Gong farmer (also gongfermor, gongfermour, gong-fayer, gong-fower or gong scourer) was a term that entered use in Tudor England to describe someone who dug out and removed human excrement from privies and cesspits. The word "gong" was used for both a privy and its contents. As the work was considered unclean and off-putting to the public, gong farmers were only allowed to work at night, hence they were sometimes known as nightmen. The waste they collected, known as night soil, had to be taken outside the city or town boundary or to official dumps for disposal.
गोंग फार्मर (टट्टी किसान,गोंगफेरमोर, गोंगफेरमोर, गोंग-फेयर, गोंग-फॉवर या गोंग स्कॉरर भी) एक शब्द था जिसका उपयोग ट्यूडर इंग्लैंड में किसी ऐसे व्यक्ति का वर्णन करने के लिए किया गया था जिसने निजी घरों और सेसपिट्स से मानव मल को खोदा और हटाया था। शब्द "गोंग" का प्रयोग प्रिवी और उसकी सामग्री दोनों के लिए किया जाता था। चूँकि काम को अशुद्ध और जनता के लिए अपमानजनक माना जाता था, गोंग किसानों को केवल रात में काम करने की अनुमति थी, इसलिए उन्हें कभी-कभी नाइटमैन के रूप में भी जाना जाता था। उनके द्वारा एकत्र किया गया कचरा, जिसे रात की मिट्टी के रूप में जाना जाता है, को निपटान के लिए शहर या शहर की सीमा के बाहर या आधिकारिक डंप पर ले जाना पड़ता था।
"Gong" is derived from Old English: gang, which means "to go". Towns usually provided public latrines, known as houses of easement, but numbers were limited: in London towards the end of the 14th century, for instance, there were only 16 for a population of 30,000. Local regulations were introduced to control the placement and construction of private latrines. Cesspits were often placed under cellar floors or in the yard of a house. Some had wooden chutes to carry excrement from the upper floors to the cesspit, sometimes flushed by rainwater. Cesspits were not watertight, allowing the liquid waste to drain away and leaving only the solids to be collected.
"गोंग" पुरानी अंग्रेज़ी: गैंग से लिया गया है, जिसका अर्थ है "जाना"। कस्बों में सार्वजनिक शौचालय उपलब्ध कराए जाते थे, जिन्हें सुविधा-घरों के रूप में जाना जाता था, लेकिन संख्या सीमित थी: उदाहरण के लिए, 14वीं सदी के अंत में लंदन में, 30,000 की आबादी के लिए केवल 16 शौचालय थे। निजी शौचालयों की नियुक्ति और निर्माण को नियंत्रित करने के लिए स्थानीय नियम लागू किए गए। सेसपिट अक्सर तहखाने के फर्श के नीचे या घर के आँगन में रखे जाते थे। कुछ लोगों के पास ऊपरी मंजिलों से मल-मूत्र को नाबदान तक ले जाने के लिए लकड़ी के ढलान थे, जो कभी-कभी बारिश के पानी से बह जाते थे। नाबदान जलरोधी नहीं थे, जिससे तरल अपशिष्ट बह जाता था और केवल ठोस पदार्थ ही एकत्र होते थे।
A foul odour from cesspits was a continual problem, and the accumulation of solid waste meant that they had to be cleaned out every two years or so. It was the job of the gong farmers to dig them out and remove the excrement. In the late 15th century they charged two shillings per ton of waste removed.
नाबदानों से दुर्गंध एक निरंतर समस्या थी, और ठोस कचरे के संचय का मतलब था कि उन्हें हर दो साल में साफ करना पड़ता था। उन्हें खोदना और मलमूत्र को हटाना टट्टी किसान का काम था। 15वीं सदी के अंत में वे प्रति टन कचरा हटाने पर दो शिलिंग का शुल्क लेते थे।
Despite being well-rewarded, the role of gong farmer was considered by historians on television series The Worst Jobs in History to be one of the worst of the Tudor period. Those employed at Hampton Court during the time of Queen Elizabeth I, for instance, were paid sixpence a day—a good living for the period—but the working life of a gong farmer was "spent up to his knees, waist, even neck in human ordure". They were only allowed to work at night, between 9:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. They were permitted to live only in specified areas, and were sometimes overcome by asphyxiation from the noxious fumes produced by human excrement.
