[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15866-15867]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                BOOK ON INDIAN FREEDOM STRUGGLE HONORED

                                 ______
                                 

                          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 
     percent in contrast with the Muslims who were 25 percent 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

[[Page 15867]]

     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  
     Usman Khalid, Director of Lisa, said that the system of 
     Separate Electorate is necessary for India to give justice to 
     minority faiths (like in Pakistan)--Muslims, Christians, 
     Buddhists, Parsis and Jains. But the decision is for the 
     majority to make. They may prefer to extend the protection of 
     Separate Electorate to the top 5 percent high castes instead. 
     As for the Sikhs in the Punjab, the Muslims in Jammu and 
     Kashmir, and the tribal peoples of Assam, they are separate 
     nations who have struggled for freedom for many decades; they 
     should be allowed to exercise their right of self-
     determination. Professor Gurtej Singh, explained how 
     ``reservation'' of seats in education and employment has not 
     provided justice to the oppressed low castes but has made 
     them subject of hate further isolating them. He proposed that 
     reservation should be extended to all faith communities and 
     all castes.
       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.

                          ____________________