भारतीय इतिहास के ६ स्वर्णिम पृष्ठ (वीर सावरकर - विदेशी आक्रान्ताओं पर विजय गाथा)

412. An exile from any one caste of the Hindus never lost his Hindu
     society nor his Hindu religion; he could merge in any one of the many other
     Hindu castes or could form a new caste of similar outcastes. But this new
     caste of such outcastes formed an integral part of the Hindu society. There
     was a change of caste but never a change of religion—nor even a change of
     society. Why then speak of a change of nationality? The above-mentioned
     Vaishya, for instance, lost his Vaishya caste, but his being a Hindu remained
     unimpaired. Naturally, this sort of banishment from one caste to the other in
     the Hindu society, never caused any numerical loss to it.
413. Only one extract from the many ‘Tavarikhs’ (histories) written by
     various Muslim writers should serve as a sample to show how miserable the
     Hindu converts were!
     415-417. Of the hundreds of Hindus taken as slaves and sent to Persia,
     Turan (Turkey) and Arabia, at the time of the invasions of Mahmud Ghazni,
     some could give the slip, individually or in groups, and would run away to
     Punjab, which because of the staunch Hindu resistance, remained the
     extreme limit of Muslim domination for over a century or so after Mahmud
     Ghazni. Thereafter, these runaway Hindu converts would escape even from
     Punjab and enter the neighbouring Hindu states of Rajputana for shelter,
     and were glad at heart that they were at last free from the Muslim clutches
     and that they would live happily in Hindu families, in their own temples
     and in their own society!
414. But when, according to the same custom, a Hindu, banished because
     of some sort of (so-called) illicit contact with any Muslim, would cease to
     be a Hindu altogether, and as thousands of such Hindu men and women
     were, often enough being converted under coercion by the Muslim
     aggressors, and as they were all without any exception, thrown out of the
     Hindu society, it was the Hindu society that suffered huge numerical losses
     year after year!
415. But alas! they were grossly disappointed because of the ban on
     reconversion and rehabilitation of these caste-outs! These groups of
     runaway Hindu converts would come to these Hindu states only to find that
     not only their own, but no other Hindu state was prepared to accept them in
     their fold. If at all they wished to live in the Hindu states, these men and
     women of the runaway shelter-seeking groups had to live as Muslims alone!
     Later on, when after a century or so, the Muslim armies began to make
     successful expeditions upto Delhi and central India, they were very much

surprised to see these people still living in these Hindu states as Muslims. If
any such group or community of the Hindus were found to be existing in
the Muslim states, it could never have been allowed to live as a Hindu
community any longer! For, by force or by craft, it would have been
converted to Islam. This was the experience of the Muslims! This was the
Muslim religion!
419. Here, however, in Hindu states, the Hindus who were converted
much against their will and who were willing to come back to the Hindu
society, and to live as none else but the Muslims, because of the ban on
their re-orientation! This was the Hindu Religion!
420. What wonder then, if in an unequal war, the Muslims defiled with
craft or coercion, millions of Hindus, and thus inflicted immeasurable
numerical loss to the Hindu nation.
The greatest wonder, however, is how this loss was limited to this much
alone!
❑

Perverted Conception of Virtues
421-422. Besides the silly superstitions of the Hindus about the caste-
system, the various bans on exchange of food and drink, redemption of the
outcastes and others, of which we have already written fully, and which had
done tremendously more harm than the two-pronged religio-political
Muslim offensive had done, another suicidal morbidity had completely
possessed the Hindu mind for a long time. This morbidity paralysed their
own offensive and counter-offensive might. Far greater than the Muslims
could ever attempt, were the defeats inflicted on themselves by these
morbidly virtuous Hindus! If a comparatively mild term is to be used for
this infatuation—this mental imbalance of the Hindus, which caused
disastrous losses for themselves—we have to call it a perverted sense of
Hindu virtues.
423. In fact, virtues or vices are only relative terms. No virtue can be
unqualified and absolute under every circumstance or at every place. Be it
said briefly, that in practice or in ethical code, a virtue should be called a
virtue only to the extent it is useful to the best interests of human society.
And the moment it begins to cause harm to mankind, it should be
considered a vice and as such discarded forthwith.
424. Some qualities at least are divided into three parts: Satwik (mild,
gentle), Rajas (passionate) and Tamas (irascible, irritable); and even these
should be viewed with reference to the peculiar conditon of time, place and
person. The Hindu civilization had the noblest ambition of raising Man to
the status of God and as such, it went in for an all-out attempt to inculcate
and cultivate with assiduous care, these gentle qualities in him. But this
worldly existence is not woven with one thread alone; its texture shows at
least three different threads: the gentle, the passionate and the irritable. It is
precisely for this reason that if a man, whosoever he may be, wishes to live
in this world, wants to win or at least does not intend to be vanquished by
others, or does not want to see injustice triumph over him, he must have a
three-edged weapon, which could successfully face these three-fold
qualities. But at this time of the Hindu-Muslim war, the Hindu nation forgot
even the Bhagwat Geeta, which preached the relative, and not absolute,
values of these virtues. Why, they even twisted the message of the Bhagwad
Geeta itself. The quintessence of the Bhagwat Geeta is the consideration of

