By: Jithesh Valiyat
Why Aligarh Muslim University (AMU)’s ‘peacefuls’ are protesting against President of India? Let us know.
In 2010 Ranganath Mishra a SC judge recommended 15 percent Reservations to Muslims. At that time Ramnath Kovind was BJP Spokesperson and he said Islam and Christianity are ‘Alien to Notion’ of caste and hence can’t be given reservation. But ‘Presstitutes’ twisted it and made it as if he said Islam and Christianity are ALIEN TO INDIA!!
Now based on that fake news peddled by media, some rogues in Aligarh Muslim University are asking apology from the President of India and boycotting his Program in the AMU. It is not that we expect some thing better from a University that was founded by a British Stooge and India hater Syed Ahmad khan who was father of Indian Partition!
To analyse the mentality of this protest, one has to look at the history of AMU. Here is a page from history.
Do we need a University which was started by a man who called Freedom fighters as ‘Haramzaadgi (=an act of villainy)’ and who laid the foundation for the partition of India?
Aligarh Muslim university had started as ‘Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College’ in 1875 by ‘Sir’ Syed Ahmad Khan. And the most unfortunate thing was that this swamp of a place, which laid the foundation for the partition of India over millions of dead bodies, was started with the funds from Hindu Rajas – Maharaja of Patiala and Vizianagaram’s Maharaja.
Syed Ahmad Khan was a favorite of the British empire. He was knighted as ‘Sir’ for his support to the British during 1857 War of Independence. He called the act of Muslims fighting against the British as “HaramZaadgi (=an act of villainy)”. Seeing his talent in ‘Gaddari (=treachery)’ against his own people, he was called to London and officially pampered by Lords as part of their Divide and Rule Policy. He was given permission and funds to start madrasas and colleges to create British favoring Muslim clerks in India. So he started ‘Mohammedan Anglo College’ which later become Aligarh Muslim university.
Syed Khan claimed himself as the descendant of Mughals and actively worked to promote loyalty to the British Empire among Indian Muslims. He hated Hindi as he considered it as a Hindu language and actively promoted Urdu as official language of the United Provinces (U.P.) after Persian language. British again helped him in this work.
He lobbied with the British to make Muslim civil servants so that they can control the imperial administration in India. He became a part of Indian National Congress and in that organization he opposed the party’s demand for Democratic self governance of the people of India. He didn’t want independence of India as he feared the independence will give power to Hindu majority population. And hence he preferred the ‘British Raj’ with special preference to Muslims.
He told Muslims to prefer the ‘People of Book’ – the British – rather than Hindus. He wrote,
“At this time our nation is in a bad state in regards to education and wealth, but God has given us the light of religion and the Quran is present for our guidance, which has ordained them (British) and us to be friends. Now God has made them rulers over us. Therefore we should cultivate friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis… If we join the political movement of the Bengalis our nation will reap a loss, for we do not want to become subjects of the Hindus instead of the subjects of the “people of the Book…”
Later in his life he said,
“Suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India?…. Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations – the Mohammedans and the Hindus – could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land”
He founded the ‘Aligarh Movement’ and brought all the Muslim elite under one political banner, which led to the formation of ‘All India Muslim League’.
It is this Muslim League which instigated Muslims to fight for Pakistan. This lead to the savage act nicknamed ‘Direct Action’ and ultimately resulted in the ‘Partition of India’, which was achieved over the millions of dead bodies of Hindus and Muslims and causing later genocide of Hindus in East Bengal.
Now, the rogue nation of Pakistan, which supplies terrorists to the world, is a baby of these ideas of Syed Ahmad Khan. He never accepted Hindus and actively sowed the seeds for the division of India on religious lines.
Now answer this:
Who should apologize to India – the democratically elected President of India (based on the fake news of Presstitutes) or the followers of Syed Ahmad Khan in AMU who was responsible for the partition of India and genocide of millions? Who should apologize?
Truth cannot be hidden in a closet any longer now in this age of information technology. India must know the truth.
The question also arises: Why should Govt of India fund such an institution? Why do we celebrate Syed Ahmad Khan as a reformer? Why should he be not exposed for his treachery and religious narrow-mindedness and fanaticism? Why his followers in AMU who are spearheading such protest – who are but a few in number – be not exposed of their anti-national ideas, identified by names and isolated for their proper treatment?
If India is to survive as a free and democratic nation, it cannot afford any longer in this volatile world to continue with its old attitude,’sab chalta hai (=let such things go on as usual)! India must not remain lethargic!!