Supreme Court on “The Sword of Tipu Sultan” –

My victorious Sabre is lightening for the destruction of the unbelievers. Thou art our Lord, make him victorious who promotes the faith of Muhammad. Confound him, who refuses the faith of Muhammad and withold us from those who are so inclined

My victorious Sabre is lightening for the destruction of the unbelievers. Thou art our Lord, make him victorious who promotes the faith of Muhammad. Confound him, who refuses the faith of Muhammad and withold us from those who are so inclined

 The legal fight against the shameful and motivated attempt of Doordarshan and the Government of India to project the usurper king of Mysore, Tipu Sultan, as a national hero, was a long, expensive and frustrating ordeal. According to authentic and documented history of the period, Tipu Sultan had hanged to death and sold as slaves a large number of innocent men, women, and children; looted and destroyed and burnt down hundreds of Hindu temples and Christian churches; and circumcised and converted to Muhammadanism thousands of Hindus and Christians in Mangalore, Coorg, Coimbatore, Dindigal, and Kerala. He had made territorial concessions to the French whose help he sought to fight the British. He had also sent emissaries to Islamic countries – Afghanistan, Iran, and Turky – inviting them to conquer the whole of North India for the glory and spread of Islam. But the Doordarshan serial on Tipu Sultan, based on a novel entitled The Sword of Tipu Sultan by Bhagwan Gidwani, was full of deliberate distortion, fabrication, and suppression of recorded facts of history with the object of glorifying a villain as a national hero, a benevolent ruler, and a paragon of all virtues.

2. The Petitioners objected to and protested against Doordarshan misusing the official media network to telecast a controversial serial full of lies, distortions and white-washed stories about a historical figure who was hated all over South India for his heinous crimes and cruelties in the service of Islam. This was bound to mislead the gullible general public into believing that a treacherous and cruel Islamic bigot was a renowned national hero – travesty of truth which is against the very spirit and purpose for which the Doordarshan was set up. It was for these reasons that the Petitioners requested the Bombay High Court (later the Supreme Court also) to restrain the Government of India and Doordarshan from telecasting the Tipu Serial based on the dubious novel of Bhagwan Gidwani. They asked the Court to direct the Doordarshan to project the character of Tipu Sultan based on his real life known from the recorded history of South India.


Point . : The dominant character of Tipu Sultan as presented in the book of Gidwani “The Sword of Tipu Sultan”.

Argument: There is ample record and large documentary evidence which throws light on the dominant character of Tipu Sultan. The Petitioners had produced the relevant Gazetteers of Mysore and Kerala and the letters of Tipu Sultan at the time of hearing at the Bombay High Court. They had proved that:

1. He claimed to be a Paigambar.

2. He adopted the title of Padshah.

3. He sometimes designated his own State as “Sircar-e-Khodadad -e- usud-ilhye -e- Ahmady” – in plain language, an Islamic State.

4. He introduced a new calendar beginning with the birth of Mohammed the Prophet, and the names of the months and years were in Arabic language and Hijra calendar.

5. He changed the Hindu names of cities, towns, villages, and fords to Muslim names in the State of Mysore.

6. Inscriptions on Tipu’s sword, on stones, on coins, and on gold mohurs were in the name of Allah, or in the name of prophet Mohammed, or in praise of Islam, or for the destruction of unbelievers and infidels (Hindus).

7. He invented new names for his coins. His gold and silver coins were named after the saints of Islam. His copper coins bore the Arabic and Persian names of stars. The first double paisa of Tipu was named Afzal Khalifa. Some pagoda pieces were called Ahmadi, one of the names of the Prophet.

8. He introduced new weights and measures.

9. The list of chiefs of every province and district showed only Muslim names. All the strategic positions were held by Muslims, and not a single Hindu name is found.

10. He created two types of troops or corps – Ahmadis and Usud Illeye. The Hindu captives were converted as Usud Illye and the rest were said to be Ahmadis.

11. His commands were promulgated in the language of the Koran, particularly in keeping with passages from Chapter II, IX, and LXI.

The Koran says: “Fight with those who do riot believe in God and in the last day, and who do not consider those things as unlawful which God and his Prophet have prohibited and profess not the true religion, and fight with those unto whom the scriptures have been given, until they pay tribute by right of subjugation and be rendered low.”