the fine distinction between man and man—of which the Hindus of those
times seem to be divinely oblivious.
425. Of course, it must be remembered that all this argument applies
generally and collectively to the Hindu polity made up of hundreds of
millions of people, but it must also be remembered that there were to come
to life, from time-to-time, thousands of exceptional groups of men and
brave societies of dauntless people, who opposed this perversely virtuous
Hindu society in order to bring about a social revolution. They will be
referred to at their proper places.
426-427. To let go the vanquished and abjectly surrendering enemy, is
said to be a virtue in some religious books; so enemies like the ungrateful
Mohammed Ghori and the Rohila Najibkhan were set free. And what did
they do in return for this noble act of the Hindus? The first brutally
murdered his former benefactor, Prithviraj Chauhan, while the second
conspired against the very Marathas, who let him go alive and brought
about their unprecedented destruction at Panipat. Having only learnt by rote
the maxim, to give food to the hungry and water to the thirsty is a virtue,
the Hindus went on giving milk to the vile poisonous cobras and vipers!
Even while the Muslim demons were demolishing Hindu temples and
breaking to pieces their holiest of idols like Somnath, they never wrecked
their vengeance upon those wicked Muslims, even when they had golden
opportunities to do so, nor did they ever take out a single brick from the
walls of masjids, because their religious teachers and priests preached the
virtue of not inflicting pain on the offender:
‘Never pay the tormentor in his own coin but bear the torments meekly
and be patient that God will punish him.’
दिघलें दुःख पराने उसने फेडू नयेचि सोसावें।
शिक्षा देव तयाला करील म्हणुनि उगेच बैसावें॥
428. The vilest of vices recorded in the catalogues of the religious texts
could never have been more detrimental to the welfare of mankind, more
harmful to the national interests and so, more detestable than such virtues as
give rise to horrible atrocities and the greatest of sins. Naturally, whoever
cultivates and lives upto such virtues thoughtlessly and foolishly and with
slavish adherence to the religious texts, and also with fanatic obstinacy, is
bound to perish individually and bring about disaster of the nation he lives.
These qualities are not virtues; they are virtues distorted in the extreme.

Whichever virtue is adopted thoughtlessly and without regard to the time,
place and person is corrupted and rotten, and, like putrefied food, becomes
poisonous.
429-430. Every Hindu seems to have been made to suck, along with his
mother’s milk, this nectar-like advice that religious tolerance is a virtue. But
nobody never explains to him the essence of that precept. If that alien
religion is also tolerant of our own religion, our tolerance towards it can be
a virtue. But the Muslim and the Christian religions, which boldly proclaim
it to be their religious duty to destroy most cruelly the Hindu religion and to
eradicate from the face of this earth the kafirs and the heathens, can never
be described as tolerant of other religions. In respect of these intolerant
foreign religions, the very extremely enraged intolerance, which seeks to
retaliate their atrocities with super-atrocious reprisals, itself becomes a
virtue!
431. Even if we were to restrict our discussion to the period under
discussion, it will be seen that every Muslim aggressor went on
demolishing Hindu temples at Mathura and Kashi (Benares). The most
sacred idols in the various magnificent shrines from all over India right upto
Rameshwaram were not only purposely taken to the Muslim capitals like
Delhi and plastered into the portal steps of their royal palaces, but, for the
sole purpose of hurting the feelings of the Hindus and insulting them, they
were also used as the slabs and tiles for lavatories, water-closets, and
urinals. To be tolerant towards those Muslims who called these and many
other atrocities their religious duty, is the very negation of virtue, its
sacrilegious perversion! Nay, for the Hindus to show such tolerance was the
greatest sin to be punished in Hell! But the Hindus committed this very sin
under the name of virtue! Even after overthrowing the various Muslim
powers, i.e. even when the Hindus had acquired political ascendancy, they
did not destroy the various masjids at Kashi (Benares), Mathura or
Rameshwaram, nor did they use their ruins as tiles for the various building
constructions along roads. At the most, the Hindus reconstructed and
renovated their old temples which were raised to the ground by the
Muslims. They did nothing more! On the contrary, there are astonishing
instances of grant of new lands for their maintenance and assurance of
protection of the masjids, which had been built by the Muslim aggressors,
by the Hindu powers. In this connection, one stray instance can be cited to
show the confusion of the then Hindu thought. It affords a shameless

