Why I won’t celebrate India’s independence

Why I won't celebrate India's independence

By Tarek Fatah, Toronto Sun

First posted: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 05:33 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 05:50 PM EDT


Aug. 15 will mark India's 70th anniversary as a free country. That was the day in 1947 when it emerged from its long, dark, winter of almost 1,000 years of foreign rule.

The first invasion of India, with the intent of permanent occupation and destruction of its Hindu ethos, was made by the Arabs in AD 710.

After that came Afghan, Turkic and Central Asian barbarians who committed untold horrors on a largely civilized and peaceful people.

India still lives with the scars of these invasions, but more on that later.

From the 16th century onwards, it was the turn of the Europeans, who ostensibly came for trade, but reduced India from being one of the most prosperous places on earth, to one of the poorest.

First came the Portuguese, followed by the Dutch, French and finally the British Raj, that lasted 200 years. India's independence 70 years ago came at a huge price and left a permanent scar that may never go away.

The 7,000-year-old Indian civilization born on the plains of Punjab and the River Indus, and in the foothills of the Himalayas, would have both its limbs amputated as the price of freedom.

What began in AD 710 as an Islamic attempt to destroy "Hind" as prophesized in Islama's doctrine of "Ghazwa-e-Hind" (Prophet Muhammad's war on India) led to India losing the very River Indus it was named after to the Islamic State of Pakistan.

The process of India's amputation began on Aug. 16, 1946, barely a year after the Second World War ended, revealing the horrors of the Holocaust, where six million Jews were targeted for annihilation.

The leader of the Pakistan movement in India, M. A. Jinnah, ordered a so-called "Direct Action Day" which ended in the killing of Hindus in the city of Calcutta, to blackmail the secular Indian National Congress to concede to his demand for the "Partition of India."

This so he could carve out an Islamic state, claiming Muslims could not live under the rule of non-Muslims, particularly the supposedly "unclean" Hindus.

On that day Jinnah unleashed his thugs in Calcutta to an orgy of death, slaughtering Hindus without mercy. Thousands were killed.

A Hindu reprisal against Muslims is what Jinnah was hoping for and he got what he had planned.

Days before the riots, Jinnah told a press conference, as reported by American journalist Margaret Bourke-White in her book, Halfway to Freedom: "We will either have a divided India or a destroyed India."

Both Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi succumbed to Jinnah's blackmail.

By the time the massacres were over, few Hindus or Sikhs were left alive in Lahore, the ancient Hindu city believed to be named after "Luv" the son of Lord Ram.

While Muslims who moved to Pakistan from India came of their own accord, Hindus and Sikhs did not leave their homes on their own account. Many were hunted down and killed or chased away.

Just two years after the world had said "Never Again" what happened to the Jews in Germany happened to Hindus and Sikhs in the new Islamic state.

It is politically incorrect to say so, but the facts stare us in our face.

On Aug.15, this Muslim Indo-Canadian will not celebrate my motherland's amputation.

I leave that for the fiction writers, who live in the rarefied air where lies are passed off as goodwill gestures.


Original Post

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was neither the only character, nor the main one, to be blamed for the dismemberment of India. Jinnah got the idea of a separate country for Muslims from a man named Muhammad Iqbal, an Indian lawyer and intellectual. The British colonial government, not caring a drop of parrot's piss about the future of an independent India, used its immense power to grant Jinnah and Iqbal their wishes. Britain's King George V knighted the latter, making him Sir Muhammad Iqbal. He was a loyal Englishman's stooge.

Having said that, Indians in the homeland and the diaspora have every right and reason to celebrate India's 70th Independence Anniversary. Their grandparents, great grandparents and forefathers shed tankfuls of blood, and withstood beatings and imprisonment and privation for Independence. 

Gilbakka is lending his solidarity to Indians and wishes them a happy anniversary on August 15. JAI HIND!

Hey folks, look at the bamboo scaffold that these Indians use.

Indian workers paint a statue of the national emblem, a depiction of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Ashoka, ahead of the forthcoming Independence day celebrations at the state secretariat building in Mumbai on Aug. 7, 2017. (INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP/Getty Images)


Photos (1)
randolph posted:

 Fundamentalist Muslims don't like Tarek Fateh because he tells it the truthful way. I suggest you read - 

Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic lllusion of an Islamic State

No, you are an uneducated idiot to think that FATTA is an inteleuctual, truthful or factual.

He is as truthful and factual as Alex Jones.



