India: The Continent of Dinia, or the Country of Doom

[|frameless|Sovereign Nations in Homelands or Sub-Nations in Hindoolands?]

IT is time to realize that we, the non-Indian nations, who comprise the Muslims, Dravidians, Akhoots (Untouchables$)$, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Parsis, are, and ever have been, the victims of &quot;The Myth of Indianism &quot;. That is the Myth which teaches that India is the country of &quot;India,&quot; i.e., the exclusive domain of Caste Hinduism and Caste Hindoos and which has been built up by the Caste Hindoos, buttressed by the British and, thanks to our own folly, believed by the world.

Past Record of the Myth

False in its origin and foul in its teachings, this Myth, from its very beginning, has wrought havoc and ruin to the cause of human freedom in the world. Throughout the ages it has compromised the status of Asia, distorted the history of Dinia, and degraded our peoples who have had the misfortune to live and to die in its sphere of domination.

Indeed, such is its evil spirit that, though left stripped of excuse for its mischievous activity since 711, yet, throughout the last thirteen centuries of its vogue, it has mentally enslaved and socially enchained, nationally minoritized and territorially disinherited us all. Not only that. It has frustrated our spiritual missions and perverted our civilizations, caged us in India and made India herself a country of doom for all the Indian as well as the non-Indian nations.

Present Role of the Myth

Nor has it stopped there. On the contrary, thanks to its priests and parasites, it has remained as active as ever and is now busily engaged in sabotaging the revival and recognition of us all as nations.

That is the cynical role which it is playing at present through its first believers, the Caste Hindoos, and its latest beneficiaries, the British Imperialists, who, in spite of their other differences, are co-operating with one another to canonize it anew and to preach its fatal cult with a view to perpetuating its strangle-hold on us all in the Continent of Dinia.

Why are they doing that?

The Caste Hindoos, who are more numerous than all our nations combined, are doing it because to them the existence of the Myth gives an opportunity first of keeping us mixed with themselves, then of disintegrating us as nations, and finally of absorbing us into their Indian nation. The British are doing it because to them, as an imperial power, the existence of the Myth gives an opportunity first of keeping us and the Caste Hindoos intermingled, then of exploiting our conflict, resulting from that intermingling, to strengthen their hold on India, and finally of justifying before the world, by citing the record of that conflict, their imperial rule over all the nations in India.

So it is to maintain their respective positions of sub-lordship and overlordship that both the Caste Hindoos and the British Imperialists are hymning the Myth and hypnotising us - the non-Indian nations -into accepting its teachings and, thereby, committing national self-immolation and submitting to the Indo-British Condominium.

To rationalize - and to realize - their aims, they are using two main arguments. First that the unity of &quot; the country of India &quot; is too natural to permit of its partition into separate homelands for all the Indian and the non-Indian nations. Secondly, that the constitutional principle of ' one country, one nation &quot; is so decisive as to reduce even our hundred and ten million Muslims, sixty million Akhoots, forty million Dravidians, seven million Christians, and six million Sikhs - to the position of mere sub-nations and satellites of the Indian nation, and thereby to disqualify each one of us from claiming the status of distinct sovereign nations in our own homelands, i.e., the areas to which we are individually entitled in proportion to our populations in the &quot;country of India&quot;.

It is obvious that both these arguments are pure cant and casuistry. For the assumption of the unity of the so-called &quot;country of India&quot; is contradicted by the facts of its geography and history ; and the application to its case of the constitutional principle of &quot;one country, one nation is disputed by all the canons of International Law.

Might with Method

The truth is that, in their heart of hearts, both the British Imperialists and the Caste Hindoos know this. Yet, in utter disregard of that knowledge, they assume the unity of India, invoke the principle of &quot;one country, one nation&quot;, and enforce both-the mythical unity and the constitutional principle.

What does all this mean?

It means might with method; in other words, a firm stand by the Anglo Hindoo Entente for their own present and future purposes and a final warning to us, the non-Indian nations, that, in the name of the Myth, they won't let us be sovereign nations in separate homelands in the Continent of Dinia, but will hold us down as the sub-nations and satellites of the Indian nation in &quot;the country of India&quot;.