Gong farmers usually employed a couple of young boys to lift the full buckets of ordure out of the pit and to work in confined spaces.
After being dug out, the solid waste was removed in large barrels or pipes, which were loaded onto a horse-drawn cart. As privies spread to the residences of ordinary citizens they were often built in backyards with rear access or alleyways, to avoid the need to carry barrels of waste through the house to the street. Much of what is known about London's privies during the 17th and 18th century comes from witness statements describing what had been discovered among the human excrement, such as the corpses of unwanted infants.
अच्छी तरह से पुरस्कृत होने के बावजूद, टेलीविजन श्रृंखला द वर्स्ट जॉब्स इन हिस्ट्री में गोंग किसान (टट्टी किसान) की भूमिका को इतिहासकारों ने ट्यूडर काल की सबसे खराब भूमिकाओं में से एक माना था। उदाहरण के लिए, महारानी एलिज़ाबेथ प्रथम के समय में हैम्पटन कोर्ट में कार्यरत लोगों को प्रति दिन छह पैसे का भुगतान किया जाता था - जो उस अवधि के लिए अच्छा जीवन था - लेकिन एक टट्टी किसान का कामकाजी जीवन "उसके घुटनों, कमर, यहाँ तक कि गर्दन तक मानव मल " में व्यतीत होता था। मानव व्यवस्था" उन्हें केवल रात में 9:00 बजे और सुबह 5:00 बजे के बीच काम करने की अनुमति थी। उन्हें केवल निर्दिष्ट क्षेत्रों में रहने की अनुमति थी, और कभी-कभी मानव मल से उत्पन्न हानिकारक धुएं से दम घुटने से उन पर काबू पा लिया जाता था। गोंग किसान (टट्टी किसान) आमतौर पर गड्ढे से पूरी बाल्टी उठाने और सीमित स्थानों में काम करने के लिए कुछ युवा लड़कों को नियुक्त करते हैं।
खोदने के बाद, ठोस कचरे को बड़े बैरल या पाइपों में निकाला जाता था, जिन्हें घोड़े से खींची जाने वाली गाड़ी पर लादा जाता था। जैसे-जैसे प्रिवीज़ आम नागरिकों के आवासों में फैलते गए, उन्हें अक्सर घर के माध्यम से सड़क तक कचरे के बैरल ले जाने की आवश्यकता से बचने के लिए, पीछे की पहुंच या गली के साथ पिछवाड़े में बनाया गया था। 17वीं और 18वीं शताब्दी के दौरान लंदन के प्रिवीज़ के बारे में जो कुछ भी ज्ञात है, वह गवाहों के बयानों से आता है, जिसमें बताया गया है कि मानव मल के बीच क्या खोजा गया था, जैसे कि अवांछित शिशुओं की लाशें।
Gong-farming can be hazardous and has a strong odor, making it a less desirable profession. The work of gong-farmers was physically exhausting, with no ventilation in the cesspits, making the night-long job even more challenging. The cesspits were not always maintained, and the rotting of the pit's ceiling was a common hazard.
One notable incident occurred in 1325, when a gong-farmer named Richard the Raker fell into a cesspit whose ceiling had rotted, and drowned while collecting feces.
गोंग-फार्मिंग खतरनाक थी और इसमें तेज़ गंध थी, जिससे यह कम वांछनीय पेशा बन गया। घंटा-किसानों का काम शारीरिक रूप से थका देने वाला था, नाबदानों में कोई वेंटिलेशन नहीं था, जिससे रात भर का काम और भी चुनौतीपूर्ण हो गया था। नाबदानों की हमेशा देखभाल नहीं की जाती थी, और गड्ढे की छत का सड़ना एक आम खतरा था।
एक उल्लेखनीय घटना 1326 में घटी, जब रिचर्ड द रैकर नाम का एक गॉन्ग-किसान मल इकट्ठा करते समय एक मल-गड्ढे (मानव मल) में गिर गया, जिसकी छत सड़ गई थी, और रिचर्ड मानव मल में डूब गया।
Operating predominantly under the cover of darkness, partly due to the malodorous nature of their work and partly to spare the public from the unsightly business of waste removal, gong farmers played a vital role in maintaining the basic hygiene of urban environments.
The work was not only physically demanding but also required a level of resilience to handle the conditions they worked under.