Tipu proclaimed: “It is our constant object and sincere intention that those worthless and stiffnecked infidels (Hindus) who have turned aside their heads from obedience to the true believers, and openly raised the standard of infidelity should be chastised by the hands of the faithful and made either to acknowledge the true religion or to pay tribute.”

12. He regarded the war in Kerala as holy: “Having come to the resolution of prosecuting a holy war against them, deem it expedient.”

13. He proclaimed that his commanders should serve Islam: “Promoting the prosperity and advantage of the people of Islam and the overthrowing of unrighteous infidels, you will do whatever may be in your power to increase the lustre of the firm religion of Mohammed.

14. He was out to humuliate the Hindus and glorify Islam: “By the blessings of Allah and the aid of the Prophet, the forces of the accursed, having experienced a signal defeat and chastisement, have turned their faces to flight, and the troops of Islam are victorious over the enemies of the faith. Thus the army of the accursed infidels has been trodden underfoot by the hoofs of the horses of Islam and rendered vile and miserable, while the religion of Mohammed has been thereby made to flourish. You, Sir, will, therefore, apply with all your heart the best means of advancing the religion of Mohammed and of administering to the support of Islam.”

15. He appealed to the Muslims abroad, specially the Asian Sultans, to help him in his mission. He wrote to Zaman Shah the ruler of Afghanistan, and to the Persian and Turkish rulers. He pleaded with them to invade North India and depose the infirm (Moghul) king who had reduced the faith to this state of weakness.

16. He wrote to Zaman Shah, the king of Afghanistan, that “we should come together in carrying on a holy war against the infidels, and for freeing the region of Hindustan from the contamination of the enemies of our religion (Hindus)”.

17. He sent delegations to Kabul, Basra, Istanbul, Mauritius, and Paris, and embassies to Persia, Turkey, and Constantinople, that is, to the Caliph of Islam.

18. He invited the French for help against the British in India for his own purpose. His plan was to divide South India between himself and the French. There were written agreements between the two parties in this respect. He requested the French to supply ten thousand trained Europeans and thirty thousand negros.

19. He demolished eight thousand Hindu temples and forcefully converted thousands of Hindus and Christians.

All these clearly explain and establish the dominant character of Tipu Sultan as a fanatic and cruel Islamic ruler, as inviting foreign imperial powers to invade and subjugate the country, and also as committing every known method of cruelty to convert Hindus. He did all this for the glory and spread of Islam in India. He never had any patriotic sentiments nor high principles as depicted in the scandalous novel of Bhagwan Gidwani.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after stating that all the places, personalities and events are historical, allowed the Doordarshan to telecast the distorted version of the life and deeds of Tipu Sultan as a non-historical fiction.

  • Madhavrao D. Pathak, Advocate

Source : Tipu Sultan Villian Or Hero by Voice of India

Election Season – Award Wapsi and Intolerance

Elections Ahoy ! and ofcourse India has to be portrayed intolerant, fascist;  Otherwise how does one create the fear that “Minorities Khatre Mein Hai” and keep reaping the benefits of it ? And this time all the stakeholders gang up together. It is therefore imperative that people who believe in India’s present and future raise their voice.

Few videos, photos  and articles on the issue which present the pro-nation sentiment of some of the artists and expose some of the artists & premier intellectuals who have raised the bogey of intolerance.

Politically motivated Atmosphere  Raveena Tandon – Video

” #Intolerance of the Elite & Returning Someone Else’s Award !  – Anupam Kher Video

Are We Living in a Frightening Period ? – Anupam Kher Video

Returning Award is insulting the nation – Kamal Hasan – Video

We still listen to Foreigners About How to Organise a Debate on Tolerance Video

Intolerance and Kashmiri Hindus ” – Video

” Returning awards itself shows their intolerance“- Video – G.Madhavan Nair, Former ISRO Chairman

Selective Outrage is Dangerous ” –  Letter  – Padma Bhushan, G.Padmanaban, Former Director IISC

” India a country of Communal Harmony ” – Ratan Tata –

Ratan Tata on Communal Harmony

Ratan Tata on Communal Harmony

And while on the subject, would be good to see how some of the the #Awardreturnees pay tribute to their masters.

