Date: 7/26/2006
BOOK ON INDIAN FREEDOM STRUGGLE HONORED //////////////// http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:2:./temp/~r109Ouoicd ////////////// BOOK ON INDIAN FREEDOM STRUGGLE HONORED -- (Extensions of Remarks - //////////// July 25, 2006)//////////// [Page: E1525] GPO's PDF/////////// SPEECH OF HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS OF NEW YORK/////////////// IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES////////////// TUESDAY, JULY 25, 2006////////////// Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I was interested to note that the London Institute of South Asia recently held an event to honor Professor Gurtej Singh for his interesting book Tandev of the Centaur. It expounds the theory that the Indian freedom movement was an act of collaboration with the colonialists. As Professor Gurtej Singh says “As a part of my narration [for the book], I found myself suggesting a theory indicating the spurious nature of India's struggle for freedom. I am aware that it renders the main activities of the Congress Party and its leaders to an exercise in collaboration. But I am in good company in coming to that conclusion. Michael Edwards, in his The Myth of the Mahatma, has clearly shown that the British really feared the ‘Western style revolutionaries' whom Gandhi effectively neutralized. The Administration considered Gandhi as an ally of the British as a neutralizer of rebellion.'' Professor Gurtej Singh has written previously about the false nature of Indian secularism. His book, Chakravyuh: Web of Indian Secularism, exposes the truth that behind its mask of secularism, India is a repressive, theocratic state where minority rights are not respected.//////////// Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. We must take strong action to protect the freedom that is the birthright of all people. Self-determination is the essence of democracy. That is why we should put the Congress on record in support of self-determination for the Sikhs of Punjab, Khalistan , the Muslim people of Kashmir, the Christians of Nagalim, and all the peoples of South Asia. We should also stop our aid and trade with India until basic human rights are respected. India is not a friendly country and it has a long record of anti-American activity. Now it wants to be our partner in fighting terrorism, while it practices terrorism and tyranny against its own people. America should not stand for that. /////////////// SEMINAR AND LISA BOOK AWARD--2006//////////// London, June 26, 2006.--London Institute of South Asia (lisa) Seminar on the subject of Separate Electorate was held in London on June, 24, 2006 with Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President Council of Khalistan , in the chair. Separate Electorate was introduced by the British in India in 1905 to give fair representation to all of India's many faiths and castes. Separate Electoral rolls for them provided for effective local government for decades. However, when the same was proposed under the Communal Award in 1932 for state assemblies, the high castes--who constituted only 15 per cent of India's population--saw their dominant position threatened. The Congress party started a campaign against the proposal alleging that the British were playing a game of ``divide and rule`'. The Muslims under the leadership of Mr. Jinnah accepted ``Separate Electorate'' but Mr. Gandhi was able to persuade the leader of the Untouchables, Dr. Ambedkar, by starting a ``fast unto death'', to reject the British offer. By a deal signed with the Congress Party (Poona Pact of 1932) the Untouchables accepted Joint Electorate with the Hindus. Mr. Gandhi claimed that India was a Hindu country. With perpetual majority assured, the Hindu leadership of the Congress Party set upon the task of denying all the faith and caste identities and their fair share in power.///////////// In the states where the Muslims were in majority, Joint Electorate suited them better but they took a principled stand for the sake of the minorities. Separate Electorate and the Muslim majority states in the East and the West being grouped into regions were the two Muslim demands. If those had been accepted there would have no partition in 1947 and all the faiths and castes would have had their fair share in power. But that meant the Hindus would have got only 15% in contrast with the Muslims who were 25% of the population and the Bahujan (i.e., native majority who are Untouchables) would have been the largest group in the parliament. The Hindus preferred partition over accepting Separate Electorate to give fair share in power to all faiths and castes. The irony is they have the temerity to blame the Muslims and Mr. Jinnah for the partition and continue to do so. The fact is that the Hindu leaders of the Congress Party forced the partition by rejecting every fair formula for sharing power. After having tricked the Untouchables into accepting