Our Choice: Myth-destruction or Self-destruction

False but final, that is their position. What is ours? It can' only be summed up as a choice between life and death that is to say, between Myth-destruction and Self-destruction. For it is sun-clear that if we do not destroy the Myth, the Myth will certainly destroy us.

It is, therefore, time for us all to realize the fatefulness of our position, and, in that realization, make our choice.

As we do that, we must remember that, for each one of us, everything is at stake and that, to save everything, this is our last and our best opportunity. For now, as never before, the Myth is not only discredited but also damned; and its supporters, though materially powerful, are morally powerless. They are aware both of the weakness of their case and of the strength of ours. So, if now we all challenge the Myth and give it a smashing blow, it will die a deserved death, and we shall all be free. But if we dilly -daily and miss this opportunity, the Indo-British Entente will reimpose it upon us in all its tyranny. In that case, everything will be lost, and we shall all be the slaves of the Indian nation, perhaps for centuries, perhaps forever.

My Choice is Made

In realization of the fatefulness of our position, so far as I am concerned, my choice is made. It is to destroy once for all the Myth that India is &quot;the country of India,&quot; to establish forever the truth that it is &quot;the Continent of Dinia,&quot; and thereby save and sovereignize the nations of the Millat and, given the opportunity, help others to do the same for themselves.

In recording this choice, I wish to make no secret of the fact that it is primarily inspired by the duty I owe to my Millat, whose spiritual decay and social decline, whose military defeat and political downfall, were, in my judgement, all due to the teachings of the Myth. Furthermore, it actually represents Part VI of the Pak Plan, which deals with the cause of the Continent of Dinia, whose creation will write &quot; Finis&quot; to the territorial tyranny practised by the Myth in the name of the geographical unity of &quot;the country of India &quot;. Finally, ideally, I am dedicated to do all I can to make it national and Milli, international and universal, in order to fulfil the mission of my life, which is to change for ever the foundations, the framework, and the form of the political thought, expression, and action of the nations of the Millat and of all other nations, including even the Caste Hindoo with a view to creating a comity of sovereign nations, living in separate homelands in the Continent of Dinia, working out their individual national destinies in their own ways, and making their individual national contributions to the solution of the common problems of Dinia, of Asia, and of the world.

Let others make their choice

That is the full and frank explanation of my choice. Dictated as it is by the misdeeds and dangers of the Myth to my Millat, I do hope it will be shared, in their own interests, by all other victims of the Myth. I mean, the Dravidians, Akhoots, Buddhs, Christians, Sikhs, and Parsis, most of whom have not only suffered at its hands much more than have the Muslims, but are sure to suffer still more. This for obvious reasons. They are, as compared with the Muslims, smaller in numbers, more &quot;Indianized&quot; in outlook, less acutely conscious of the dangers of the Myth, and, consequently, more exposed to its subtle activities which are ever inspired by its suppressive intentions and soul-killing aims.

I trust they all will endorse this indictment of the Myth and this appraisal of their prospects under its aegis. Indeed they must, because the indictment is based on their own histories and the appraisal is supported by their own present plight as well as by the future programme of the exploiters of the Myth.

If they do, then they must act in realization of the fact that at the root of all their troubles lies this Myth and that, so long as it exists, for them to try to improve their individual positions vis-a'-vis one another is to treat the symptoms of the disease rather than the disease itself. To be more accurate, it is to trifle with the symptoms and to spread the disease arid to have themselves scourged by it.

The Writing on the Wall

Let them make no mistake about it. In the country of India - as for the Muslims, so for them - the fate of national subordination is inescapable. They cannot dodge it; they cannot defy; it they cannot defeat it. The reason is that, even if they achieve the recognition of their distinct nation-hoods in the country of India, they can never be sovereign nations in separate homelands. On the contrary, they will ever be the sub-nations and satellites of the Indian nation in, at best, the re-named regions of India - which is, and ever will be, another name for the Hindoo lands.