Sahitya Akademi Returnee Ranganath Misra touching feet of Akhilesh Yadav, CM of UP, state in which Dadri Lynching happened. 

Sahitya Akademi Ranganath Misra

‘ Rahul Gandhi showing ‘signs of great change ” – Nayantara Sahgal 

IBN Live 5th Nov

IBN Live 5th Nov

Arundhati Roy on Support to Naxal Movement :

Arundhati on Naxals

It is clear that most of those who took the awardwapsi were motivated politically. A few gullible people also followed either due to ideological affinity to the opposition Or out of trying to make a point owing to the media blitzkrieg about intolerance.

Those have material on the above subject, kindly mail us at

Nothing beefy in beef arguments

The self-proclaimed liberal mob as usual gets to thought-street fighting the moment anything Hindu is in question. Suddenly from their hate for Hindu orthodoxy, they prefer pretending more authentic about Hindu scriptures when it comes to practices that “Hindutva” rally for, trying to show how the Hindutva hooligans are not true Hindus. Now with the cow butchering and beef eating while they tried on the one hand to uphold freedom of enmasse butchering of cows, on the other hand they tried teaching that Hinduism is not inherently opposed to it (and example here) and that ‘original Hinduism’ that the Hindutva hooligans don’t have a grasp of but the liberal intellectuals have.

While the dishonesty and bullying of liberals is notorious enough and while countering the liberal position is a meaningless exercise (for, their arguments have no root only their motivations have root in their inherent anti-Hinduness) we should definitely understand how Hinduism sees this issue and what are the various aspects involved in understanding any such issue. For that we can use some of the absurd liberal arguments as contrasting positions rather than try countering them. This is not really a case against cow slaughter in the sense of pointing out problems in cow slaughter or merits in not slaughtering. Nor is this really a refutation of liberal arguments.

“Originally in Hinduism”

One of the usual arguments is that “originally” Hinduism did not see cow killing as a taboo and that cow-worship is of “recent” origin. This is not really just about a problem of fact but worldview. Of course, neither fact nor logic favor such view.

Literature – Instructive

On fact – literature has two kinds of references, instructive and demonstrative. Instructions for a ritual tell us that certain practices were part of certain rituals. There are then allegories where there are citations for those practices really being in effect. So for instance if one quotes the procedure for aSvamedha as a proof of certain practice, one would do well to recollect how many aSvamedha rites are indeed possible, given that the whole of AryAvarta can only have one living performer of aSvamedha at any given point of time. Instructive examples from literature have very few mentions of cow killing. An overwhelming majority of paSu sacrifices do not involve cow as a paSu. Even a ritual like cow-sacrifice that one can show as example is quite remote and cannot be done as a regular or even as an occasional rite. For that matter Hindu thought is comprehensive and its various traditions have practices ranging from the most insufferable “sanctimony” to the “goriest” ones. On the one hand there is the monk who tries to avoid hurting insects, and on the other hand is the naramedhin who sacrifices human self. So to try telling what is “originally in Hinduism” to Hindus is to try showing candlelight to the sun.

Hindus in general and “those Hindutva hooligans” in particular, are well aware of the spectrum of Hindu thought, its breadth of practices. The presence of some ritual hardly indicates a general practice. What indicates a general practice is the anecdotal evidence we get from literature, not the instructive evidence.

Literature – Anecdotal


Anecdotal evidence from literature has several examples like Surabhi, Sabala, Kapila that do not tell us the story of cow-killing but of cow worship. Rituals like cow-sacrifice come out as remotest, with not many examples to recall from the whole of veda-itihAsa literature. Examples like Vishwamitra taking calf come across rather as exceptions, both by volume and by where they belong – to the forest outside the village-town living.


The bulk of literature sees cow as the nourisher, hence the mother. Protection of cow remains the theme of several allegories right from Indra-Panis of Veda (RV 10.108) to the episodes like gograhaNa of Mahabharata and where Arjuna saves brAhmaNas’ cattle from thieves (where he also breaches the no-entry norm by intruding the place of Yudhishthira & Draupadi). All these show cow as a rather precious wealth sought to be protected, not an edible to be preyed on and predated. The literature is full of instances of cow donations, praise of cattle stock as one of the greatest riches. Whether it is ghosha yAtra where dhArtarAshTra-s use the guise of surveying their cattle wealth in the forest or the go-grahaNa where the cattle grazed feely outside the town and had nominal protection from wild animals, it is clear that cow simply could not have been a slaughtered animal.