Joint Electorate with them, they hoped to rule over India in perpetuity. /////////////// The Seminar was addressed by Mr. V.T. Rajshekar, Editor of Dalit Voice, Bangalore, who explained how the dominance of the Brahmin has been challenged by Bahujan. He said that by his thesis that the best way to fight discrimination is to strengthen the caste identity, has helped the castes to consolidate their vote banks to help their own kin to win elections. The result is that the Bahujan parties have won power in several states in India . The rejection of the fair system of Separate Electorate has backfired on the Brahmin. He is looking for new ways to restore its grip over power. The new method is to embrace Communism. They have organized Communist parties and groups all over India . They have captured power in West Bengal and Kerala through elections but in most other areas they operate as terrorist groups under the title of Naxalites or Maoists. The landlords in much of rural India are Thakurs--a caste one level below the Brahmin--and the farm labour is from Untouchable castes. The humiliation of the caste system piled upon exploitation by forced or unpaid labour makes rural India a hell hole. In this charged environment, the Brahmin cadres have started their Naxalite Movement. Given a gun the irate labourers shoot and kill the land lord and end up in prison or on the gallows; the Brahmin secures confirmation as ``revolutionary leader''. The Brahmin schemes are so complex and diabolical that it is hard to fathom the truth. But the low castes in India are waking up, says Mr. Rajshekar. They can now act wisely and devise a new polity that recognizes rather than denies the multiplicity of India's faiths, castes and states to give them their due and obtain internal harmony and peace with all the neighbours. Three more papers were read at the Seminar. Brigadier //////////// Dr. Aulakh in his presidential address at the end exposed the truth about India , which practises the worst form of apartheid under minority rule. The Brahmin keeps inventing new gimmicks and tricks to maintain his hold over power. He made a powerful case for a sovereign state for the Sikh nation in the Punjab which has been endorsed by the resolutions of Sarbat Khalsa and reinforced by the massacre of the Sikhs in the Punjab and other parts of India in the wake of the assault and desecration of Durbar Sahib in 1984. He supported the struggle for freedom of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, of Nagas and other peoples of Assam. ///////////////// The seminar was followed by a ceremony for “Lisa Book Award'' given every year to a book by an author from South Asia that has made a difference. The award in 2006 was given to “Tandev of the Centaur--Sikhs and Indian Secularism'' by Professor Gurtej Singh. It was presented to him by the winner of the same award last year--Mr. V.T. Rajshekar. The citation read: ////////////////// “This book shows that the ‘freedom struggle' of India was in fact a struggle for succession to hegemony. The British had repeatedly said they were preparing India for self rule and would leave once the job was done. The Muslims took notice and declared that the Brahmin not the British were their main adversary. Since the Muslims were concentrated on the periphery and were sparse in numbers in the rest of India , they wanted autonomous Muslim majority regions and Separate Electorate. This would have protected the rights of all faiths and castes. They demanded Pakistan after failing in every attempt to get their due share in power by constitutional guarantees prior to Independence. The effort of the Hindu leadership was to try and build a majority around the idea of `Secularism' and `Joint Electorate'. Under the Poona Pact of 1932, the Bahujan compromised their identity when they agreed to be included on the electoral rolls with the Hindus. //////////////// “The Sikhs believed that the British would not leave until thrown out and thus played into the hands of the Hindus to become the vanguard of the armed struggle against the British making thus making the most sacrifices. The Sikhs were promised their separate state; that was a false promise they call ‘Raj Neeti'. All those who trusted M.K. Gandhi and relied on Congress `promises' now feel betrayed. The book reveals that India is founded on a polity of paranoia; it is united only in fear and hate. The Hindu leaders feared the Muslim and wanted the partition even more than the Muslims. After the Muslim majority left and went to Pakistan the Sikhs are seen by them as a threat. The wanton use of force against them for a decade in the wake of the assault on Durbar Sahib in 1984, the Sikh Nation virtually stands expelled from the Indian Union. A sovereign Sikh state is only a matter of time. This has become inevitable due to the clarity of vision of scholar leaders like Sirdar Gurtej Singh.///////////////// 000000000
[_private/ftarc.htm]