Out of the one thousand years of Hindu slavery, about eight hundred years passed under Islamic Turks, Afghans or Mughals. During this period, Hindus kept on their fight and by the end of the 18th century, they had almost removed the Islamic rule when they, as well as Muslims, were overpowered by the British. Since the 19th century, this fight was thus directed towards the British Raj. The failed 1857 mutiny or the first war of Independence was supposed to be a joint Hindu-Muslim effort against them.

During this war, Syed Ahmed Khan served the British most faithfully for which he got Knighthood from the British crown. He not only protected a large number of Englishmen and women from the mutineers, but also dissuaded many Muslim houses from joining the revolt. From the last quarter of the 19th century, the larger part of the Muslims had made a common cause with the British. Thus, on the departure of the British on the 15th August 1947, Gandhi and all other Hindu leaders proclaimed that India had got "freedom" from one thousand years of slavery, but the Muslims, having got Pakistan for their support to the British cause, hailed the event as freedom from Hindu dominance. A few of them who remained in the Congress, like Maulana Azad, said that they had got freedom after 150-200 years of the British Raj. 

It was a great blunder of Hindu leaders to accept the mere transfer of power at the cost of India's partition as 'Independence'. They even failed to take due note of the Muslim perception of Indian history. For the Muslims, the 800 years of Turkish, Mughal or Afghan rule, was their golden period. On the other hand, Hindus regard it as the period of their worst suffering in which they were subjected to jazia (religious tax), pilgrims tax, higher rates of custom and excise duties on their merchandise and other indignities. In fact, this is the primary cause of Hindu-Muslim divide, not the difference of religion. The socialist and the secularist brigades of Jawaharlal Nehru knew it. Since 1947, their all time job, with the blessings of the Central and State governments, has been to project the pre-British Islamic rule as a 'Home Rule', the Mughal period as the 'Golden Period' of Indian history, to disprove the stories of persecution of Hindus, and to show that destruction of Hindu temples by Muslim rulers was just in conformity with the medieval system. This way, they thought, they would bridge the gap between the Hindus and the Muslims. I have personally heard many Nehruvite Hindus say : "What is wrong if all Hindus take to Islam or Christianity? After all, God is one and the same for all, by whatever name you call Him."

Indeed, the minority oriented Indian Constitution; a weak-kneed central government; and Muslim appeasement policy of the political parties; all are sounding alarm bells for Hindu nationalists. They are, however, all in disarray. They are crying, but know not what to do and where to begin. It must be understood that the situation today is worse than prevailing anytime in the past centuries. In the medieval period, wars were waged among kings and sultans. Now, we are confronted with a new kind of civilization war. So, nothing tangible can be achieved without a purposeful, concerted all India Hindu awakening to match the Islamic threat. This mass awakening is impossible without a common all India link language that would join not only the elite class, but the people on the street as well as those living in high apartments/mansions. The tragedy is that Hindus' own secular brigade cleverly entrapped Hindu intelligentsia into an anti-Hindi movement and north-south (Aryan-Dravid) embroilment, even while it fully supported Urdu and Shariat law (in opposition to Hindi and a common civil code) for the Muslims from Kerala to Kashmir and North-East to Gujarat.

In my view, Hindu India faces five major threats, namely, (1) Islamic fundamentalism, backed by terrorism, (2) Imperialism of English language, (3) Christian missionaries in Tribal areas, (4) Secular brigades, and (5) Internal dissensions and failure to see beyond one's nose. Of these, Islamic fundamentalism is the biggest and the deadliest. The Secular brigade is helping it in many ways. Christian missionaries pose a lesser danger, but they are emboldened because of the 'Secular' support. In fact, the 'Secularists' are carrying the flags of Islamic fundamentalism and Christian missionaries both, even though, outside India, both are at war with each other.