exhibition of the perverted virtue of the Hindus, which makes any further
discussion in this regard absolutely unnecessary!
432-433. After Mahmud of Ghazni demolished the temple of Somnath for
the first time, it was rebuilt several times by the Hindus and destroyed by
the Muslim conquerors as many times! Once, when a powerful Hindu king
established his power in that region, he rebuilt it with all pomp and
ceremony, and under his able guidance, the land also prospered. This Hindu
ruler should have, in fact, debarred from entering into the Indian waters any
Arab traders, who used the Indian ports in this region of Sindh as watering
and fuelling stations on their way to the distant eastern and southern parts of
India. For, the Hindus often had the bitter experience of the Arab armies
and navies following these traders by sea. But in order to exhibit his
religious tolerance and generosity, this Hindu ruler not only did not stop
these Arabian traders from visiting the Indian coast, but treated them with
such great deal of hospitality that they might feel quite at home there.
Naturally, these Arabic traders, actuated whether by political trickery or by
religious pride, thought of building by way of a challenge, as it were, a
masjid just in front of the Somnath Temple, rebuilt by the Hindu kafirs. But
under the circumstances, then prevalent there, they could not do so by force
or bravado. Hence, with their usual craft, they applied in the most courteous
and humble words to the King for permission to build the masjid. And O
what wonder! That gullible Hindu King consented to it most willingly, and
up rose the new masjid challenging the Somnath Temple. As a matter of
fact, considering the highly miserable state to which the Temple of Somnath
was reduced by Mahmud of Ghazni and others, that Hindu King should
have wiped out of existence all the masjids, without exception, as soon as
he conquered the land and then and then alone, could he have restored the
Somnath Temple to its original glory. But instead of destroying the existing
masjids he permitted a new one to be built up and bestowed an annuity on it
for its maintenance. For this suicidal-religious tolerance (perversion of a
virtue again!), he had very soon to pay dearly; because when after some
time, the brutal forces of Alla-ud-Din and other Muslim aggressors attacked
Gujrat and killed thousands of Hindu men and raped as many Hindu
women, and pulled down hundreds of Hindu temples and marched straight
towards Somnath, how did these Arabs and their descendants repay the
religious tolerance of the Hindu King, who allowed the Arabian traders to
build the said masjid? Did they allow the restored Somnath Temple to

remain unmolested in return for the obligation of the Hindus—even if it
were to tantalize the Hindu gullibility and simplicity? No! The Muslim
armies battered the Temple to pieces once again, and outdid Mahumud of
Ghazni in taking away the sacred idol and the slab inside this temple to
Delhi and made them fit nicely into the pedestal for a masjid there.
434. Once again, when Hindu power was established in the region, Hindu
temples rose up and once more, the Muslims like Sultan Ahmed Shah,
ravaged the land with their usual religious ferocity and harassed the Hindus
there with wholesale massacres, rapes, arson and other incendiary activities.
Thousands of Hindus were taken prisoners and were sold as slaves in
foreign countries. Somnath remained a heap of rubble, but the notorious
masjid grew in importance. Besides the old masjids, which were preserved
and raised to greater glory by the Hindu rulers, the Muslim rulers built taller
and more spacious mosques.
435. It was this confused religious thought, the distorted sense of virtues
and the blind religious tolerance, that culminated in the religious suicide of
the Hindus. How many more incidents may one cite, which came off
century-after-century at every place right from Kashimir to Rameshwaram,
in the face of Muslim aggression? Still, one more instance may be narrated
here to show the perversion of another virtue by the Hindus; generosity—
misplaced genorosity!
435A. Siddharaj Jaysinh (1096-1143 A.D.) was a valiant king of
Anhilwad in Gujarat. He had also a very keen sense of justice. But he was a
Hindu king! He was deluded by the absolute values, without any regard to
time, place or person of all the virtuous ideologies about justice and
injustice, according to his own and the alien religion and especially
generosity and large-heartedness! Once during his reign, there was some
dispute between the Hindus and the Muslims near Cambay (Khambayat).
Writes Muhammad Ufi—himself a Muslim writer—in his book Jami‘-ul-
Hikayat.
436. “In the reign of King Jai Singh, there was a mosque and a minaret
from which the summons to prayers was cried out. The fire-worshipers
instigated an attack on the Musalmans, and the minaret was destroyed, the
mosque burnt down and eighty Musalmans were killed...” A certain
Muhammadan, a Khatib or a reader of the Khutba, by name Khatib ‘Ali’,
escaped and fled to Nahrwala. None of the courtiers of the Rai paid any
attention to him or rendered him any assistance. Having learnt that the Rai

was going out to hunt, Khatib ‘Ali’ sat down behind a tree in the forest and
awaited the Rai’s arrival. When the Rai reached the spot, Khatib Ali stood
up and implored the former to stop the elephant and listen to the latters’s
complaint. He then placed in his hand a “Kasida”, which he had composed
in Hindi verse stating the whole case. The Rai having heard this complaint,
placed Khatib Ali under the charge of a servant, ordering him to take care
of him... Later disguising himself in tradesman’s dress, the Rai entered the
city (of Khambayat) and stayed a short time in different places in the
market-place, making enquiries as to the truth of Khatib Ali’s complaint. He
then learnt that the Musalmans were oppressed and were slain without any
grounds The next day, he held a court. He said it was his duty to see that all
his subjects were afforded such protection as would enable them to live in
peace. He then gave orders that two leading men from each class of infidels
—Brahmins, fire worshippers (sometimes applied to Buddhists) and others
—should be punished. He gave one lac Balotras to enable the Musalmans to
rebuild the mosque and the minarets. He also gave some clothes to Khatib.”
Muhammad ‘Ufi: Jami’-ul-Hikayat, Elliot HIED Vol. II Pp. 162-163).
437. This Raja Jayasingh had gone on a foot pilgrimage to the rejuvenated
temple of Somnath and was a devotee of Shiva and had implicit faith in the
Hindu religion. Probably, because for this very reason, place of driving the
inveterate and crafty Muslim enemies out of his own kingdom or instead of
reconverting them to Hinduism, even if by means of force, he had the
masjids—the masjids of those Muslims who had reduced to mere rubble, not
only the temple of Somnath but hundreds of other temples in Gujarat and
thousands in other parts of India—rebuilt at the cost of the Hindus, and
offered them a special protection according to his Hindu creed of religious
tolerance and generosity!
438. Was it ever possible for the Hindus under Mahmud of Ghazni or
Muhammad Ghori or for those in the domain of the Sultan, who had gone
on killing the Hindus and ravaging their lands—was it ever possible for
them to complain to any Muslim governor of the land against the
destruction of their own temples? (Let alone the appeal for the restoration
of such a demolished temple!) To complain in such a way would itself have
amounted to a very grave offence of the kafirs, according to the Muslim
religious code, and for this very offence, every one of the Hindu men and
women would have been sold in Kabul or Kandhar as wretched slaves. But
such treacherous and dangerous Muslims were allowed by the Hindu kings

