Mahatma Gandhi is one of the most revered and honored person in India. Mahatma means a great person. History textbook in Indian schools, show Gandhi as the person who fought British and gave India Independence. In India, Gandhi is termed as "Father of Nation". It is unclear as to who bestowed the title of "Father of Nation" on Gandhi. Some attribute it to Rabrindranath Tagore.
The only source of information about Gandhi to many Indians is mostly the history text that they had read in their schools. Very few actually read the vast literature available on Gandhi. After India became independent, the Congress party gained power, and remained in power for the majority of time. Gandhi was a member of the Congress party. In fact Congress party is very synonymous with Gandhi. Congress party claims that they follow Gandhian principles.
Gandhi was a philosopher. His philosophy is very well articulated in his writings, all of which is available online. Thus it gives a good opportunity to understand his philosophy.
History is a very under-rated subject. One cannot easily make a career in history. Neither can one become rich by becoming a historian. In India, history is a very neglected subject. However history is of utmost importance. History is one of the most important aspect of mankind and every nation. History has a tremendous impact on politics in particular. There is a sizeable population in India, who votes for Congress because they have been taught that India got Independence from British due to Congress. The history books in Indian schools talk about the greatness of Congress and its leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Indira Gandhi. Due to this the name Gandhi has got an aura around itself. It is important to note that officially Mahatma Gandhi and Indira Gandhi are not relatives. But many Indians believe they are related because of the similarity in their last names.
In all totalitarian regimes across the world, one theme is quite common. Project a person and a family as the messiah. Project as if they are super-humans, they are above ordinary human-beings, project as if they are almost God. Write only good things about such persons. Ban all objective analysis of such personalities. This has been witnessed in various countries around the world. The communist/socialist countries being at the forefront of such propaganda. Some of the major countries are/were USSR(Stalin), North Korea (Kim Il-sung and his descendants), China (Mao), Iraq(Saddam Hussein), Libya(Muammar Gaddafi), India(Mahatma Gandhi and Congress). Sooner or later, such subservience to a particular person, results in harm to the nation. History has proved that time and again.
In USSR Stalin was God. He transformed the country to become a super power. In North Korea, Kim Il-sung and his son are treated like God's. No one can question them. In India, similarly if one questions Gandhi, or tries to do an objective analysis of Gandhi, the person doing so is immediately labeled as traitor, communal, etc.
History being one of my favorite subjects from school days, I am constantly reading and analyzing about events and personalities. I have tried to consolidate some not so known facts about Mahatma Gandhi, which many people are not aware. All of the material quoted is available. Gandhi himself was very open about his views. However for political gains, only a certain set of his views are showcased to the general public. One cannot under-estimate the power history has on the Indian voters.
The aim is neither to aggrandize Gandhi or demean him.
Source for the below material is http://www.mkgandhi.org/
What Is Hinduism?
If were asked to define the Hindu creed, I should simply say: Search after Truth through non-violent means. A man may not believe even in God and still call himself a Hindu. Hinduism is a relentless pursuit after Truth and if today it has become moribund, inactive, irresponsive to growth, it is because we are fatigued and as soon as the fatigue is over Hinduism will burst forth upon the world with a brilliance perhaps unknown before. Hinduism is the most tolerant of all religions. Its creed is all embracing.
Hinduism tells every one to worship God according to his own Faith or Dharma and so it lives at peace with all the religions.
Cow-protection is the dearest possession of the Hindu and heart. It is the one concrete belief common to all Hindus. No one who does not believe in cow-protection can possibly be a Hindu. It is a noble belief Cow-worship means to me worship of innocence. For me, the cow is the personification of innocence. Cow-protection means the protection of the weak and the helpless. Cow protection means brother hood between man and beast. It is a noble sentiment that must grow by patient toil and tapasya. It cannot be imposed upon anyone. To carry cow-protection at the point of the sword is a contradiction in terms. Rishis of old are said to have performed penance for the sake of the cow. Let us follow in the footsteps of the Rishis, and ourselves do penance, so that we may be pure enough to protect the cow and all that the doctrine means and implies.
The central fact of Hinduism is cow-protection. Cow-protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution. It takes the human being beyond his species. The cow to me means the entire sub-human world. Man, through the cow, is enjoined to realize his identity with all that lives.
