूजा करता हैं , कोई मंदिर में पूजा करता हैं पर सभी उस एक ईश्वर की पूजा करते हैं। यहाँ तक की कुरान में भी उसी एक खुदा या ईश्वर के विषय में कहा गया हैं जो केवल मुसलमानों का खुदा नहीं हैं बल्कि सभी का खुदा हैं। मुग़ल राज्य में जजिया एक नाजायज़, अविवेकपूर्ण, अनुपयुक्त अत्याचार हैं जो तभी उचित होता जब राज्य की प्रजा सुरक्षित एवं सुखी होती पर सत्य यह हैं की हिन्दुओं पर जबरदस्ती जजिया के नाम पर भारी कर लगाकर उन्हें गरीब से गरीब बनाया जा रहा हैं। धरती के सबसे अमीर सम्राट के लिए गरीब भिखारियों, साधुओं ,ब्राह्मणों, अकाल पीड़ितो पर कर लगाना अशोभनीय हैं।मच्छर और मक्खियों को मारना कोई बहादुरी का काम नहीं हैं।
अगर औरंगजेब में कोई वीरता हैं तो उदयपुर के राणा और इस पत्र के लेखक से जजिया वसूल कर दिखाए।  
अपने अहंकार और धर्मान्धता में चूर औरंगजेब ने शिवाजी के पत्र का कोई उत्तर न दिया पर शिवाजी ने एक ऐसी जन चेतना और अग्नि प्रजलवित कर दी थी जिसको बुझाना आसान नहीं था।
वीर शिवाजी हिन्दू धर्म के लिए उतने ही समर्पित थे जितना औरंगजेब इस्लाम के लिए समर्पित था परन्तु दोनों में एक भारी भेद था।
शिवाजी अपने राज्य में किसी भी धर्म अथवा मत को मानने वालों पर किसी भी का अत्याचार करते थे एवं उन्हें अपने धर्म को मानने में किसी भी प्रकार की कोई मनाही नहीं थी।

इस्लाम के विषय में शिवाजी की निति


१. अफजल खान को मरने के बाद उसके पूना, इन्दापुर, सुपा, बारामती आदि इलाकों पर शिवाजी का राज स्थापित हो गया। एक ओर तो अफजल खान ने धर्मान्धता में तुलजापुर और पंडरपुर के मंदिरों का संहार किया था दूसरी और शिवाजी ने अपने अधिकारीयों को सभी मंदिर के साथ साथ मस्जिदों को भी पहले की ही तरह दान देने की आज्ञा जारी की थी।

२. बहुत कम लोगों को यह ज्ञात हैं की औरंगजेब ने स्वयं शिवाजी को चार बार अपने पत्रों में इस्लाम का संरक्षक बताया था। ये पत्र १४ जुलाई १६५९, २६ अगस्त एवं २८ अगस्त १६६६ एवं ५ मार्च १६६८ को लिखे गए थे। (सन्दर्भ Raj Vlll, 14,15,16 Documents )

३. डॉ फ्रायर ने कल्याण जाकर शिवाजी की धर्म निरपेक्ष नीति की अपने लेखों में प्रशंसा की हैं। Fryer, Vol I, p. 41n

४. ग्रांट डफ़ लिखते हैं की शिवाजी ने अपने जीवन में कभी भी मुस्लिम सुल्तान द्वारा दरगाहों ,मस्जिदों , पीर मज़ारों आदि को दिए जाने वाले दान को नहीं लूटा। सन्दर्भ History of the Mahrattas, p 104

५. डॉ दिल्लों लिखते हैं की वीर शिवाजी को उस काल के सभी राज नीतिज्ञों में सबसे उदार समझा जाता था।सन्दर्भ Eng.Records II,348

६. शिवाजी के सबसे बड़े आलोचकों में से एक खाफी खाँ जिसने शिवाजी की मृत्यु पर यह लिखा था की अच्छा हुआ एक काफ़िर का भार धरती से कम हुआ भी शिवाजी की तारीफ़ करते हुए अपनी पुस्तक के दुसरे भाग के पृष्ठ 110 पर लिखता हैं की शिवाजी का आम नियम था की कोई मनुष्य मस्जिद को हानि न पहुँचायेगा , लड़की को न छेड़े , मुसलमानों के धर्म की हँसी न करे तथा उसको जब कभी कही कुरान हाथ आता तो वह उसको किसी न किसी मुस्लमान को दे देता था। औरतों का अत्यंत आदर करता था और उनको उनके रिश्तेदारों के पास पहुँचा देता था। अगर कोई लड़की हाथ आती तो उसके बाप के पास पहुँचा देता। लूट खसोट में गरीबों और काश्तकारों की रक्षा करता था। ब्राह्मणों और गौ के लिए तो वह एक देवता था। यद्यपि बहुत से मनुष्य उसको लालची बताते हैं परन्तु उसके जीवन के कामों को देखने से विदित हो जाता हैं की वह जुल्म और अन्याय से धन इकठ्ठा करना अत्यंत नीच समझता था।
सन्दर्भ लाला लाजपत राय कृत छत्रपती शिवाजी पृष्ठ 132 ,संस्करण चतुर्थ, संवत 1983