to live in large colonies, and were treated with special honour in order to
bolster up their creed of religious tolerance. And in thousands of cases
during the long period of Hindu-Muslim war, these very minority Muslims
who had been living as refugees in the Hindu states, never failed to rebel or
sabotage the Hindu war-efforts, as soon as there was any foreign Muslim
invasion. Even while they were seeing all these treacherous activities of the
Muslims, the Hindu kings went on practising and committing to their
memory the precepts of religious tolerance and large-heartedness, in utter
disregard of the proper place, time or person and, of course, they fell as
miserable victims. This is verily the distortion of virtue itself!
The Grave Danger of the Muslim Abduction and Pollution of Millions
of Hindu Women
439. One side-issue of the Muslim religious aggression, which caused a
continuous drain on the numerical superiority of the Hindus, was the
diabolic Muslim faith that it was a religious duty of every Muslim to kidnap
and force their own religion into non-Muslim women. This incited their
sensuality and lust for carnage and while it enormously increased their
number, it affected the Hindu population in an inverse proprotion. To
hesitate to acknowledge this hard fact under the guise of politeness, is
simply a puerile self-deception. This abduction of thousands and millions of
Hindu women by the Muslims is not such a trifling thing as to be dispensed
with, by calling it religious fanaticism or simply by conniving at it. Even if
it were a madness, there was a method in it! And the method in this Muslim
madness was so horrible, that with the mistaken Hindu neglect of this so-
called religious fanaticism, the Hindu nation came to have a perpetual
bleeding sore. For, as a matter of fact, the religious fanaticism of the
Muslims was not madness at all; it was an effective method of increasing
the Muslim population with special regard to the unavoidable laws of
nature.
440. The same law of nature is instinctively obeyed by the animal world.
If in the cattle-herds, the number of oxen grows in excess of the cows, the
herds do not grow numerically in a rapid manner. But, on the other hand,
the number of animals in the herds, with the excess of cows over the oxen,
grows in mathematical progression. The same is true of man, for at the core,
man is essentially an animal. Even in the pre-historic times, the so-called
wild tribes of the forest-dwellers knew this law quite well. The African wild
tribes of today kill only the males from amongst their enemies, whenever

there are tribal wars, but not the females who are eventually distributed by
the victor tribes among themselves. To obtain from them future progeny to
increase their numbers, is considered by these tribes to be their sacred duty!
It is said of at least one of the Naga tribes that when they attack an enemy,
they shoot simple unpoisoned arrows at the males, but if any women are
seen fighting on the enemy side, highly envenomed arrows are used to kill
them instantly. For they argue, to kill one woman who cannot be captured
alive is as good as to kill five men.
441. This very natural law was adopted and obeyed openly by the
aggressive but numerically poor African Muslim armies and their chiefs
while attacking the major populations of North Africa. On conquering those
kafirs, the ransom that was collected was calculated in terms of money and
women in equal share, and these women, collected as ransom, were
distributed by fives or tens amongst the most faithful followers of Islam.
The future progeny of these conquered women was born Muslim and so
amongst the Muslim environments became literally fanatical. The Muslim
chiefs who thus multiplied their numbers rapidly were honoured as ‘Ghazis’
by the religious authorities. The law of the Muslim religious warfare
granted the victorious Muslim army every right to own the kafir women as
completely as their other movable or immovable property.
442-443. After Ravan abducted Seeta and Shree Ramchandra marched on
him, some of his well-wishers advised the demon king, just before the war,
that because of his unjust act, the demon kingdom was threatened with a
terrible war and that he should send Seeta back to her husband, because it
was highly irreligious to kidnap her. “What?” cried the wrathful Ravan. “To
abduct and rape the women folk of the enemy, do you call it irreligious?
Pooh; Pooh!”
— राक्षसानाम् परोधर्मः परदाराविघर्षणम्
(To carry away the women of others and to ravish them is itself the
supreme religious duty of the Rakshasas.) ‘Parodharmah’, the greatest duty!
444. With this same shameless religious fanaticism, the aggressive
Muslims of those times considered it their highly religious duty to carry
away forcibly the women of the enemy side, as if they were commonplace
property, to ravish them, to pollute them and to distribute them to all and
sundry, from the Sultan to the common soldier and to absorb them
completely in their fold. This was considered a noble act, which increased
their number.