मुख्य रूप से अंधेरे की आड़ में काम करते हुए, आंशिक रूप से अपने काम की दुर्गंधपूर्ण प्रकृति के कारण और आंशिक रूप से जनता को कचरा हटाने के भद्दे व्यवसाय से बचाने के लिए, गोंग किसानों ने शहरी वातावरण की बुनियादी स्वच्छता को बनाए रखने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाई। काम न केवल शारीरिक रूप से कठिन था, बल्कि जिन परिस्थितियों में वे काम करते थे, उन्हें संभालने के लिए लचीलेपन के स्तर की भी आवश्यकता थी।
Gong farmers typically carried out their work between the hours of 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.
They operated predominantly under the cover of night, both to spare the public from the unsightly and malodorous aspects of their work and to mitigate the risk of spreading the filth and odour in crowded urban spaces. This nocturnal aspect of their job earned them the alternative moniker of ‘nightmen’.Interestingly, the status of gong farmers in society was paradoxical. While their service was essential, the nature of their work meant they were often ostracised or looked down upon. Nonetheless, their position was sometimes considered lucrative, given the payment structures and the occasional retrieval of lost valuables from the cesspits.
टट्टी किसान आमतौर पर अपना काम रात 9 बजे और सुबह 5 बजे के बीच करते हैं। जनता को उनके काम के भद्दे और दुर्गंधयुक्त पहलुओं से बचाने के लिए और भीड़-भाड़ वाले शहरी स्थानों में गंदगी और दुर्गंध फैलने के जोखिम को कम करने के लिए, वे मुख्य रूप से रात की आड़ में काम करते थे। उनकी नौकरी के इस रात्रिकालीन पहलू ने उन्हें 'नाइटमैन' का वैकल्पिक उपनाम दिया।दिलचस्प बात यह है कि समाज में गोंग किसानों की स्थिति विरोधाभासी थी। हालाँकि उनकी सेवा आवश्यक थी, उनके काम की प्रकृति का मतलब था कि उन्हें अक्सर बहिष्कृत किया जाता था या हेय दृष्टि से देखा जाता था। फिर भी, भुगतान संरचनाओं और कभी-कभार नालियों से खोई हुई क़ीमती वस्तुओं की पुनर्प्राप्ति को देखते हुए, उनकी स्थिति को कभी-कभी आकर्षक माना जाता था।
The occupation of gong-farming in Britain, though essential, was enveloped in a significant social stigma due to its association with human waste and the resultant foul conditions.
Gong farmers were indispensable for maintaining public health and hygiene in the densely populated urban areas of medieval and early modern Britain, yet the nature of their work, involving the removal of excrement from cesspits and privies, placed them on the fringes of society.
Despite the crucial service they provided, gong farmers were often ostracised and kept at arm’s length by the rest of the community. The unpleasant odours that clung to them and the unclean nature of their work led to their social isolation. The nature of their work invariably led to a certain degree of social ostracism, a paradox that highlights the complex relationship between essential public services and societal attitudes in historical contexts. In essence, the role of gong farmers in British history presents a study in contrasts: essential yet unacknowledged, well-compensated yet socially distanced. Their story underscores the often unseen yet vital work that underpins the functioning of societies, particularly in the context of urban public health and sanitation.