The cow question is a big question, the greatest for a Hindu. I yield to no one in my regard for the cow. Hindus do not fulfill their trust so long as they do not possess the ability to protect the cow. That, ability can be derived either from body force or soul force. To attempt cow-protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to Satanism and to prostitute to a base end the grand significance of cow-protection.
The Hindus must scrupulously refrain from using any violence against Musalmans. Suffering and trust are attributes of soul-force. I have heard that, at big fairs, if a Musalman is found in possession of cows or even goats, he is at times forcibly dispossessed. Those who, claiming to be Hindus, thus resort to violence, are enemies of the cow and of Hinduism.
I make bold to assert without fear of contradiction, that it is not Hinduism to kill a fellowman even to save the cow.
The Musalman claim that Islam permits them to kill the cow. To make a Musalman, therefore, to abstain from cow-killing under compulsion, would amount in my opinion to converting him to Hinduism by force. Even in India under Swaraj, in my opinion, it would be unwise and improper for a Hindu majority to coerce by legislation a Musalman minority into submission to statutory prohibition of cow-slaughter.
The conversion(of thought) of only one party is enough because the solution requires no bargains. For instance, the Hindus should cease to worry the Musalmans about the cow without expecting any consideration from the later. Hindus should yield to the Musalman demand whatever it may be regarding representation, again without requiring any return. And if the Musalmans insist on stopping the Hindu music or arati by force, the Hindus will continue playing it although every single Hindu should die at his post without retaliation. The Musalmans will then be shamed into doing the right thing in an incredibly short space of time.
It is to be noted that Vinayak Sawarkar (who had coined the term "Hindutva") had stated that cow should not be worshiped.
The Mussalman masses do not still recognise the same necessity for Swaraj, as the Hindus do. The Mussalmans do not flock to public meetings in the same number as Hindus. This process cannot be forced.
Quarrels must break out so long as the Hindus continue to be seized with fear. Bullies are always to be found where there are cowards. The Hindus must understand no one can afford them protection if they go on hugging fear.
Running away for fear of death, leaving one’s dear ones, temples or music to take care of themselves, is irreligion; it is cowardice. It is not manly, it is unmanly. Non-violence is the virtue of the manly. The coward is innocent of it.
The remedy against cowardice is not physical culture but the braving of dangers. So long as the parents of the a middle class Hindus, themselves timid, continue to transmit their timidity by keeping their grown-up children in cotton wool, so long will there be the desire to shun danger and run no risks. They will have to dare to leave their children alone. Let them run risks and even at times get killed in so doing. The puniest individual may have a stout heart. The most muscular Zulus cower before English lads. Each village has to find out its stout hearts.
Nothing is possible without the Hindus shedding their timidity. Theirs is the largest stake and they must be prepared to sacrifice the most.
True Hindu-Muslim unity requires Mussalmans to tolerate not as a virtue of necessity, not as a policy, but as part of their religion, the religion of others so long as they, the latter, believe it to be true.
"... Hindus think that they are physically weaker than the Mussalmans. The latter consider themselves to be weak in educational and earthly equipment. They are now doing that all weak bodies have done hitherto. This fighting therefore, however unfortunate it may be, is a sign of growth. It is like the Wars of the Roses. Out of it will rise a mighty nation." (31:368)
If the thinking sections of both the communities realize the cowardice and folly at the back of the hostilities, we can easily end them. Both have to be brave, both have to be wise. If both or either deliberately get wise, theirs will be the way of non-violence. If both fight and learn wisdom only by bitter experience, the way will be one of violence. Either way there is no room for cowards in the society of men, i.e., in a society which loves freedom. Swaraj is not for cowards.
Cowardice should no place in the national dictionary.
My whole soul rises against the very idea of the custody of my religion passing into the hands of goondas. Confining myself, therefore, for the present to the Hindus, I must respectfully but earnestly warn the thinking Hindus against relying upon the assistance of goondas for the protection of their temples, themselves and their wives and children. With the weak bodies they have, they must determined to stand at their post and to die fighting or without fighting. It would have been a glorious death for Jamanlalji and his colleagues, if they had died in the act of securing peace. It will be a glorious death fort Dr. Moonje or me, when we defend temples single-handed. That were bravery of the spirit indeed.
Speech at A.I.C.C., Lahore on 27-12-1924 at the Subjects Committee Meeting:
its fold for the battle of independence. Even if you have got unavoidable dimensions, still we should act unitedly within the Congress. If Mussalmans cut the throats of Hindus let them cut it. But the consolation there must be, that we have got freedom.