445. In every province where the Muslim rule established itself, the
     Sultan, the Nawabs and the Nizams—why even the meanest of Muslim
     officers in every town and village therein, levied on the Hindu population
     not only the Jazia tax for collecting wealth; but also the heinous tax of
     demanding openly the daughters and even married ladies from the Hindu
     royal families and others of high rank, and even carried them away forcibly
     and openly.
446. After Sindh, the Arabs did not attempt another invasion of India, yet
     the Arab bands did come here along with other Muslim armies, and like
     these Arabs, all those newly converted people like the Persians (Iranians),
     the Turanians, the Afghans, the Turks, the Moghuls and others fell on India
     with all the ferocity at their command. Obviously, they had not brought
     their millions of womenfolk along with them. But all those from the
     Sultans to the common soldiers, as a rule, began to settle down here with
     the kidnapped Hindu women, whom they either married or simply kept as
     their concubines. Let alone the vast numbers of Hindu women of high as
     well as low ranks, who led the most ignoble of lives in the harems of the
     Emperors, Sultans or Nawabs, but almost every Muslim kept at least three
     or four such forcibly pulluted women. Thus, women in this aggressive
     Muslim community came to be more numerous than men, and polygamy
     being an accepted practice sanctioned by their religion, these foreign
     Muslim communities began to grow rapidly year-after-year, from a few
     thousands to millions and more.
447. An interesting point to note is that Sultan Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlak,
     Sultan Shikandar, Sultan Phiroz-Shah Tughlak and many other devilish
     Hindu-haters were born of Hindu mothers!
     Muslim Women too played their Devilish part in the Molestation and
     Harassment of the Hindu Women
448. Hindu women were considered kafirs and born slaves. So these
     Muslim women were taught to think it their duty to help in all possible
     ways, their molestation and forcible conversion to Islam. No Muslim
     woman, whether a begum or a beggar, ever protested against the atrocities
     committed by their male compatriots. On the contrary, they encouraged
     them to do so and honoured them for it. A Muslim woman did everything in
     her power to harass such captured or kidnapped Hindu women. Not only in
     the troubled times of war, but even in the intervening periods of peace and
     even when they themselves lived in the Hindu kingdoms, they enticed and

carried away young Hindu girls, locked them up in their own houses or
conveyed them to the Muslim centres in masjids and mosques. The Muslim
women all over India considered it their holy duty to do so.
The Hindu Chivalry towards Enemy Women
449. The Muslim women never feared retribution or punishment at the
hands of any Hindu for their heinous crime. They had a perverted idea of
woman chivalry. If in a battle the Muslims won, they were rewarded for
such crafty and deceitful conversions of Hindu women; lull even if the
Hindus carried the field and a Hindu power was established in that
particular place (and such incidents in those times were not very rare) the
Muslim men alone, if at all, suffered the consequential indignities but the
Muslim women—never! Only Muslim men, and not women, were taken
prisoners. Muslim women were sure that even in the thick of battles, and in
the confusion wrought just after then, neither the victor Hindu chiefs, nor
any of their common soldiers, nor even any civilian would ever touch their
hair. For, albeit enemies and atrocious, they were women! Hence, even
when they were taken prisoner in battles, the Muslim women—royal ladies
as also the commonest slaves—were invariably sent back safe and sound to
their respective families! Such incidents were common enough in those
times. And this act was glorified by the Hindus as their chivalry towards the
enemy women and the generosity of their religion! For a sample, read the
following incidents.
450. Even now we proudly refer to the noble acts of Chhatrapati Shivaji
and Chimaji Appa, when they honourably sent back the daughter-in-law of
the Muslim Governor of Kalyan and the wife of the Portuguese governor of
Bassein respectively. But is it not strange that, when they did so, neither
Shivaji Maharaj nor Chimaji Appa should ever remember, the atrocities and
the rapes and the molestation, perpetrated by Mahmud of Ghazni,
Muhammad Ghori, Alla-ud-din Khilji and others, on thousands of Hindu
ladies and girls like the princesses of Dahir, Kamaldevi, the wife of
Karnaraj of Karanwati and her extremely beautiful daughter, Devaldevi.
Did not the plaintive screams and pitiful lamentations of the millions of
molested Hindu women, which reverberated throughout the length and
breadth of the country, reach the ears of Shivaji Maharaj and Chimaji
Appa?
451. The souls of those millions of aggrieved women might have perhaps
said, “Do not forget, O, your Majesty, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and O!