There are a lot of references to meat – vAtApi taking goat form etc. There is also the fact of evolving practices where paSu bali in many cases, over time, got replaced with a symbolic paSu to avoid killing of animals. A brief narration can be seen here and here. However most of these do not narrate cow killing or cow eating. Even instances of beef turn out to be minimal, not just cow. While the presence of meat eating and recommendations to avoid meat can be seen as half-full vs half-empty glass (there are both), beef examples are too few to indicate any norm or widespread practice.

Logic – Food

Agrarian and pastoral societies heavily depend on cow and in India where divinity is attributed to nature and not just supra-natural, it is not surprising that cow is worshiped. It is only logical that the Hindus do not see cow as their food but as a food-giver. The instances of farmers searching for their lost cows, finding their cows getting killed by butcher-thieves in slaughter houses and committing suicide unable to see the horrific butchering, is something not just of fact that the liberals hide but a natural happening that would occur to any thinking mind.

This is also in line with the way Hindus and others look at nature herself. For Hindus nature is the mother( see “Nature as Teacher and the Trustee” under this), the giver of instruments of enjoyments including their own upAdhi-s and not the one to be enjoyed herself. Mother is the food-giver, not food herself. Mother is the giver of means of enjoyment, not the one to be enjoyed. For the abrahamists nature is not divine and nature is to be enjoyed and conquered. So it is only logical to see how differently they see cow from Hindus.

Civilizational commonsense thus suggests that Hindus naturally do not see cow as their food.

A woman worships a cow as Indian Hindus offer prayers to the River Ganges, holy to them during the Ganga Dussehra festival in Allahabad, India, Sunday, June 8, 2014. Allahabad on the confluence of Rivers the Ganges and the Yamuna is one of Hinduism’s holiest centers. (AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh)

Logic – Evolution

Those who suggest that Hinduism “originally had” beef-eating and that cow-worship is of “recent origin”, besides being factually wrong, fail to understand that Hindu sampradAya-s unlike book-cults are evolving and quoting some “ancient” text as if that is “original” only demonstrates the critic’s un-Hindu and Abrahamic thinking. Lived tradition is what is original, for Hindu traditions are experiential and not book-cults. So something being of recent origin does not make it any less Hindu. It in fact reinforces the fact that they evolve to suit the times unlike time-warped book-cults that exhort beliefs and practices that do not suit evolving human societies.

We also have wise men who say that man originally ate meat and he took to vegetable eating much later in evolution. While they tried to use it in support of meat eating, this is in fact a supporting argument for those against beef, for civilizational progress would mean you take to newer and more refined practices by leaving the older ones.

Logic – Contradiction in allegation

The beef lovers (for the sake of attacking Hinduness not really lovers of beef) first said that many Hindus do eat beef and that only a “few” sections of Hindus are against it. But it turns out that politicians, more aware of Hindu mood, though first tried this line of argument, are having to go back and not attribute such thing to Hindus.

There are multiple reasons for this. First of all it is not just the elite that keep and worship cows – the agrarian families are the ones that do it. The majority of this nation does so. Second, Muslims did not kill cows because they liked them but because Hindus hold them sacred, similar to the way they destroy temples not out of love for their own cult but because they have to offend the kafirs as a sacred duty. While this can go well with Hindu hating liberals, it cannot go well with any section of Hindus regardless of whether they themselves eat meat or even beef for that matter.

Having flunked in their attempt to divide Hindus on “practice” matter thus, some “intellectuals” now have to try digging out evidence to embarrass Hindus saying how their ancestors ate cows. But then, that falls flat for the above reasons. Both because our ancestors held cows holy and precious and because we are not book-cult followers to blindly do what our ancestors did and can do better with the knowledge they gave us.

Legal and Social

One argument we hear is that these are matters of personal choice and we should not have legal sanctions such as prohibition of cow slaughter. But the same applies to many matters of personal choice such as monogamy into which laws make socially unwelcome intrusions. How much law should mandate how much should be left to social and personal self-regulation depends on multiple factors, considering two of them here as examples.


First, whether the present social circumstances need state to interfere or whether the prevalent situation is healthy and under manageable limits. On this, matters like cow slaughter need more legal intervention today than many other matters.