That is the writing on the wall. Let them read it and grasp its meaning. In case of any doubt about the fundamental distinction between sovereign nationhood and sub-nationhood, let them refer to the history of the Bavarians of Bavaria in Imperial Germany. It will tell them that, in spite of the recognition of their own state and king, the Bavarians were still a unit of the German nation, their territory still a component state of Germany, and their nationality in International Law still German.

This should convince them that in the country of India they would, at best, be like the Bavarians of Bavarian Germany. And even that only politically, not morally. For, morally, they won't have the sense of patriotism and pride in India, which the Bavarians had in Germany. The Bavarians had it because they were German and, therefore, for them to merge themselves into Germany was an act of genuine patriotism.

They, the non-Indian nations, cannot have it because they cannot even pretend to be Indian ; they cannot even pass off the merging of their entities into India as an act of patriotism. The reason is they simply are not Indian. For if they were Indian, they wouldn't be fighting, like the Muslims, against being treated as Indian and for being recognized as Dravidians, Akhoots, Buddhs, Christians, Sikhs, and Parsis.

That fact alone proclaims the difference between their moral position in India and that of the Bavarians in Germany. Furthermore it explains why, if they keep themselves in India, they won't have any defence before their peoples and posterity. Finally, it shows that if they agree to merge themselves into India, they will belie their national histories, betray their national struggles, and abandon their national hopes. Need one add that, if they do this, they will richly deserve, and certainly receive, the strongest condemnation both from their peoples and from their posterity.

Let them discuss it among themselves and decide it for themselves. I am positive that, in the name of sovereign nationhood, my choice is the only one open to them. Indeed, there never was, and never will be, any other choice. For history shows that, throughout the ages, in similar crises all proud nations have ever made this very choice and fought to the last man to maintain their sovereign nationhoods.

If they follow this ancient tradition of proud nations and make the choice I have made, then it is mere commonsense that they- the Dravidians, Akhoots, Buddhs, Christians, Sikhs, and Parsis - should make common cause with us, the Muslims, in order to destroy the Myth that India is the country of India,&quot; and to establish the truth that it is the Continent of Dinia,&quot; and thereby save and sovereignize themselves as nations.

How to Destroy the Myth and Establish the Truth?

In view of the newness and magnitude of this dynamic choice, the comradely spirits among the nations concerned may well ask how to put it into effect.

I shall answer this question here and show that its implementation depends ultimately on the true realization and propagation by us all of two supreme facts. For, more effectively than anything else, it is our own realization and propagation of these facts that will explode the Myth, establish the truth, and thereby inspire all to work for the repudiation of the Myth and for the recognition of the truth by the Caste Hindoos, by the British, and by the world.

The Two Supreme Facts

What are these two supreme facts which are so charged with the fate or fortune of us all?

The first is that the vast and varied lands which are now commonly called the &quot; COUNTRY&quot; of India are, geographically as well as historically, a &quot;CONTINENT.&quot; And the second is that what is now erroneously known as &quot; INDIA &quot;--the exclusive domain of Caste Hindooism and Caste Hindoos - is, creedally as well as humanly, &quot;DINIA&quot; - the joint domain of several religions and fraternities.

First Fact: The Country of India is a Continent

I shall start off with the first fact, deal with it from both the geographical and the historical points of view, and endeavour to prove that the &quot;Country&quot; of India is in fact a Continent

(a) Its Geographical Aspect

Geographically, what is the distinction between a &quot; country&quot; and a &quot;continent &quot;

In terms of geography whereas a &quot;country &quot; is just a fair sized politicallv demarcated area of land that possesses some individual characteristics; a &quot; continent&quot; is a huge, continuous mass of land that is bordered by mountain chains or high seas, or partly by$undefined$one and partly by the other That is what in geography, essentially distinguishes a &quot;country&quot; from a &quot;continent&quot;

Now, if we open our atlases and in the light of these broad, basic definitions, look it the map of India, we shall observe three outstanding facts and features

The first is that India is an immense extent of land. In fact, in area it is at least equal to the whole Continent of Europe, excluding Russia.