Speech at Gandhi Seva Sangh meeting on 27-3-193.8.
"If we have formed the notion that we should suffer the atrocities of the Muslims in mute submissiveness it is absolutely wrong. If until today I have not said that we must also resist injustice inflicted by them, here I say it now. We should now tell the Muslims also that they have been unjust and, if they beat us up for saying it, we should get beaten up." (66:450)
Speech at a prayer meeting on 4-11-1946.
".. .The Congress belongs to the people, the Muslim League belongs to our Muslim brothers and sisters. If Congressmen fail to protect the Mussalmans where the Congress is in power, then what is the use of a Congress Premier?
Talking to relief workers of Chandpur on 7-11-1946.
" . . .You will see I am not, as I have already said, asking you just now to unlearn the use of arms or to follow my type of heroism. I have not made it good even in my own case. I have come here to test it in East Bengal. I want you to take up the conventional type of heroism. You should be able to infect others —both men and women—with courage and fearlessness to face death when the alternative is
dishonour and humiliation. Then the Hindus can stay in East Bengal not otherwise. After all Musslmans are blood of our blood and bone of our bone." (86:91)
At a prayer meeting in Patna on 12-3-1947.
"Those who desecrated the mosque were not men but devils, because mosques,
temples or churches are all houses of the Lord . . . If Muslims are about to desecrate a temple, it becomes my duty to prevent them from their vandalism, irrespective of my not being an idol worshipper. I should hug the idol and request them not to demolish the temple. I should lay down my life to protect the idol but refuse to hand it over to them. My entreaties will impress them, they will realise that I mean no harm to them and they will become my friends." (87:74)
" . . .We should not spread poison. On the other hand we should try to prevent it from spreading. If someone commits murder we should be sorry because the murderer after all is our own brother. There must be something wrong in us, that is why our brother could stoop to such a sin." (87:78)
The only source of information about Gandhi to many Indians is mostly the history text that they had read in their schools. Very few actually read the vast literature available on Gandhi. After India became independent, the Congress party gained power, and remained in power for the majority of time. Gandhi was a member of the Congress party. In fact Congress party is very synonymous with Gandhi. Congress party claims that they follow Gandhian principles.
Gandhi was a philosopher. His philosophy is very well articulated in his writings, all of which is available online. Thus it gives a good opportunity to understand his philosophy.
History is a very under-rated subject. One cannot easily make a career in history. Neither can one become rich by becoming a historian. In India, history is a very neglected subject. However history is of utmost importance. History is one of the most important aspect of mankind and every nation. History has a tremendous impact on politics in particular. There is a sizeable population in India, who votes for Congress because they have been taught that India got Independence from British due to Congress. The history books in Indian schools talk about the greatness of Congress and its leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Indira Gandhi. Due to this the name Gandhi has got an aura around itself. It is important to note that officially Mahatma Gandhi and Indira Gandhi are not relatives. But many Indians believe they are related because of the similarity in their last names.
In all totalitarian regimes across the world, one theme is quite common. Project a person and a family as the messiah. Project as if they are super-humans, they are above ordinary human-beings, project as if they are almost God. Write only good things about such persons. Ban all objective analysis of such personalities. This has been witnessed in various countries around the world. The communist/socialist countries being at the forefront of such propaganda. Some of the major countries are/were USSR(Stalin), North Korea (Kim Il-sung and his descendants), China (Mao), Iraq(Saddam Hussein), Libya(Muammar Gaddafi), India(Mahatma Gandhi and Congress). Sooner or later, such subservience to a particular person, results in harm to the nation. History has proved that time and again.
In USSR Stalin was God. He transformed the country to become a super power. In North Korea, Kim Il-sung and his son are treated like God's. No one can question them. In India, similarly if one questions Gandhi, or tries to do an objective analysis of Gandhi, the person doing so is immediately labeled as traitor, communal, etc.
History being one of my favorite subjects from school days, I am constantly reading and analyzing about events and personalities. I have tried to consolidate some not so known facts about Mahatma Gandhi, which many people are not aware. All of the material quoted is available. Gandhi himself was very open about his views. However for political gains, only a certain set of his views are showcased to the general public. One cannot under-estimate the power history has on the Indian voters.
The aim is neither to aggrandize Gandhi or demean him.
