You conclude with the WIDELY HELD pious wish that the INDIAN Muslims consider themselves NEARER to Bharat than Saudi Arabia. It's, indeed, a vital issue that has been swept under the carpet by all- from President to peon. But it will not go away.
To appreciate the futility of such aspirations, one has to imagine oneself in the shoes of an Indian Muslim who has a bipolar SCHIZOPHRENIC vision of "ISLAM and KUFR" deeply imprinted in his psyche. We have a world vision and thus cannot even realise that such narrow compartmentalisation of mankind not only exists but has GRIPPED the global Muslim psyche due to the rigid and uncompromising Islamic belief in the authority of Allah as expressed in the Koran. Even to call Mohammed "the last Messenger of God on earth" is the height of arrogance, ignorance and provocation to the followers of other religions!
No other belief system on earth states so categorically that "ALLAH SAYS SO!" The use of present tense ("says" instead of "said") makes the words, spoken and written in the hoary past of "djinns" (shaitaan) and "angels" (frishtay) uttered 14 centuries ago by someone whose mental stability, sexual obsessions with females as young as six, multiple wives and concubines, practice of slavery, and wild & violent political ambitions through ceaseless fighting (Jehad), are highly questionable in the present age of logic, reason and questioning. These rules are enforced by beheading or mutilating limbs.
It is to that world of Jinns (Mr. Jinnah) that our top, supposedly secular, leaders submitted, agreeing to the unconditional surrender of one third of India disregarding the safety of the Hindus trapped there.
India, also called HINDUSTHAN, is a Hindu country where from infancy onwards a child is taught that "all mankind is one family" On the contrary a Muslim child is indoctrinated to beware of the INFIDELS around him who are meant for Hell unless they embrace Islam.
This deep DIVIDE of belief and conviction is so sharp that Akhand Bharat broke up effortlessly into three ignominious fragments when the British POWER, that had held the vast country together, seemed on the wane.
In 1947 power shifted radically from Britain to their lackey, flamboyant play-boy NEHRU, who so easily & quickly went along with that break up. The barrister from London could not think of even ONE condition in return!
His Party and Dynasty are still enjoying absolute power and are not prepared to either acknowledge the presence of the "SECOND NATION" in our midst or hold the post mortem on Partition, leave aside Nehru's personal role in that horrendous historic defeat. They defy LOGIC. They INVITE another Partition with even worse consequences. Unbelievable! Preposterous! High Treason! How can a building be strong if the foundation is ROTTEN?
You write as a rational being, as a Hindu, "It will be good for all (Muslims) to realize that the other Bhaarateey people are nearer to them than the others, like the Saudi Muslims." This is your opinion, our opinion, and also the opinion of ALL the Hindus. But it is not THEIR opinion. Since they are ACTIVE while we are PASSIVE, since they can attack while we cannot retaliate, since they can convert in Bharat but we cannot do so in Bangladesh, since they can capture TERRITORY while we cannot recover it, they will prevail in the end. This is LAW of Nature. Their world view is to persist on the path trodden by Mohammed of Mecca and described clearly in the Koran. In 1947 the savages with guns were on the other side of KHYBER PASS. Now they stand eye ball to eye ball at WAGAH, 16 milses EAST of Lahore, and show their menacingly angry red eyes at "changing of the Guard" ceremoney every evening. One needs to go and SEE them to undestand the INDIAN Muslim.
Before any prospect of recovery the nation must rid itself of "FOREIGN fingers". We can then re-write the Constitution for Survival, raise our national historic Temple at Ayodhya and see Kashmir turned into "tourists' paradise" like Switzerland.
12 Apr 13.
In a message dated 12/04/2013 10:50:41 GMT Daylight Time, xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
In 1980s, I had been to Muscat as a Project Manager for a road construction work. We had few Muslims as well with us for filling the posts of drivers, carpenters etc. They were referred to, as 'Hindu-Musalman' in their documents. Still Muscat is more open than Saudi. How can Saudi treat Bhaarateey people (irrespective if they are Muslims) any better? It is only a strange and sad thing that Bhaarateey Muslims are also considering Saudis as nearer (to themselves) than Hindus and other Bhaarateey here.
As I have mentioned earlier as well that, in Unit Strength Quarterly Return that Defence Forces have to send to their superiors about their human strength, Groups of people were four, Hindu, Hindu-Muslim, Muslim and Christian in printed forms at middle 1950s.
Army officers in service at that time may be able to support this statement. At the bottom of the form there was a note that South Indian Muslims to be counted as Hindu-Muslim. I being Adjutant of a Regiment, it was my responsibility to submit the return regularly and in time and hence I do remember this. Strange thing to note is in a couple of years time the form had to be reprinted and from the form this group of Hindu-Muslim was found omitted. Quite probably the old stock of forms had been exhausted and new stock was printed (and hence revised).
It will be good for all including Bhaarateey Muslims themselves, when they really start realizing that other Bhaarateey people are nearer to them than others (like Saudi Muslims as well).