The second is that, in the north-east, north, and north-west, it is shielded by the highest mountain ranges in the world; arid, in the south-east, south, and south-west, its shores are washed by a vast ocean and high seas.

The third is that India is divided off from the Continent of Asia by barriers even more stupendous than those which separate the Continent of Asia from the Continents of Europe and Africa, or the Continent of North America from that of South America.

These three facts are conclusive in themselves ; and, taken together, they prove that geographically, in point of size, structure, and setting, India is a &quot;continent&quot;, not a &quot;country&quot; ; that actually it possesses all the main characteristics of the continents of the globe; and that semantically, like Asia, Africa, North America, South America, and Europe, it deserves to he termed and treated as a &quot;continent&quot; in itself.

(b) Its Historical Aspect

So much for the geographical aspect of the fact that the &quot; country &quot; of India is a &quot; continent &quot;. What of its historical aspect?

In terms of history, whereas a &quot; country&quot; means a respectable-sized unit of territory that is, as a rule, uni-lingual, uni-cultural uni-national, and uni-statal ; a &quot;continent&quot; signifies an aggregation of such territorial units and is, as a rule, multi-lingual, multi cultural, multi-national and multi-statal. In other words, whereas the history of a &quot; country &quot; is, in general, that of one land, one language, one culture, one nation, and one sovereign state ; the history of a &quot; continent&quot; is in general, that of many lands, many languages, many cultures, many nations, and many sovereign states. That is the fundamental distinction between the history of a &quot; country&quot; and of a &quot;continent &quot;.

Now, if in the light of this fundamental distinction we glance at any history text-book on India, we shall find that the history of India is definitely that of a &quot; continent&quot;, not of a &quot; country&quot;

The reason is that, like any other continent, though, in its incidentals, it is the history of a vast region, inhabited by peoples possessing certain traits of physical affinity and living for a few short spells under administrative unity yet, in its essentials, it is the history of many separate countries which have, throughout the ages, been inhabited by many distinct peoples, with different languages, philosophies, and civilizations, and organized for the most part into sovereign states, ruled by their own kings or emperors.

This was the case in the twenty centuries of the Dravidian Period of the history of India, in the twenty-one centuries of the Hindoo Period, and in the twelve centuries of the Muslim Period. Indeed, in its essentials, it is much the same today after the 150 years of the British Period.

The fact that it is much the same today is all the more remarkable because, in the British Period, the vast resources of the Anglo-Hindoo Entente have been systematically employed to destroy the ancient distinctions and divisions of India yet their indestructibility is such that they have survived in their entirety. The result is that, like any other continent, India remains as divided as ever. I mean divided religiously and ideologically, linguistically and culturally, territorially and nationally.

Again, these facts which, in point of truth, are incontrovertible and, in point of time, cover no less than fifty-five centuries of its history, prove that, historically, India is and ever has been in all but name a &quot;continent &quot;.

Such is the testimony of geography and history on the first supreme fact - a testimony which proves that India is a &quot;continent&quot;, not a &quot; country&quot;.

Second Fact : &quot; India&quot; is &quot;Dinia&quot;

Now I shall deal with the second supreme tact and show that, creedally and humanly, &quot; India&quot; is &quot; Dinia&quot;

In the discussion of this fact as the words &quot;India&quot; and &quot; Dinia&quot; are the key words, I had better first make their meanings perfectly clear.

To begin with, it should be noted that the word &quot;Dinia&quot; is composed wholly of the letters of the word &quot;India&quot;, the only change involved being the transposition of the central letter D in &quot;India&quot; to the first place to make it &quot; Dinia&quot;. That is all.