Source for the below material is http://www.mkgandhi.org/
Gandhi's viewpoint on Hinduism
What Is Hinduism?
If were asked to define the Hindu creed, I should simply say: Search after Truth through non-violent means. A man may not believe even in God and still call himself a Hindu. Hinduism is a relentless pursuit after Truth and if today it has become moribund, inactive, irresponsive to growth, it is because we are fatigued and as soon as the fatigue is over Hinduism will burst forth upon the world with a brilliance perhaps unknown before. Hinduism is the most tolerant of all religions. Its creed is all embracing.
Hinduism tells every one to worship God according to his own Faith or Dharma and so it lives at peace with all the religions.
Gandhi on cow-slaughter
The cow is as dear as life to a Hindu. The Musalman should, therefore, voluntarily accommodate his Hindu brother.Cow-protection is the dearest possession of the Hindu and heart. It is the one concrete belief common to all Hindus. No one who does not believe in cow-protection can possibly be a Hindu. It is a noble belief Cow-worship means to me worship of innocence. For me, the cow is the personification of innocence. Cow-protection means the protection of the weak and the helpless. Cow protection means brother hood between man and beast. It is a noble sentiment that must grow by patient toil and tapasya. It cannot be imposed upon anyone. To carry cow-protection at the point of the sword is a contradiction in terms. Rishis of old are said to have performed penance for the sake of the cow. Let us follow in the footsteps of the Rishis, and ourselves do penance, so that we may be pure enough to protect the cow and all that the doctrine means and implies.
The central fact of Hinduism is cow-protection. Cow-protection to me is one of the most wonderful phenomena in human evolution. It takes the human being beyond his species. The cow to me means the entire sub-human world. Man, through the cow, is enjoined to realize his identity with all that lives.
The cow question is a big question, the greatest for a Hindu. I yield to no one in my regard for the cow. Hindus do not fulfill their trust so long as they do not possess the ability to protect the cow. That, ability can be derived either from body force or soul force. To attempt cow-protection by violence is to reduce Hinduism to Satanism and to prostitute to a base end the grand significance of cow-protection.
The Hindus must scrupulously refrain from using any violence against Musalmans. Suffering and trust are attributes of soul-force. I have heard that, at big fairs, if a Musalman is found in possession of cows or even goats, he is at times forcibly dispossessed. Those who, claiming to be Hindus, thus resort to violence, are enemies of the cow and of Hinduism.
I make bold to assert without fear of contradiction, that it is not Hinduism to kill a fellowman even to save the cow.
The Musalman claim that Islam permits them to kill the cow. To make a Musalman, therefore, to abstain from cow-killing under compulsion, would amount in my opinion to converting him to Hinduism by force. Even in India under Swaraj, in my opinion, it would be unwise and improper for a Hindu majority to coerce by legislation a Musalman minority into submission to statutory prohibition of cow-slaughter.
The conversion(of thought) of only one party is enough because the solution requires no bargains. For instance, the Hindus should cease to worry the Musalmans about the cow without expecting any consideration from the later. Hindus should yield to the Musalman demand whatever it may be regarding representation, again without requiring any return. And if the Musalmans insist on stopping the Hindu music or arati by force, the Hindus will continue playing it although every single Hindu should die at his post without retaliation. The Musalmans will then be shamed into doing the right thing in an incredibly short space of time.
Only Solution
But how is the cure (of Hindu-Muslim tension) to be effected? Who will convince the Hindu maniac that the best way to save the cow is for him to do his duty be her and not goad his Musalman brother? Who will convince the Musalman fanatic that it is not religion but irreligion to break the head of his Hindu brother when he plays music in front of his mosque? Or, again , who will make the Hindu see that he will lose nothing by the minorities being even over-represented on the elective public secular bodies? These are fair questions and show the difficulty to working out the solution.It is to be noted that Vinayak Sawarkar (who had coined the term "Hindutva") had stated that cow should not be worshiped.
On Nationalism
When Hindu or a Musalman does evil, it is evil done by an Indian to an Indian, and each one of us must personally share the blame and try to remove the evil. There is no other meaning to unity than this Nationalism is nothing if it is not at least this. Nationalism is greater than sectarianism. And in that sense, we are Indians first and Hindus, Musalmans, Parsis and Christians after.The Mussalman masses do not still recognise the same necessity for Swaraj, as the Hindus do. The Mussalmans do not flock to public meetings in the same number as Hindus. This process cannot be forced.