Sir Mohammed Iqbal the man who came up with the idea of Pakistan came from a family of Hindu Kashmiri Brahmins. His grandfather Rattan Lal, a Hindu Kashmiri Brahmin accountant, was the chief revenue collector of the Afghan governor of Kashmir. He was caught stealing and embezzling money from the Kashmiri Treasury. The Afghan governor of Kashmir offered Rattan Lal a choice: he should either convert to Islam or be hanged. Rattan Lal chose to stay alive by converting to Islam. He never stole again.


 Muhammad Ali Jinnah married a Parsi woman Rattanbai Petit.  Her father was  Sir Dinshaw Petit and her mother was the daughter of the Tata family. Muhammad Ali Jinnah only child Dinah Jinnah moved back to India and married a Parsi man Nevil Wadia who became very wealthy in India as a textile Businessman. Their only child and Muhammad Ali Jinnah only grandchild Nusli Wadia became an Indian Textile Billionaire by building on his father's wealth.  Nusli Wadia recently converted to Zoroastrianism.  His father's religion. Several Zoroastrian priests did not want to convert him because of his Islamic roots but they decided to convert him to Zoroastrianism because of his Zoroastrian ancestry and also because he is a billionaire.   

ba$eman posted:

Same, why should Indo-Guyanese celebrate Guyana's independence?  For Indo Guyanese, this has been the long march through the Valley of the Shadow of Death and Despair!!

Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilization, and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now. Swami Vivekananda (1893)


With the invasion of India by Mahmud Ghazni about 1000 A.D., began the Muslim invasions into the Indian subcontinent and they lasted for several centuries. The Muslim invasions continued even when the Muslims were ruling India, like the invasion of the Mongols during the reign of the Khiljis or the invasion of the Mughals in the early sixteenth Century when the Lodis were ruling Delhi. The last notable invasion of the Muslims from outside was the invasion of Nadir Shah in 1739, during which he unleashed a great horror on the native population.

During these seven hundred years of Muslim invasions and their conquest and rule of India, the Hindus were the greatest sufferers. It is difficult to estimate the number of Hindus who lost their lives during these campaigns, the number of Hindus who died because of the religious persecution perpetrated on the native population by the Muslim rulers, and the number of Hindus who were forcibly converted to Islam.

According to Prof. K.S. Lal, the author of the Growth of Muslim population in India, the Hindu population decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD, the year Mahmud Ghazni invaded India and 1525 AD, a year before the battle of Panipat.

One can safely add another 20 million Hindus to this list to account for the number that were killed during the Mughal rule or the rule of the Muslim rulers in the Deccan plateau. By all known accounts of world history, as pointed out by Koenard Elst in his book the Negationism in India, destruction of about 100 million Hindus is perhaps the biggest holocaust in the whole world history.

Europe never forgot or forgave the atrocities of the Nazi rule under Hitler. We hardly come across any positive reference to either Hitler or his army in the present day text books on European History. No one talks there of the qualities of Hitler as a great commander or an inspiring leader of German people whom he could mould and influence with his hypnotic speeches. No films are made showing Hitler as a romantic hero singing songs and his mistress as a heroine shedding copious tears over her lover! 

The European consciousness is filled with the evil deeds perpetrated by his regime, thanks to the untiring work of their politicians, journalists, historians and film producers, so much so that the very thought of seeing any virtue in either Hitler or Nazis is abhorrent to the consciousness of the present day Europeans.

Europe and America produced at least a few thousand films highlighting the human misery caused by Hitler and his army. The films expose the horrors of Nazi regime and reinforce the beliefs and attitude of the present day generation towards the evils of the Nazi dictatorship.

In contrast look at India. There is hardly any awareness among the Indians of today of what happened to their ancestors in the past, because a great majority of historians are reluctant to touch this sensitive subject. It is not difficult for the Indian historians to gather information on the kind of atrocities perpetrated against the people of medieval India, to work out the estimated number people killed in the reign of each ruler, to create vivid pictures of what happened during such battles as the battle of Tallikota when Hampi, the capital of Vijayanagara empire was systematically destroyed for weeks.

Nadir Shah made a mountain of the skulls of the Hindus he killed in Delhi alone. Babur raised towers of Hindu skulls at Khanua when he defeated Rana Sanga in 1527 and later he repeated the same horrors after capturing the fort of Chanderi. Akbar ordered a general massacre of 30000 Rajputs after he captured Chithor in 1568. The Bahamani Sultans had an annual agenda of killing a minimum of 100000 Hindus every year. The history of medieval India is full of such instances.

TBC. http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/holocaust.asp


Add Reply

Likes (1)