Your Excellency, Chimaji Appa, the unutterable atrocities and oppression
and outrage committed on us by the Sultans and Muslim noblemen and
thousands of others, big and small. Let those Sultans and their peers take a
fright that in the event of a Hindu victory, our molestation and detestable lot
shall be avenged on the Muslim women. Once they are haunted with this
dreadful apprehension, that the Muslim women, too, stand in the same
predicament in case the Hindus win, the future, Muslim conquerors will
never dare to think of such molestation of Hindu women.”
451A. But because of the then prevalent perverted religious ideas about
chivalry to women, which ultimately proved highly detrimental to the
Hindu community, neither Shivaji Maharaj nor Chimaji Appa could do such
wrong to the Muslim women.
452. It was the suicidal Hindu idea of chivalry to women, which saved the
Muslim women (simply because they were women) from the heavy
punishments of committing indescribable sins and crimes against the Hindu
women. Their womanhood became their shield, quite sufficient to protect
them.
453. Still worse was the ridiculous idea, which the Hindus of those times
entertained, that it was a sin to convert a Muslim woman to Hinduism. They
foolishly thought that to have any sort of relations with a Muslim woman
meant their own conversion to Islam. Naturally, even in the midst of a
Hindu community and the Hindu state, they were secure against any
attempt by the Hindus at abducting them or their forcible conversion to
Hinduism. Exceptions, however, were very rare.
454. Under these circumstances, the Muslim feminine class [fair (?) sex]
was left seraphically free from any chastisement or penalty for their share
of the crimes perpetrated against the Hindu woman-world, and their work
of enticing and ensnaring the Hindu women and forcing them to accept
Islam, went on for hundreds of years, unhampered and unimpeded.
But if
455. Suppose, if from the earliest Muslim invasion of India, the Hindus
also, whenever they were victors on the battlefields, had decided to pay the
Muslim fair sex in the same coin or punished them in some other ways, i.e.
by conversion even with force and then absorbed them in their fold, then?
Then with this horrible apprehension at their heart, they would have
desisted from their evil designs against any Hindu lady. If they had taken
such a fright in the first two or three centuries, millions and millions of

luckless Hindu ladies would have been saved all their indignities, loss of
their own religion, rapes, ravages and other unimaginable persecutions. Our
woman-world would not have suffered such a tremendous numerical loss,
which means their future progeny would not have been lost permanently to
Hinduism, and the Muslim population could not have thrived so
audaciously. Without any increase in their womenfolk, the Muslim
population would have dwindled into a negligible minority.
456. The sociological explanation for this contention has already been
offered in paragraphs 439 to 446.
457. But haunted with the fantastic idea of chivalry to enemy-women and
a blind eye to time, place or person, the Hindus of that period never tried to
chastise the Muslim womenfolk for their wrongs to Hindu women, even
when the former were many a time completely at their mercy.
Misplaced Chivalry to Enemy Womenfolk and the Consequent
Miserable plight
458. Well, did this misplaced chivalrous idea of the Hindus have any
salutary effect on their Muslim foes? Were the latter ever ashamed of their
sin of molesting a Hindu woman in view of this Hindu religious generosity
and high mindedness? Did the Muslims ever sincerely feel thankful to the
Hindus for the safe return of thousands of Muslim women to their own kith
and kin? Never! On the contrary, they again and again reciprocated Hindu
chivalrous behaviour with the same old treachery and atrocity, and thus held
it to ridicule and scorn.
459. On the contrary, the Muslims were puffed up, perhaps with the
thought, that if at all the Hindus were to show chivalry to anybody, it should
have been to their own Hindu women! It was they who had the first right to
such a chivalrous treatment! But if the Hindus could not rescue thousands
of their own women who were being abducted, polluted and forced into
Islamic religion in their very presence, through centuries, why should the
Muslims not ridicule the Hindu chivalrous idea of civility to women, even
enemy women? On the contrary, they perhaps thought that the Hindus dared
not think of violating or even insulting the Muslim women for fear of
horrible reprisals. Thus, they were more likely to misconstrue the Hindu
idea of chivalry, than interpret it in the right sense as to have been born of
cowardice than of strength and bravery.
The Hindus of the Pre-Islamic era never Interpreted Chivalry to
Women in this Anti-National silly way

460. A serpent, whether male or female, if it comes to bite must be killed.
     The enemy women, who enforced conversion and heaped all sort of
     humiliation on our mothers and sisters, had by that very devilish act, lost
     their womanhood and their right to chivalrous treatment, and deserved
     nothing but only the most stringent punishment for their atrocious crimes.
     Hence, when Tratika, the she-demon marched on Ramchandra with other
     demons, he killed her immediately, without a moment’s thought. When
     Shoorpanakha, another she-demon, rushed to eat away Seeta like cucumber,
     Laxman deprived her of nose and ears and sent her back—not honourably
     with generous gifts of ornaments, to show off his chivalay to women! When
     Narakasur carried away thousands of Aryan women to his Asur kingdom
     (Assyria of today), Shree Krishna marched upon the demon and killed him in
     the war. But he did not stop with military and political defeat he inflicted on
     Narakasur! He rescued all the thousands of imprisoned Aryan females,
     undergoing all sorts of humiliation there and brought them back to his own
     kingdom; and thus took a social revenge! Shree Krishna’s army did not
     forsake their kinswomen, simply because they were forcibly polluted and
     violated—a dastardly thought that he never entertained for a minute. On the
     contrary, Shree Krishna as the Bhoopati—the Lord of the whole Earth—
     brought all those sixteen thousand or more women to his kingdom,
     rehabilitated them honourably and took upon himself, the responsibility of
     feeding and protecting them. This very act of Krishna, as the Bhoopati has
     been fantastically construed by the writers of the Puranas as to describe him
     the husband of those thousands of women. He was later thought to have
     married all of them.
461. In the post-Puranik period, whenever our valiant and victorious
     princes vanquished the enemies like the Yavan, Shaka or Hun
     commandants, kings or emperors on the battlefield, they invariably married
     the enemy princesses. This seems to have been the tradition prevalent right
     from Chandragupta Maurya to the Gupta Emperors! Shalivahan kings too
     married Saka princesses. Not only our victorious kings but all Hindus, right
     from the Samants (feudatory princes) to common citizens, married
     unhesitatingly the Yavan, Saka or Hun women. The nation was valiant
     enough to absorb not only the progeny of those enemy-women, but the
     whole enemy communities in their own, and leave no trace of their origin
     behind.
     Harmful effects of the ban on Purification and Rehabilitation