Large Heartedness
I know that Hindus are in a numerical majority, and that they are believed to be more advanced in knowledge and education. Accordingly, they should be glad to give way so much the more to their Mohammedan brethren. As a man of Truth, I honestly believe that Hindus should yield up to the Mohammedans what the latter desire, and that they should rejoice in so doing.Communal Slogans
Cries of Vande Mataram, Jai Bharat or Jai Hind frighten the Musalmans today. Are they shouts of Bharat Ki Jai (Victory of India) going to mean MUsalman ki Kshay (destruction for Musalmans)? It is a matter of shame that thing shave been brought to such a pass.ALLAH O AKBAR
I hold that it (the cry of Allah-O-Akbar) is probably a cry than which a greater one has not been produced by the world. It is a soul-stirring religious cry which means, God only is great. There is nobility in the meaning. Does it become objectionable because it is Arabic? I admit that it has, in India, a questionable association. It often terrifies the Hindus because, sometimes, the Muslims in anger come out of the mosques with this cry on their lips to belabow the Hindus. I confess that the original had no such association. So far as I know, the cry has no such association in other part of the world. If, therefore, there is to be a lasting friendship between the two, the Hindus should have no hesitation in uttering the cry together with their Muslim friends. God is known by many names and has many attributes. Rama, Rahim, Krishna, Karim, are all names of the one God. Sat Shri Akal (God is True) is an equally potent cry. Should a single Muslim or Hindu hesitate to utter it? It means that God is and nothing else is. The Ramadhun has the same virtue.Vande Mataram
I now come to Vande Mataram. That is no religious cry. It is a purely political cry. The Congress had to examine it. A reference was made Gurudev about it. And both Hindus and Muslim members of the Congress Working Committee had to come to the conclusion that its opening lines are free from any possible objection. I plead that it should be sung together by all on due occasion. It should never be a chant to insult or offend the Muslims. It is to be remembered that it is the cry that had fired political Bengal. Many Bengalis have given up their lives for political freedom with that cry on their lips.PSYCHOLOGY OF FEAR
"There is no doubt in my mind that in the majority of quarrels the Hindus come out second best. My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Musalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as rule is a coward. I have notices this in railways trains, on public roads, and in the quarrels which I have had the privilege of setting. Need the Hindu blame the Musalman for his cowardice?Quarrels must break out so long as the Hindus continue to be seized with fear. Bullies are always to be found where there are cowards. The Hindus must understand no one can afford them protection if they go on hugging fear.
Running away for fear of death, leaving one’s dear ones, temples or music to take care of themselves, is irreligion; it is cowardice. It is not manly, it is unmanly. Non-violence is the virtue of the manly. The coward is innocent of it.
The remedy against cowardice is not physical culture but the braving of dangers. So long as the parents of the a middle class Hindus, themselves timid, continue to transmit their timidity by keeping their grown-up children in cotton wool, so long will there be the desire to shun danger and run no risks. They will have to dare to leave their children alone. Let them run risks and even at times get killed in so doing. The puniest individual may have a stout heart. The most muscular Zulus cower before English lads. Each village has to find out its stout hearts.
Nothing is possible without the Hindus shedding their timidity. Theirs is the largest stake and they must be prepared to sacrifice the most.
True Hindu-Muslim unity requires Mussalmans to tolerate not as a virtue of necessity, not as a policy, but as part of their religion, the religion of others so long as they, the latter, believe it to be true.
Letter to G.D. Birla on 16-4-1926.
I do not believe that the Muslims are more markedly ungrateful than members of any other community; but I have observed that they lose temper more quickly."... Hindus think that they are physically weaker than the Mussalmans. The latter consider themselves to be weak in educational and earthly equipment. They are now doing that all weak bodies have done hitherto. This fighting therefore, however unfortunate it may be, is a sign of growth. It is like the Wars of the Roses. Out of it will rise a mighty nation." (31:368)
Cure of Cowardice
It is common cause between the correspondent and myself that the average Hindu is a coward. How is he to be turned into a brave man? Is he to become brave by muscular development or by developing the bravery of the soul? My correspondent says, ‘The world has no place for the weak’. He means, I imagine, ‘physically weak’. If so, the proposition is unsound. There are many animals physically stronger than man and yet man lives. Many muscular races have died out and some of them are even now in the process of dying out. the proposition should therefore be, so far as man is concerned, ‘The world has no place for the weak in spirit’.Cowardice Behind Riots
These cases (of cowardice) have nothing to do with the inveterate enmity between the Hindus and Musalmans. Where there are fools there are bound to be knaves, where there are cowards there are bound to be bullies, whether they are Hindus or Musalmans. Such cases used to happen even before the outbreak of these communal hostilities. The question here therefore is not how to teach one of the two communities a lesson or how to humanize it, but how to teach a coward to be brave.If the thinking sections of both the communities realize the cowardice and folly at the back of the hostilities, we can easily end them. Both have to be brave, both have to be wise. If both or either deliberately get wise, theirs will be the way of non-violence. If both fight and learn wisdom only by bitter experience, the way will be one of violence. Either way there is no room for cowards in the society of men, i.e., in a society which loves freedom. Swaraj is not for cowards.
