‘Secular’ Congress or ‘Communal, Anti-national’ Congress?

The Congress Party claims to be a ‘secular’ party. The party president Ms. Sonia Gandhi and PM Dr. Manmohan Singh have repeatedly stated that Congress is a ‘secular’ party to the core.

 

The dictionary meaning of ‘secular’ is: ‘not pertaining to or connected with religion’.

 

Let us look at some of the allies of the ‘secular’ Congress:

1. Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in Kerala – a Muslim party

2. Kerala Congress (Mani) [KC(M)] in Kerala – a Christian party

3. All India Majlis e-Itaahid al-Muslimin (MIM) in Andhra Pradesh – a Muslim party.

Among these 3 parties, the two Muslim parties are exclusively Islamic in their outlook and membership. How could these parties be called ‘secular’? Can the Congress justify its alliance with these parties?

IUML is the new arm of erstwhile Muslim League which partitioned the nation on the basis of religion. The Muslims of North Kerala were staunch supporters of Muslim League in the pre-independence era and had also showed their beastly nature by killing thousands of Hindus during the Moplah rebellion. Post-independence, the community has been supporting IUML. This shows that the situation has not changed a single bit. These Muslims do not consider themselves a part of the national mainstream and IUML is a party which is representing such internal ‘anti-nationals’. Still, the Congress party is in alliance with IUML for decades. Can it explain the reason for this? If the Muslims of the region had changed their opinion, why does the Congress still need the IUML which is basically the same party which advocated Islamic extremism and partitioned the nation?

MIM is even more radical. It was a party which opposed the integration of Hyderabad with India. It was the party which organised Razakars who went about killing thousands of Hindus to maintain the ‘Islamic’ State of Hyderabad. The party was initially banned in 1948 and the Razakars’ leader was deported to Pakistan in the late 1950s. The current party organisation tries to separate itself from the activities during the period of Indian independence. But the party has always maintained its ‘Islamic’ nature and character. Anyone who believes that the party members suddenly became pro-India after Indian independence must be living in a ‘fools’ paradise’.

Thus, we see that Congress is allied not only with three ‘communal’ parties but also, two ‘anti-national’ parties. Still, it dares to call itself has ‘secular’ (or perhaps they mean ‘sickular’).

 

Next, look at the policies of the Congress party.

The Constitution of India (Article 44) clearly states that the State shall ‘endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India’. Does the party believe that the framers of the Indian Constitution were ‘communal’ for having stated such in the Constitution? If not, why is it that the Congress does not support the forming of a ‘Common Civil Code’? The party claims that the endeavour for adoption of a Common Civil Code must come from within the Muslim community. This is utter nonsense. The Common Civil Code will go a long way in bringing the Muslim community into the national mainstream. The Indian nation is secular. Being so, why should the government create a separate civil code for each community? Secular government should be ‘equally sceptical’ to all religious practices. It does not mean ‘enclosing all religious practices’. Will the Congress party accept to any demand for implementation of Shariat for cases of rape, murder etc in which the accused or the victim is a Muslim? If not, why is Shariat followed in the case of civil code? This practice is an utter nonsense which divides the society on communal lines. Congress wants to maintain this situation in perpetuity. Still, the party calls itself ‘secular’.

PM Manmohan Singh had stated that Muslims shall have the first right on the nations’ resources. May I know what is the difference between our PM and Bengal’s Muslim League government of Mr. Suhrawardy who advocated that preference shall be given to a Muslim candidate with a third-class degree over a Hindu candidate with a first-class degree (as happened in the case of filling a vacancy for lecturer in the Government College near Calcutta)? What is the difference between Manmohan Singh and Sir Bamfylde Fuller who had stated that in the Eastern Bengal, Muslims would be nurtured and Hindus will be neglected (an advocate of the partition of Bengal which occurred during 1905). Sir Fuller did that to garner the support of Muslims. Isn’t Manmohan doing the same thing by stating that Muslims will be preferred over others? He appears to be an ‘anti-national’ who wants to implement the policies of the traitorous Muslim League and the colonist British Empire. He does so to get the votes of the Muslim community. On the whole, the party is certainly not secular.

The current Congress leadership does not appear to care about the integrity of the country. This party’s leadership accepted to a partition of India. How can we be sure that they will not do so once again just to remain in power? After all, the support given by this treacherous party to the various successor parties of the anti-national Islamic parties and the way they encourage illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims into Assam and West Bengal does show the true philosophy of the party leadership which is ‘anything shall be done to remain in power’. It is lead by power-mongers who do not care about the nation a single bit.

May Goddess Bharati save this nation from these modern-day demons who do not worry about destroying the nation for their own selfishness.