ब्रिटेन में गोंग-फार्मिंग का व्यवसाय, हालांकि आवश्यक था, मानव अपशिष्ट और परिणामी खराब स्थितियों के साथ इसके संबंध के कारण एक महत्वपूर्ण सामाजिक कलंक में लिपटा हुआ था। मध्ययुगीन और प्रारंभिक आधुनिक ब्रिटेन के घनी आबादी वाले शहरी क्षेत्रों में सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य और स्वच्छता बनाए रखने के लिए गोंग किसान अपरिहार्य थे, फिर भी उनके काम की प्रकृति, जिसमें मल-मूत्र को नालियों और निजी घरों से हटाना शामिल था, ने उन्हें समाज के हाशिये पर खड़ा कर दिया। उनके द्वारा प्रदान की गई महत्वपूर्ण सेवा के बावजूद, गोंग किसानों को अक्सर समुदाय से बहिष्कृत कर दिया जाता था और समुदाय के बाकी लोगों द्वारा उनसे दूर रखा जाता था। उनसे चिपकी रहने वाली अप्रिय गंध और उनके काम की अशुद्ध प्रकृति के कारण उनका सामाजिक अलगाव हो गया।फिर भी, उनके काम की प्रकृति ने निश्चित रूप से कुछ हद तक सामाजिक बहिष्कार को जन्म दिया, एक विरोधाभास जो ऐतिहासिक संदर्भों में आवश्यक सार्वजनिक सेवाओं और सामाजिक दृष्टिकोण के बीच जटिल संबंधों को उजागर करता है। संक्षेप में, ब्रिटिश इतिहास में गोंग किसानों की भूमिका विरोधाभासों में एक अध्ययन प्रस्तुत करती है: आवश्यक फिर भी अज्ञात, अच्छी तरह से मुआवजा दिया गया फिर भी सामाजिक रूप से दूर। उनकी कहानी अक्सर अनदेखे लेकिन महत्वपूर्ण कार्य को रेखांकित करती है जो समाजों के कामकाज को रेखांकित करती है, खासकर शहरी सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य और स्वच्छता के संदर्भ में।
The profession of gong-farming, while necessary, was subject to stringent legal regulations and restrictions, reflecting the delicate balance between the need for their services and the desire to maintain public health and decency. These legal frameworks were designed to control not only the operation of gong-farming but also the conduct and lifestyle of the gong farmers themselves.
In some areas, gong farmers were mandated to live in designated locations, often on the outskirts of towns or cities, due to the nature of their work. This segregation was another measure to prevent contamination and maintain public health but also served to reinforce the social ostracisation they faced.
गोंग-फार्मिंग का पेशा, आवश्यक होते हुए भी, कड़े कानूनी नियमों और प्रतिबंधों के अधीन था, जो उनकी सेवाओं की आवश्यकता और सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य और शालीनता बनाए रखने की इच्छा के बीच नाजुक संतुलन को दर्शाता था। ये कानूनी ढाँचे न केवल गोंग-पालन के संचालन को नियंत्रित करने के लिए बल्कि गोंग किसानों के आचरण और जीवनशैली को भी नियंत्रित करने के लिए डिज़ाइन किए गए थे। कुछ क्षेत्रों में, गोंग किसानों को उनके काम की प्रकृति के कारण, निर्दिष्ट स्थानों पर, अक्सर कस्बों या शहरों के बाहरी इलाके में रहना अनिवार्य था। यह पृथक्करण संदूषण को रोकने और सार्वजनिक स्वास्थ्य को बनाए रखने के लिए एक और उपाय था, लेकिन इसने उनके द्वारा सामना किए जाने वाले सामाजिक बहिष्कार को सुदृढ़ करने का भी काम किया।
Despite the potential for relatively good pay, the profession of gong-farming did not see a rush of volunteers, primarily due to the social implications and the nature of the work. Those who did take up this profession often found themselves in a niche yet vital economic role within their communities.The penalties for not disposing of waste in the approved manner could be harsh. One London gong farmer who poured effluent down a drain was put in one of his own pipes filled up to his neck with gong, before being publicly displayed in Golden Lane with a sign detailing his crime.
अपेक्षाकृत अच्छे वेतन की संभावना के बावजूद, गोंग-फार्मिंग के पेशे में स्वयंसेवकों की भीड़ नहीं देखी गई, मुख्यतः सामाजिक निहितार्थ और काम की प्रकृति के कारण। जिन लोगों ने इस पेशे को अपनाया, उन्होंने अक्सर खुद को अपने समुदायों के भीतर एक विशिष्ट लेकिन महत्वपूर्ण आर्थिक भूमिका में पाया।अनुमोदित तरीके से कचरे का निपटान न करने पर दंड कठोर हो सकते हैं।लंदन का एक किसान जिसने गंदे पानी को नाली में बहा दिया। सज़ा के तौर पर, उन्हें अपने ही एक पाइप में मानव मल से गर्दन तक भरकर खड़ा कर दिया गया। इसके बाद गोल्डन लेन (लंदन) में सार्वजनिक रूप से उनके अपराध का विवरण अंकित कर उन्हें अपमानित किया गया।
An English gongfermor (or "gong farmer") - someone who dug out and removed human excrement from privies and cesspits (1905).