७. शिवाजी जंजिरा पर विजय प्राप्त करने के लिए केलशी के मुस्लिम बाबा याकूत से आशीर्वाद तक मांगने गए थे।
सन्दर्भ – Vakaskar,91 Q , bakshi p.130
८. शिवाजी ने अपनी सेना में अनेक मुस्लिमों को रोजगार दिया था।

१६५० के पश्चात बीजापुर, गोलकोंडा, मुग़लों की रियासत से भागे अनेक मुस्लिम , पठान व फारसी सैनिकों को विभिन्न ओहदों पर शिवाजी द्वारा रखा गया था जिनकी धर्म सम्बन्धी आस्थायों में किसी भी प्रकार का हस्तक्षेप नहीं किया जाता था और कई तो अपनी मृत्यु तक शिवाजी की सेना में ही कार्यरत रहे। कभी शिवाजी के विरोधी रहे सिद्दी संबल ने शिवाजी की अधीनता स्वीकार कर की थी और उसके पुत्र सिद्दी मिसरी ने शिवाजी के पुत्र शम्भा जी की सेना में काम किया था। शिवाजी की दो टुकड़ियों के सरदारों का नाम इब्राहीम खान और दौलत खान था जो मुग़लों के साथ शिवाजी के युद्ध में भाग लेते थे। क़ाज़ी हैदर के नाम से शिवाजी के पास एक मुस्लिम था जो की ऊँचे ओहदे पर था। फोंडा के किले पर अधिकार करने के बाद शिवाजी ने उसकी रक्षा की जिम्मेदारी एक मुस्लिम फौजदार को दी थी। बखर्स के अनुसार जब आगरा में शिवाजी को कैद कर लिया गया था तब उनकी सेवा में एक मुस्लिम लड़का भी था जिसे शिवाजी के बच निकलने का पूरा वृतांत मालूम था। शिवाजी के बच निकलने के पश्चात उसे अत्यंत मार मारने के बाद भी स्वामी भक्ति का परिचय देते हुए अपना मुँह कभी नहीं खोला था। शिवाजी के सेना में कार्यरत हर मुस्लिम सिपाही चाहे किसी भी पद पर हो , शिवाजी की न्याय प्रिय एवं सेक्युलर नीति के कारण उनके जीवन भर सहयोगी बने रहे।
सन्दर्भ Shivaji the great -Dr Bal Kishan vol 1 page 177

शिवाजी सर्वदा इस्लामिक विद्वानों और पीरों की इज्ज़त करते थे। उन्हें धन,उपहार आदि देकर सम्मानित करते थे। उनके राज्य में हिन्दू-मुस्लिम के मध्य किसी भी प्रकार का कोई भेद नहीं था। जहाँ हिन्दुओं को मंदिरों में पूजा करने में कोई रोक टोक नहीं थी वहीँ मुसलमानों को मस्जिद में नमाज़ अदा करने से कोई भी नहीं रोकता था। किसी दरगाह, मस्जिद आदि को अगर मरम्मत की आवश्यकता होती तो उसके लिए राज कोष से धन आदि का सहयोग भी शिवाजी द्वारा दिया जाता था। इसीलिए शिवाजी के काल में न केवल हिन्दू अपितु अनेक मुस्लिम राज्यों से मुस्लिम भी शिवाजी के राज्य में आकर बसे थे।

शिवाजी की मुस्लिम नीति और न्याप्रियता  की जीती जागती मिसाल हैं। पाठक मुस्लिम परस्त औरंगज़ेब की धर्मांध नीति एवं न्यायप्रिय शिवाजी की धर्म नीति में भेद को भली प्रकार से समझ सकते हैं। फिर भी मुस्लिम समाज के कुछ सदस्य औरंगज़ेब के पैरोकार बने  फिरते हैं और शिवाजी की आलोचना करते घूमते हैं। सत्य के दर्शन होने पर सत्य को स्वीकार करने वाला जीवन में प्रगति करता हैं।

डॉ विवेक आर्य