462. Under the illusion of preserving the purity of their own caste and
     religion, the Hindu Society of the Islamic era began to enforce as their
     religious duty, the bans on exchange of food, on inter-caste marriage and
     other bans, even when they were harmful to the society. In a similar way
     and for the same reason of protecting the purity of their caste and religion,
     the ban on re-purification of the converted Hindus and that on sea-faring,
     began to be enforced most scrupulously and rigidly as religious injunctions.
     Neither any single Hindu who was converted under coercion, nor even his
     progeny could ever come back to Hinduism: their sin (?) had no
     redemption, no salvation. For generations together, the Hindus believed this
     to be their inviolable religious injunction; with very rare exceptions, every
     Hindu, from sweeper to Brahmin, from Chhatrapati (the sovereign) to
     Patrapati (the holder of a parchment), from Shankaracharya (the Religious
     Head) to Shankhacharya (the prince of blockheads), whether learned or
     illiterate, held this opinion about the ban on repurification of the converts
     unanimously and unswervingly from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.
463. On account of these very bans, thousands of our Hindu ladies kindled
     the fires of johar, century-after-century, in order to avoid violation at the
     hands of the Muslims. To save themselves from this humiliation of
     violation by enemies, millions others leapt into rivers, lakes and wells, all
     over the country and destroyed themselves along with their small children
     at their breasts. Most bravely, did many others die defiantly refusing to be
     converted to Islam, like Chahatrapati Samabhaji, Guru Teg Bahadur and
     many of our Sikh gurus like the martyr Bairagi Baba Banda, who kept on
     defying the Muslims till the last, even when his body was being cut off limb
     by limb. How can we ever forget this unprecedented martyrdom unless we
     are ungrateful to them? Few other communities in the history of the world
     could have sacrificed their lives on such a vast scale or with such severity as
     did the Hindus! This martyrdom of the Hindus was not altogether futile in
     respect of saving their religion from the Muslim onslaught. The heroic tales
     of their martyrdom have been inspiring generations of the nation to offer
     their life for protecting the religion, and this is not altogether insignificant.
464. Although highly detrimental to the interests of the nation as a whole,
     and as such deserving the severest of criticism, these various bans like those
     on exchange of food and sea-voyage and the custom of social ostracism,
     were all imposed by the Hindus of that period—let it not be forgotten—with
     the sole noble object of protecting the purity of their caste and creed.

Millions of Hindus who, for generations, suffered unimaginable pangs did
so with unswerving loyalty to their accepted creed. Were they ever happy to
boycott an individual for having—although unwillingly and through force
—taken water from a Muslim hand or for other such reasons? How can one
describe the agonies and pangs of the parents and other relatives at the
unavoidable separation of their sons and daughters, of husbands and wives,
of brothers and sisters? How many of them might have courted death owing
to this extreme grief when they closed their doors on them, simply because
they were, although unwillingly and forcibly, converted to Islam? But they
suffered all this with the grim determination, viz.,
त्यजेदेकम् कुलस्यार्थे। ग्रामस्यार्थे कुलत्यजेत्
ग्रामं जनपदस्यार्थे। धर्मार्थे पृथवीम् त्यजेत्॥
For the sake of the family, an individual is to be abandoned. For the sake
of the village, a family has to be forsaken. For the sake of the state, a village
has to be given up as lost, and, for the sake of religion, one should give up
the whole world.
465. Should we not therefore be grateful to those Hindus for the
unbearable pangs and unimaginable grief they suffered? They were misled
into accepting those traditions of various bans as their religious duties, but
their loyalty to their religion was unmistaken, unshaken! What was
considered to be an antidote turned out to be poison itself! But the object in
administering it was to give an antidote, to save the life of the nation! How
can we, then forbear writing a word or two of sincere gratitude for the
harrowing mental and physical agonies they suffered, with the honest
intention of saving their religion?
Anti-National illusory Platitudes!
466. An effective way of liquidating the Muslim religious authority could
easily have been availed of by the Hindus of those times, if they had but done
what the Muslims had been doing in their hundreds of offensives against
Hindu states. The Muslims went on slaughtering wholesale the Hindu
population. Similarly whenever the Hindus gained an upper hand, they could
have retaliated by massacring Muslim population and making the region
Muslim-less! Devoid of Muslims! Even their ban on re-purification (शुद्धि)
would not have prevented them from doing this. For in doing this, there was
no question involved of eating or drinking or of having any dealings with the
Muslims.