The implications of needing a flotation device around your neck are horrifying
एक अंग्रेज़ गोंगफ़रमोर (या "गोंग किसान") - कोई व्यक्ति जिसने निजी घरों और मल-मूत्रों से मानव मल खोदकर निकाला (1905)।
आपकी गर्दन के चारों ओर एक प्लवनशीलता उपकरण की आवश्यकता के निहितार्थ भयावह हैं
This Question is from those so-called secular who remained silent when atheists have been killed and raped in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, France, Britain and in all Muslim countries. यहप्रश्नउनतथाकथितधर्मनिरपेक्षोंसेहैजोभारतकेबांग्लादेश, पाकिस्तान, अफगानिस्तान, फ्रांस, ब्रिटेनऔरसभीमुस्लिमदेशोंमेंनास्तिकोंकीहत्याऔरबलात्कारकेदौरानचुपरहे।
डॉ अम्बेडकर का पालन करने का नाटक करने वाले लोगों से प्रश्न:
क्या आप यूनिफॉर्म सिविल कोड, इस्लाम के आलोचना का समर्थन करते हैं जैसा कि इन सभी चीजों का समर्थन डॉ अंबेडकर द्वारा किया गया है ???
क्या आप भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 370 का विरोध करते हैं, जिसने जम्मू-कश्मीर राज्य को विशेष दर्जा दिया। जैसा विरोध डॉ अंबेडकर द्वारा किया गया है ???
तथाकथित दलित नेताओं, आप एएमयू, हलाला, बुर्का इत्यादि का समर्थन करते हैं। डॉ अम्बेडकर ने चीजों का विरोध किया, लेकिन तथाकथित दलित नेता इसका समर्थन करते हैं। महान डॉ अम्बेडकर के समर्थक इसे स्वीकार करते हैं?
The Right wing doesn’t want to hear anything about Savarkar or Golwalkar that might put them in bad light; the Left-wing doesn’t want to hear anything about Nehru or Namboodiripad that might put them in bad light; and the Velcro Historians don’t want to write anything about anyone that might put them in solitary confinement, away from all light.
Ambedkar also criticised Islamic practice in South Asia. While justifying the Partition of India, he condemned child marriage and the mistreatment of women in Muslim society.
No words can adequately express the great and many evils of polygamy and concubinage, and especially as a source of misery to a Muslim woman. Take the caste system. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. [...] [While slavery existed], much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries. While the prescriptions by the Prophet regarding the just and humane treatment of slaves contained in the Koran are praiseworthy, there is nothing whatever in Islam that lends support to the abolition of this curse. But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans [Muslims] has remained.
"Hinduism is said to divide people and in contrast, Islam is said to bind people together. This is only a half-truth. For Islam divides as inexorably as it binds. Islam is a close corporation and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is a brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity. The second defect of Islam is that it is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim ibi bene ibi patria [Where it is well with me, there is my country] is unthinkable. Wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin."
Those who rightly commend Ambedkar for leaving the fold of Hinduism, never ask why he converted to Buddhism and not Islam. It is because he viewed Islam as no better than Hinduism. And keeping the political and cultural aspects in mind, he had this to say:
"Conversion to Islam or Christianity will denationalize the Depressed Classes. If they go to Islam the number of Muslims will be doubled and the danger of Muslim domination also becomes real." On Muslim politics, Ambedkar is caustic, even scornful.
"There is thus a stagnation not only in the social life but also in the political life of the Muslim community of India. The Muslims have no interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is religion. This can be easily seen by the terms and conditions that a Muslim constituency makes for its support to a candidate fighting for a seat. The Muslim constituency does not care to examine the programme of the candidate. All that the constituency wants from the candidate is that he should agree to replace the old lamps of the masjid by supplying new ones at his cost, to provide a new carpet for the masjid because the old one is torn, or to repair the masjid because it has become dilapidated. In some places, a Muslim constituency is quite satisfied if the candidate agrees to give a sumptuous feast and in other if he agrees to buy votes for so much a piece. With the Muslims, the election is a mere matter of money and is very seldom a matter of social programme of general improvement. Muslim politics takes no note of purely secular categories of life, namely, the differences between rich and poor, capital and labor, landlord and tenant, priest and layman, reason and superstition. Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognizes only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any place in the politics of the Muslim community and if they do find a place—and they must because they are irrepressible—they are subordinated to one and the only governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion."
The psychoanalysis of the Indian Muslim by Ambedkar is unquestionably deeply hurtful to those on the Left who have appropriated him. How they wish he had never written such things. They try their best to dismiss his writings on Islam and Muslims by taking refuge in the time-tested excuse of "context". That's right. Whenever text troubles you, rake up its context. Same left never worry about “context” when they abuse Hinduism.