Cowardice should no place in the national dictionary.
Riots
Fight Goondas
What I detest is the match between the goondas of both the parties. Any peace based upon such a trial of strength will turn to bitterness in the end. The way to get rid of the Hindu cowardice is for the educated portion to fight the goondas. We may use sticks and other clean weapons. My Ahimsa will allow the use of them. We shall be killed in the fight. But that will chasten both the Hindus and the Musalmans. That would remove the Hindu cowardice in a moment. As things are going, each party will be the slaves of their own goondas. That means dominance of the military power.My whole soul rises against the very idea of the custody of my religion passing into the hands of goondas. Confining myself, therefore, for the present to the Hindus, I must respectfully but earnestly warn the thinking Hindus against relying upon the assistance of goondas for the protection of their temples, themselves and their wives and children. With the weak bodies they have, they must determined to stand at their post and to die fighting or without fighting. It would have been a glorious death for Jamanlalji and his colleagues, if they had died in the act of securing peace. It will be a glorious death fort Dr. Moonje or me, when we defend temples single-handed. That were bravery of the spirit indeed.
Speech at A.I.C.C., Lahore on 27-12-1924 at the Subjects Committee Meeting:
its fold for the battle of independence. Even if you have got unavoidable dimensions, still we should act unitedly within the Congress. If Mussalmans cut the throats of Hindus let them cut it. But the consolation there must be, that we have got freedom.
Speech at Gandhi Seva Sangh meeting on 27-3-193.8.
"If we have formed the notion that we should suffer the atrocities of the Muslims in mute submissiveness it is absolutely wrong. If until today I have not said that we must also resist injustice inflicted by them, here I say it now. We should now tell the Muslims also that they have been unjust and, if they beat us up for saying it, we should get beaten up." (66:450)
Speech at a prayer meeting on 4-11-1946.
".. .The Congress belongs to the people, the Muslim League belongs to our Muslim brothers and sisters. If Congressmen fail to protect the Mussalmans where the Congress is in power, then what is the use of a Congress Premier?
Establishment of Communal Peace
We have to be correct in our behavior irrespective of what others do. I am not unaware of the sufferings of the Hindus and the Sikhs in Pakistan. But knowing that, I want to overlook them. Otherwise, I will go mad. I will not be able to serve India. We are to look upon the Muslims in the Union as our blood-brothers.Talking to relief workers of Chandpur on 7-11-1946.
" . . .You will see I am not, as I have already said, asking you just now to unlearn the use of arms or to follow my type of heroism. I have not made it good even in my own case. I have come here to test it in East Bengal. I want you to take up the conventional type of heroism. You should be able to infect others —both men and women—with courage and fearlessness to face death when the alternative is
dishonour and humiliation. Then the Hindus can stay in East Bengal not otherwise. After all Musslmans are blood of our blood and bone of our bone." (86:91)
At a prayer meeting in Patna on 12-3-1947.
"Those who desecrated the mosque were not men but devils, because mosques,
temples or churches are all houses of the Lord . . . If Muslims are about to desecrate a temple, it becomes my duty to prevent them from their vandalism, irrespective of my not being an idol worshipper. I should hug the idol and request them not to demolish the temple. I should lay down my life to protect the idol but refuse to hand it over to them. My entreaties will impress them, they will realise that I mean no harm to them and they will become my friends." (87:74)
" . . .We should not spread poison. On the other hand we should try to prevent it from spreading. If someone commits murder we should be sorry because the murderer after all is our own brother. There must be something wrong in us, that is why our brother could stoop to such a sin." (87:78)
