The Indian Hanafi Sunni Muslim class is actually a deeply racist society. The Ashraaf, who form the bulwark and frame all the rules and provide all the contact points, comprise the clerical class, the high maulanas, and Muftis, as well as the rich landed and business class. They also include the upper-class converts. This is the class that chanted the Pakistan slogan and achieved the partition in their quest for complete Islamisation of the Indian sub-continent. The long-term goal of converting the whole world into Islam is never lost on these class of Muslims.

It is also fallacious to blame the Two-Nation Theory on people like Syed Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Iqbal and Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The two nations of Ummat and Kuffar are built into the very grain of the Islamic doctrine. After all, Maulana Azad, supposedly a great nationalist, espoused the cause of Ummat all the while, and opposed the concept of Qaumiyat Judagana (Separate Nations) only for expediency, and never opposed the basic doctrine.

The case in point is the recent admission of Asaduddin Owaisi that Indian Hanafi Muslims follow the Fatawa-i-Alamgiri of the fanatical Aurangzeb. Other than splurging money on the vast Mughal Army and his own Durbar and Harem, the greatest amount squandered by Aurangzeb was on this project. It was headed by a Sufi Naqshbandi muhaddis, Nizam Burhanpuri. He was assisted by Shah Abdul Rahim, another Naqshbandi. Shah Abdul Rahim is also famous for his Madarsa Rahimiya of Delhi. He is even more famous for being the father of Shah Waliullah, who is famous for inviting Ahmad Shah Abdali and forging an alliance with the Rohilla, Shah Najibullah, and the Shi’a ruler of Avadh, Asaf-ud-Daula. Waliullah is hailed as a great Muslim for this act by the Muslims, even as they call Mir Jafar a traitor for teaming up with Hindus to throw off the oppressive Siraj-ud-Daula. The Tipu Sultan freedom fighter trope is also similar, even though he was also writing letters to Shah of Afghanistan, and to the Caliph to invade Hindustan and convert it into Dar-ul-Islam. Details of the ‘Myth of Sufi Syncretism’[1] have been documented in detail in the piece given at the footnote.

Waliullah’s son, Shah Abdul Aziz continued this policy of extreme bigotry and supremacism, declaring India as Dar-ul-Harb in 1803. It was in pursuance of this declaration that Syed Ahmad Barelvi Shaheed, and Shah Ismail Shaheed went to NWFP to fight jihad against Mahārāja Ranjit Singh. They were both killed in action in 1932 at Balakot.

The Deobandi-Barelvi schism happened in 1926 on the question of the Prophet’s divine status, leading ultimately to the establishment of Deobandi and Barelvi sects in the 1860s and 1900s respectively. Their principle doctrinal books, Hidayah, and Fatwa-i-Razvia, are both founded on the Alamgiri doctrine. From the beginning of 20th century till today, the doctrine is being chanted from the pulpits, yet the fatal discourse that Indian National Congress adopted in 1920 down the precipice a flawed doctrine of ‘sarva dharma samabhava’ served to blind the larger Hindu population towards the natural violent hate that Islam harbours against all non-believers, and in particular against the mushrikeen[2]That it culminated in the partition of India, and thence went on to officially confirm the Two-Nation Theory in the form of Art. 370 was but a natural consequence.

That India survived even in its present form in the face of total capitulation to Muslim League by the Congress is owed to only 3 persons — Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Gangadhar Adhikari drem of having one Pakistan and 17 divided countries in a Subhash Chandra Bose, and Vallabh Bhai Patel. Left to Gandhi, Nehru and Azad, the trio that was at the helm through the early forties, the Rahmat Ali Map become a reality.(the one on the cover of this book) would have become a reality.

After the transfer of power through the Indian Independence Act, 1947, an Act of the British Parliament, India could have proudly reclaimed its heritage and could have held its head aloft in the comity of nations. However, the effete leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru chose a course that was to further degrade the genius of the Indian people.

The fatal practice of Nehruism, which was a cocktail of Hindu hatred, Islamic exaltation, English imitation, Communist infatuation, and Socialist evisceration, took away the vitality of the new politically independent India. India never attained mental and cultural independence. The same forces that had sapped Indian vitality to such an extent that they swallowed the cowardice preached as ahimsa by the Mahātmā, and never once thought of rising to at least ring-fence the new Republic from the pernicious forces of Islamism, Cultural Marxism, and Evangelism.

Even though the BJP has been in power for more than six years now, it has been unable to shake off the narratives put in place by Nehruism and its cheerleaders. As the venerable Sitaram Goel said, ‘I view Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as a bloated Brown Sahib, and Nehruism as the combined embodiment of all the imperialist ideologies Islam, Christianity, White Man’s Burden, and Communism that have flooded this country in the wake of foreign invasions. And I do not have the least doubt in my mind that if India is to live, Nehruism must die. Of course, it is already dying under the weight of its sins against the Indian people, their country, their society, their economy, their environment, and their culture. What I plead is that a conscious rejection of Nehruism in all its forms will hasten its demise, and save us from the mischief which it is bound to create further if it is allowed to linger.’

Such is its hold that even those who criticise Nehru day in and day out, are unable to distinguish between Nehru and Nehruism. To expect them to recognise the full contours of the dystopia wrought by Nehruism would, therefore, be a vain hope. Even the present ruling party, while criticising Nehru with all its might, is unable to extricate itself from the iron shackles of Nehruism. The colonisation brought by the British may have gone in its physical form, but the colonisation perpetuated by Nehruism shows no signs of abatement.

Nehruism continued to divide India, with its popular appeal cutting across parties and ideologies. It also provided the fertile soil in which the ever-willing ideologies of division, i.e. Communism, Islamism and Evangelism, would reap a rich harvest.

Nullification of Article 370, and enactment of CAA is recognition of the need to get rid of the imprint of Nehruism on our polity. Its impact on identity, education, religion, environment, and gender is such as to create permanent resentments, and yet it fosters and promotes mindless pursuit of rights to the neglect of duties and creates an entitled class of minorities, who are portrayed as victims in spite of being the successors of India’s historical oppressors.

The two welcome moves are the beginning of what may ultimately lead to a renewal, a renaissance and ‘The 2nd Republic’.