अम्बेडकरद्वाराभारतीयमुस्लिमकामनोविश्लेषणवामपंथीकेलिएनिर्विवादरूपसेगहराईसेहानिकारकहै।वामपंथीकामनाकररहेथेकिउन्हेंऐसीचीजेंकभीनहींलिखीचाहिएथीं।वामपंथी "संदर्भ" केबहानेकाउपयोगकरकेइस्लामऔरमुस्लिमोंपरअपनेलेखनकोखारिजकरनेकेलिएअपनासर्वश्रेष्ठप्रयासकरें।येसहीहै, जबभीकोईकथनआपकोपरेशानकरताहै, तो "संदर्भ" काबहानाउठाएं।जबवामपंथीहिंदूधर्मकीआलोचनाकरतेहैंतोवे "संदर्भ" केबारेमेंभूलजातेहैं।
Except that in the case of Ambedkar, this excuse falls flat. Ambedkar's views on Islam – in a book with fourteen chapters that deal almost entirely with Muslims, the Muslim psyche, and the Muslim Condition – are stand-alone statements robustly supported with quotes and teachings of scholars, Muslim leaders, and academics. To him these are maxims. He isn’t writing fiction. The context is superfluous; in fact, it is non-existent.
The one thing Ambedkar was not, was an apologist. He spares no one, not even Mahatma Gandhi, who he blasts for giving into the selective bias, of the type one finds ubiquitous today. "He [Gandhi] has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus.” Ambedkar then goes on to list a few Hindu leaders who were killed by Muslims, one among them being Rajpal, the publisher of Rangeela Rasool.
Rajpal was brutally stabbed in broad daylight. Again, not many know the assassination of Rajpal by Ilm-ud-din was celebrated by all prominent Muslims leaders of the day.
Ilm-ud-din was defended in the court by none other than Jinnah, and the man who rendered a eulogy at his funeral (that was attended by tens of thousands of mourners) was none other than the famous poet Allama Iqbal, who cried as the assassin's coffin was lowered. राजपालकोदिनकेउजालेमेंक्रूरतासेमारागयाथा।कईलोगोंकोपतानहींहैकिइलम-उद-दीनद्वाराराजपालकीहत्यासभीप्रमुखमुस्लिमनेताओंनेकीथी।इल्म-उद-दीनकोजिन्नाद्वाराअदालतमेंबचावकियागयाथा, औरजिसव्यक्तिनेहत्याकेअंतिमसंस्कारमेंएकस्तुतिकीथी (जिसमेंहजारोंशोकियोंनेभागलियाथा) प्रसिद्धकविअल्लामाइकबालकेअलावाकोईनहींथा।
"Mr. Gandhi has been very punctilious in the matter of condemning any and every act of violence and has forced the Congress, much against its will to condemn it. But Mr Gandhi has never protested against such murders [of Hindus]. Not only have the Musalmans not condemned these outrages, but even Mr Gandhi has never called upon the leading Muslims to condemn them. He has kept silent over them. Such an attitude can be explained only on the ground that Mr Gandhi was anxious to preserve Hindu-Moslem unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus if it could be achieved by sacrificing their lives...This attitude to excuse the Muslims any wrong, lest it should injure the cause of unity, is well illustrated by what Mr Gandhi had to say in the matter of the Mopla riots. The blood-curdling atrocities committed by the Moplas in Malabar against the Hindus were indescribable. All over Southern India, a wave of horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of every shade of opinion, which was intensified when certain Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of "congratulations to the Moplas on the brave fight they were conducting for the sake of religion". Any person could have said that this was too heavy a price for Hindu-Moslem unity. But Mr Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Moslem unity that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats who were congratulating them. He spoke of the Moplas as the "brave God-fearing Moplas who were fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious ".