To kill this monster of Arab imperialism, one must know its strength, its power base and weaponry. Briefly speaking, the Quranic concept of war is its ideological base, the Madrasas and mosques are the power houses, and unflinching faith on the prophethood of a tyrant like Mohammed, is its real strength. Madrasa educated fidayeens and soldiers; finances from oil-rich Sheikhs or zakat (donations from the rich) and weapons acquired through every means - beg, borrow, steal - form its striking forces and armoury. To match all these, Hindus must develop a kill instinct ad concretise their Hindutva ideology that should be intelligible to the common man, providing true concepts of the individual, family, society, state, statecraft, war and peace. For it, Hindus have to once again refer to the core of their holy Vedas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharat, the Geeta and Kautilya's Arthashastra. The Geeta, a part of the great Mahabharat, is a treatise on fighting a righteous war, like the one we are faced with today, to turn an escapist Arjun into a determined warrior. There is a world of difference between Geeta's exhortation for a Dharmayuddha, waging war for righteousness and justice, and the Quranic Jehad for expansion of Arab or Mohammedan imperialism based on the theory of Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb, or Momin and Kafir. For the past 50 years, Hindu Dharmacharyas, mesmerised by the misplaced Gandhian non-violence and Nehru's pseudo-secularism, have been playing havoc with their holy books by focusing attention to self salvation alone, ignoring performance of one's duty faithfully as a member of the society. India needs fighting Arjunas, not just singing and dancing Brihannalas (music teaching Arjuna in King Virat's palace). Hindu intellectuals must come out of their state of inertia which Lord Krishna states : "Ashochyan-nanu-shochstvam, pragya-vadanshch bhashase" (You grieve for those that should not be grieved and yet you speak like great saints; Geeta, 2/11).

On physical plane, Hindu elite and 'godmen' should move among Hindu masses, forgetting their caste, colour and status, talk to them in their own language to give them true knowledge, moral and material strength; and mobilise them in the national cause. Hindu rich should be made to donate larger part of their earnings for common good instead of wasting it on luxuries, 5-star temples, unnecessary and extravagant marriage and birthday parties, and so on. Before partition, a village headman had told me the difference between a Hindu and a Musalman, thus - A Hindu getting rich would first go in for jewelry, whereas a Musalman would first go in for a gun. Hindus too need to learn the use of gun and gun powder. The holy Geeta concludes with "Yatra yogeshwar krishno yatra partho dhanurdhar, tatra shrirvijayo bhutirdhruva neetiramatirmam (Where there are both Yogiraj Krishna and the great warrior Arjuna, prosperity, victory & happiness is assured)"

Hindus are already late by more than hundred years. The ground for Muslim separatism and Pakistan had been laid by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in the last quarter of the 19th century. He started it in 1867 with the opposition to the demand for introducing Hindi in Devanagari script in place of Urdu, written in Persian script, in government offices and lower courts of U.P. In 1900, about two years after Syed's death, U.P.'s Lt. Governor, A.Macdonell, permitted the use of Hindi. Soon, the teachers and staff of Syed's MAO College (later AMU) launched an agitation against it. These very agitators were later used by the British to form the Muslim League in 1906 in the wake of Hindu agitation against Partition of Bengal (1905). Here is an extract from Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's writing in the context of Hindi-Urdu controversy:

"....I was talking to Mr. Shakespeare (then Commissioner of Benaras) about Muslim education....I replied that I was convinced that the two communities (Hindu and Muslim) were incapable of putting their heart and soul into anything requiring mutual effort, and even though the opposition was not yet as serious as it might be, I thought that it would increase largely....I assured him that anyone who lived long enough would see the truth of my prediction...." (Hayat-i-Javed, by Altaf Husain Ali, translated by H.Kadiri & David Matthews, Idarah-i-Adabiyat-i-Delhi, 2009, Kasimjan Street, Delhi-6, p.100).

The prediction came true with Muslim League's demand for Pakistan in 1940.

From strategic view-point, Hindus should first tackle the 'Secularists' by winning them over or neutralising them off. Distinction should be made between the Sunnis and the Shia Muslims; the proselytising missionaries and the Christian community. The latter is itself a victim of Islamic fundamentalism in other parts of the globe. Diplomatically, it should not be difficult to cut off their links with Islamic fundamentalists. On their side, Hindus need to develop their intelligence network and an adequate co-operation and co-ordination system. Without it, Hindus fail to react or react too late and too little. Muslim reaction, on the other hand is quick and forceful. Hindus' entire dependence on government for safety and security is not a healthy sign.

Those who believe that Hinduism has survived all vicissitudes during the past 5000 years and faces no danger are living in a fool's paradise. Hinduism was wiped out from one third of undivided India just 50 years ago. It is on its last legs in the J & K and north-eastern States. In rest of India, 'Hindu' and 'Hindi' have become dirty words. Thus, either Hindus recover their lost ground with glory or be ready to face extinction from the remaining part of India, that is, Bharat.