But -! But if not the ban on re-purification, the suicidal Hindu creed of
religious tolerance was certainly a major obstacle! From the very ancient
times, the Hindus had been boasting of their high ideals of religious tolerance,
of the equal status they conceded to all the religions of the world, of preaching
the sameness of Ram and Rahim, of allowing every one to follow his own
faith! This they considered to be the height of their religion!
467. Instead of massacring en masse the hundreds of thousands of
Muslims, who from time to time fell in their hands completely vanquished
and utterly helpless, in order to avenge the untold wrongs and humiliation
heaped by them on the Hindus, the Hindus, in their turn, refrained
themselves from doing the Muslims even the slightest harm, because they
were in minority and belonged to another religion. On the contrary, the
Muslims were allowed to enhance the glory and scope of their own religion
without the least possible hindrance. Not only like the Hindu citizens, but
even more leniently and with more facilities were the Muslims allowed, by
Hindu states of those days, to enjoy the legal rights—a fact that is borne out
by pages after pages of Indian history.
468. Is it necessary to add that these 'cow-faced' followers of Hinduism,
proud of their utmost tolerance of other religions, were not (in the least)
likely to hit back the tiger-faced Muslims on religious grounds?
469. Religious tolerance! A virtue! Yes. It can be a virtue only where the
other religion is tolerant of our own! But to tolerate the Muslim religion, the
followers of which right from the Sultans like Mahmud of Ghazni and
Ghori and others to the various Shahs and Badshahs, thought it their
religious obligation to massacre the kafir Hindus to celebrate their accession
to the throne, and had been carrying on horrible religious persecution of the
Hindus for nearly a thousand years, was tantamount to cut the throat of
one's own religion! It was not tolerance towards other religions, it was
tolerance of irreligion! It was not even tolerance, it was impotence! But this
truth never dawned upon the Hindu society of those days even after the
horrible experience of a thousand years or so. They, on their own part, went
on tolerating even such a hideous religion as the Islam and considered it a
glorious virtue of their own—a special ornament in the crown of the Hindu
community!
470. O thou Hindu society! Of all the sins and weaknesses, which have
brought about thy fall, the greatest and most potent are thy virtues
themselves.

471-472. Ahimsa (non-violence), kindness, chivalry even towards the
enemy women, protection of an abjectly capitulating enemy, क्षमा वीरस्य
भूषणम् (forgiveness, a glorious emblem for the brave!) and religious
tolerance were all virtues no doubt—very noble virtues! But it is blind and
slovenly—even impotent—adoption of all these very virtues, irrespective of
any consideration given to the propriety of time, place or persons, that so
horribly vanquished the Hindus in the millennial Hindu-Muslim war on the
religious front.
For
पात्रापात्रविवेकशून्य आचलि जरि सद्गुण॥
तों तोचि ठरे दुर्गुण, सद्धर्मघातक॥
[Every virtuous act done without the least regard to the propriety of the
persons concerned—without the least thought, whether the other person
deserves such noble treatment or not—becomes a glaring vice most harmful
to the true religion.]
❑

Super-Diabolic Counter-Offensive the
Only Answer
473. It has already been shown in the earlier chapters how the Hindu
Society was unable to recover its tremendous numerical losses suffered due
to forcible mass conversions and tyrannical anti-Hindu laws of Muslim
kings and sultans, because of its own silly, anti-national traditions of caste-
differences, bans on reconversion of the helpless Hindu proselytes, and the
like, and many other perverted concepts of virtue. Had it not been for some
prophetic social and religious reformers, astute diplomats, gigantic thinkers
and philosophers, and men of action among the Hindus of that time, who
towered, though only from time to time, over the all-pervading gloom and
guided their community, the Hindu society would never have escaped total
extinction.
Maharshi Deval and Medhatithi
474. Two of these thinkers are Maharshi Deval and Medhatithi, the critic
of Manusmriti, who unfailingly attract our attention because of their
dazzling intellectual brilliance. Their extant writings show us, beyond any
shadow of doubt, that even during those calamitous years, that intervened
between the first Arab invasion of Sindh and the Muslim religio-political
atrocities in the Punjab and its final occupation, they had pointed out to
Hindus brave new ways, new religious thoughts, new weapons which were
calculated to bring them success.
475-476. The Chapter on the pollution of religion in Deval Smriti, begins
with the line
सिंधुतीरमुपासन्नम्! देवलं मुनिसत्तमम्!
It clearly shows that it was in Sindh first, that a section of Brahmins,
Kshatriyas and others was organised. It determined to improve the code of
social and religious behaviour of the Hindus as much, at least, as to
recuperate the numerically stupendous losses suffered at the hands of the
Muslims. For, they clearly saw that the laws of behaviour laid down in
different smritis were in every way powerless to counteract the armed
religio-political aggression of the enemy. The Hindu leaders, present in the
hermitage of Deval on the bank of the Indus, once asked the sage, “Will it
be possible to bring back to Hinduism, thousands of Hindu men and