On the allegiance of a Muslim to his motherland [India], Ambedkar writes:
"Among the tenets one that calls for notice is the tenet of Islam which says that in a country which is not under Muslim rule, wherever there is a conflict between Muslim law and the law of the land, the former must prevail over the latter, and a Muslim will be justified in obeying the Muslim law and defying the law of the land.“ The only allegiance a Musalman, whether civilian or soldier, whether living under a Muslim or under a non-Muslim administration, is commanded by the Koran to acknowledge is his allegiance to God, to his Prophet and to those in authority from among the Musalmans…" Ambedkar adds: "This must make anyone wishing for a stable government very apprehensive. But this is nothing to the Muslim tenets which prescribe when a country is a motherland to the Muslim and when it is not…According to Muslim Canon Law, the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-lslam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans. It can be the land of the Musalmans—but it cannot be the land of the 'Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals.' Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to the authority of a non-Muslim power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-lslam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.
"It must not be supposed that this view is only of academic interest. For it is capable of becoming an active force capable of influencing the conduct of the Muslims…It might also be mentioned that Hijrat [emigration] is not the only way of escape to Muslims who find themselves in a Dar-ul-Harb. There is another injunction of Muslim Canon Law called Jihad (crusade) by which it becomes "incumbent on a Muslim ruler to extend the rule of Islam until the whole world shall have been brought under its sway. The world, is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-lslam (abode of Islam), Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war), all countries come under one category or the other. Technically, it is the duty of the Muslim ruler, who is capable of doing so, to transform Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-lslam." And just as there are instances of the Muslims in India resorting to Hijrat, there are instances showing that they have not hesitated to proclaim Jihad.”
On a Muslim respecting authority of an elected government, Ambedkar writes:
"Willingness to render obedience to the authority of the government is as essential for the stability of government as the unity of political parties on the fundamentals of the state. It is impossible for any sane person to question the importance of obedience in the maintenance of the state. To believe in civil disobedience is to believe in anarchy…How far will Muslims obey the authority of a government manned and controlled by the Hindus? The answer to this question need not call for much inquiry."
Ambedkar isn’t done yet. On the lack of reforms in the Muslim community, he writes:
"Their energies are directed to maintaining a constant struggle against the Hindus for seats and posts in which there is no time, no thought and no room for questions relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is all overweighed and suppressed by the desire, generated by the pressure of communal tension, to close the ranks and offer a united front to the menace of the Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious unity at any cost. The same is the explanation of the political stagnation in the Muslim community of India.
"Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that if he joins in the campaign against the landlord, he may have to fight against a Muslim landlord. A Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim community, for it is thereby weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community."
"How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in the Indian States. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a great agitation for the introduction of representative government in the Hindu State of Kashmir. The same Muslims and their leaders are deadly opposed to the introduction of representative governments in other Muslim States. The reason for this strange attitude is quite simple. In all matters, the determining question with the Muslims is how it will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. If representative government can help the Muslims, they will demand it, and fight for it. In the State of Kashmir the ruler is a Hindu, but the majority of the subjects are Muslims. The Muslims fought for representative government in Kashmir, because representative government in Kashmir meant the transfer of power from a Hindu king to the Muslim masses. In other Muslim States, the ruler is a Muslim but the majority of his subjects are Hindus. In such States representative government means the transfer of power from a Muslim ruler to the Hindu masses, and that is why the Muslims support the introduction of representative government in one case and oppose it in the other. ………The dominating consideration with the Muslims is not democracy. The dominating consideration is how democracy with majority rule will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will it strengthen them or will it weaken them? If democracy weakens them, they will not have democracy. They will prefer the rotten state to continue in the Muslim States rather than weaken the Muslim ruler in his hold upon his Hindu subjects. The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community can be explained by one and only one reason. The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle; the Hindus to establish their dominance over the Muslims and the Muslims to establish their historical position as the ruling community—that in this struggle the strong will win, and to ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold storage everything which causes dissension in their ranks. If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken the task of reforming their society and the Muslims of India have refused to do so, it is because the former are free from communal and political clashes with rival communities, while the latter are not."