Second, whether a matter is happening because of or in spite of society. If something is a problem inherent in the society and the state is trying to enforce a noble change, such as overcoming oppression and discrimination, state has a case to make acts that bring society out of such practices. By norms of civilization, especially seen from the most civilized society’s worldview namely Hindu worldview, which at least by the claims of original constitution forms the basis for Indian state, state does have a case to make enforcements against cow slaughter. It is also the case that society at large is opposed to cow slaughter and that it is done by enemies of Hindu society both for provocation and to foster an anti-Hindu environment in the country. Even because of this the state has every reason to legislate against cow slaughter and enforce it.

Population Imbalance of Religious Groups A Matter of Concern – RSS

ABKM Resolution : Challenge of Imbalance in the Population Growth Rate

Steps taken to control the population of the country have yielded adequate results during the last decade. But in this regard, the Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal is of the opinion that the severe demographic changes brought forth by the analysis of the religious data of Census 2011 highlight the necessity of the review of population policy. Vast differences in growth rates of different religious groups, infiltration and conversion resulting in religious imbalance of the population-ratio, especially in border areas may emerge as a threat to the unity, integrity and cultural identity of the country.

Although Bharat was one of the early countries in the world to announce as early as in 1952 that it will have population planning measures, it was only in year 2000 that a comprehensive population policy was formulated and a population commission was formed. The policy aimed at achieving a stable but healthy population by the year2045 by optimizing the fertility rate to the ideal figure of 2.1 total fertility rate [TFR]. It was expected that as this aim is in accordance with our national resources and expected future requirements, it will be uniformly applied to all the sections of society. However, the National Fertility and Health Survey [NFHS] of 2005-6 and the 0-6age group population percentage data of religion in Census 2011, both indicate that the TFR and child ratio is uneven across the religions. This is reflected in the fact that the share of population of religions of Bharatiya origin which was 88 percent has come down to 83.8 percent while the Muslim population which was 9.8 percent has increased to 14.23 percent during the period 1951-2011.

In addition to that, the rate of growth of Muslim population has been very high than national average, in the border districts of Border States of the country like Assam, West Bengal and Bihar, clearly indicating the unabated infiltration from Bangladesh. The Report of the Upamanyu Hazarika Commission appointed by Hon Supreme Court and several judicial pronouncements from time to time have also corroborated these facts. It is also a fact that the infiltrators are usurping the rights of citizens of these states and are becoming a heavy burden on the already scant resources apart from creating socio-cultural, political and economic tensions.

The religious imbalance of population in the North Eastern states has assumed serious proportions. In Arunachal Pradesh, the people of religions of Bharatiya origin were 99.21 percent in 1951. It came down to 81.3 percent in 2001 and to 67 percent in 2011. In just one decade the Christian population of Arunachal Pradesh has grown by almost 13 percentage points. Similarly, in the population of Manipur, the share of religions of Bharatiya origin which was more than 80 percent in 1951 has come down to 50 percent in 2011. These examples and pointers of unnatural growth of Christian population in many districts of the nation indicate an organized and targeted religious conversion activity by some vested interests.

The Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal expresses deep concern over all these severe demographic imbalances and urges the Government to –

  1. Reformulate the National Population Policy keeping in view availability of resources in the country, future needs and the problem of demographic imbalance and apply the same uniformly to all.
  1. Totally curb the illegal infiltration from across the border. Prepare a National Register of Citizens and prevent these infiltrators from acquiring citizenship rights and purchasing lands.

The ABKM calls upon the countrymen including all the Swayamsevaks to take the cognizance of the causes of these population changes and consider it their national duty to create public awareness and take all lawful steps to save the country from this demographic imbalance.

Foreigners Involved in Religious Preaching Is Against Law – Govt of India

In a response to a RTI application regarding visa category for religious purposes, the MHA, GOI responded thus ,

” There is no visa category for the foreign national intending to visit India on the purpose of attending religious program. As per the instructions, a foreign national entering India on the strength of tourist visa is not allowed to preach and propagate his religion in India. “

No visa for preaching religion

No visa for preaching religion

It is therefore clear that most religious missionaries who come into Bharat and indulge in preaching and conversion are actually involved in a fraud and liable to be prosecuted.