भारतीयराज्योंमेंराजनीतिकसुधारोंकेदौरानमुस्लिमराजनीतिकैसेविकृतहोगईहै, इसेमुस्लिमनेताओंकेदृष्टिकोणसेसमझाजासकताहै।मुसलमानोंऔरउनकेनेताओंने "कश्मीरमेंप्रतिनिधिसरकार" केपक्षमेंएकमहानआंदोलनकिया।वहीमुस्लिमऔरउनकेनेताघातकरूपसे "अन्यमुस्लिमराज्योंमेंप्रतिनिधिसरकारों" कीशुरूआतकाविरोधकररहेहैं।इसअजीबरवैयेकाकारणकाफीसरलहै।सभीमामलोंमें, मुस्लिमोंकेसाथनिर्धारितप्रश्नयहहैकिहिंदुओंकेमुकाबलेप्रतिनिधिसरकारकिसतरहमुस्लिमोंकोप्रभावितकरेगी।यदिप्रतिनिधिसरकारमुस्लिमोंकीमददकरसकतीहै, तोवेइसकीमांगकरेंगे, औरइसकेलिएलड़ेंगे।कश्मीरराज्यमेंशासकएकहिंदूहै, लेकिनअधिकांशलोगमुसलमानहैं।मुस्लिमकश्मीरमेंप्रतिनिधिसरकारकेलिएलड़े, क्योंकिकश्मीरमेंप्रतिनिधिसरकारकामतलबहिंदूराजासेमुस्लिमजनतातकसत्ताकाहस्तांतरणथा।अन्यमुस्लिमराज्योंमें, शासकएकमुस्लिमहैलेकिनउनकीअधिकांशआबादीहिंदूहैं।ऐसेराज्योंमेंप्रतिनिधिसरकारकामतलबहैकिएकमुस्लिमशासकसेहिंदूजनतातकसत्ताकाहस्तांतरण, औरयहीकारणहैकिमुसलमानकश्मीरकेमामलेमेंप्रतिनिधिसरकारकासमर्थनकरतेहैंऔरअन्यमामलोंमेंइसकाविरोधकरतेहैं।मुसलमानोंकामुख्यविचारलोकतंत्रनहींहै।……………..मुख्यविचारयहहैकिबहुमतवालेलोकतंत्रमेंहिंदुओंकेखिलाफअपनेसंघर्षमेंमुसलमानोंकोकैसेप्रभावितकरेगा ? क्यायहउन्हेंमजबूतकरेगायाउन्हेंकमजोरकरदेगा? यदिलोकतंत्रउन्हेंकमजोरकरताहै, तोवेलोकतंत्रनहींचाहतेहैं।हिंदूआबादीपरएकमुस्लिमशासककेकब्जेकोकमजोरकरनेकेबजायवेसड़ेहुएमुस्लिमराज्यमेंरहनापसंदकरेंगे।मुस्लिमसमुदायमेंराजनीतिकऔरसामाजिकठहरावकेवलएककारणसेसमझायाजासकताहै।मुस्लिमसोचतेहैंकिहिंदुओंऔरमुसलमानोंकोहमेशासंघर्षकरनाचाहिए; मुसलमानोंऔरमुस्लिमोंपरसत्तारूढ़समुदायकेरूपमेंअपनीऐतिहासिकस्थितिस्थापितकरनेकेलिएहिंदुओंकोअपनाप्रभुत्वस्थापितकरनेकेलिए।इससंघर्षमेंमजबूतजीतजाएगा, औरताकतसुनिश्चितकरनेकेलिएउन्हेंबाकीसबकुछ (सामाजिकसुधारसहित) कोदबानाहोगाजोउनकेसमुदायमेंविघटनकाकारणबनताहै। We have tried our best to check facts. However, We are humans. Human nature is to make a mistake. So please verify facts, if you feel we are wrong. We are sorry for that. In case you find any mistake in our video, then inform us. We will try to rectify it. English To Hindi translations is not in literal sense. In case of translation errors/vagueness/any other problem; English Version should be accepted as final. Please do not use social media for news. Before believing any news on social media, confirm it from any reliable source.हमने तथ्यों की जांच करने की पूरी कोशिश की है, लेकिन हम इंसान हैं| मानव प्रकृति गलती करना है|अगर आपको लगता है कि हम गलत हैं, इसके लिए हमें खेद है। यदि आप हमारे वीडियो में कोई गलती पाते हैं, तो हमें सूचित करें। हम इसे सुधारने का प्रयास करेंगे|अंग्रेजी से हिंदी अनुवाद शाब्दिक अर्थों में नहीं हैं|अनुवाद त्रुटियों / अस्पष्टता / किसी अन्य समस्या के मामले में; अंग्रेजी संस्करण को अंतिम के रूप में स्वीकार किया जाना चाहिए। कृपया समाचार के लिए सोशल मीडिया का उपयोग न करें। सोशल मीडिया के किसी भी खबर पर विश्वास करने से पहले, किसी विश्वसनीय स्रोत से इसकी पुष्टि करें|