Then, it should be firmly grasped that, in spite of its origin in the Sanskrit word Sindhu, its evolution in the Greek word ''Indus. ''and its consummation in the present English form, the word &quot;India&quot;, as applied to these lands, has ever meant, still means, and ever will mean the lands of Caste Hindooism and Caste Hindoos and the word &quot; <i>Dinia </i>&quot;, in spite of its origin in the Saracenic word <i>&quot;Din&quot; </i>and its evolution in the present Urdu form, signifies and ever will signify the lands of &quot; Dins&quot; (religions), whatever they are, and of their followers, whoever they may be. That is to say that whereas the word &quot;India&quot; defines the lands as the exclusive domain of Caste Hindooism and Caste Hindoos and consequently denies the existence and share therein of Dravidianism and Dravidians, of Akhootism and Akhoots, of Buddhism and Buddhs, of Islam and Muslims, of Sikhism and Sikhs, of Christianity and Christians, and of Zoroastrianism and Parsis, and misrepresents all peoples as Caste Hindoos in the lands of Caste Hindooism; the word &quot;Dinia&quot; defines these lands as the joint domain of all the religions and their followers found therein, and consequently acknowledges the existence and share therein of them all, and describes them as the peoples of the lands of religions without reference to any particular religion or fraternity.

Finally, it should be understood that my sole, supreme reason for defining the lands and describing the peoples by the word <i>&quot;Dinia&quot; </i>is the fact that religion as such is the most prominent characteristic of all the peoples living in the lands of &quot; <i>Dinia </i>&quot;. Indeed it plays the most vital part in their lives and, now as ever, defines their national entities, inspires their national ideologies, shapes their national histories, and sustains their national hopes.

After these explanatory remarks on the significance of tile words &quot;India&quot; and Dinia &quot;, I come to the discussion of the second supreme fact that, creedally and humanly, &quot;India&quot; is &quot;Dinia &quot;.

&quot;INDIA&quot; was &quot;DRAVIDIA&quot;

First of all we must remember that, in the course of ages, no country or continent in the world has retained its original name, or has always had the same name as it has at the present time. On the contrary, the names of all countries and continents have changed - and will change - with the change of their moral and human content. This is natural : it is logical.

Now, in this respect, what is true of other countries and continents is equally true of India. For it too has not always been known as &quot;India&quot;, and cannot hope to be known as &quot;India&quot; forever. Indeed, to go back no further than historical times, from 3500 to 1500 B.C., i.e. for twenty centuries, it was actually &quot;Dravidia&quot;

Why was it &quot;Dravidia &quot;?

The answer is that, throughout those centuries of its history, it was the exclusive domain of Dravidianism and Dravidians - their religion, language, culture, and civilization.

This, in brief, is the creedal and human explanation for India's being &quot;Dravidia&quot; - for twenty centuries. Surely it is an explanation which is perfectly valid because in usage, in law, and in history, the right to name an object belongs to him who owns it.

&quot;DRAVIDIA&quot; changed into &quot;INDIA&quot;

How then did &quot;Dravidia&quot; become &quot;India&quot;?

&quot;Dravidia&quot; became &quot;India&quot; because - by 1500 B.C -the Caste Hindoos completed its conquest, crushed Dravidianism and Dravidians, colonized the lands with their own people, and made them practically the exclusive domain of Caste Hindooism and Caste Hindoos~their religion, language, culture, and civilization.

In the process of doing that, they gave the lands a new name which finally became &quot;India&quot; and symbolized the lands as the exclusive domain of Caste Hindooism and Caste Hindoos.

That is how &quot;Dravidia&quot; was changed into &quot;India&quot;.

Though the name &quot;India&quot; was obviously a misnomer in the case of most of the lands to which it applied and still applies - lands lying thousands of miles away from the Indus - yet one can see that essentially in this change of <i>&quot;Dravidia&quot; </i>into &quot;India&quot; similar causes produced similar effects. That is to say that the creedal and human factors which first made the lands Dravidia, now made them India.

This state of affairs lasted for centuries but it couldn't last for ever. Sooner or later it was bound to be challenged and changed. And so it was.

In the sixth century B.C., the first challenge came to it in the birth of Buddhism, and by the end of the third century B.C., the position was definitely altered. But Caste Hindooism and Caste Hindoos met the challenge, banished Buddhism from the lands, and restored substantially the status quo ante.

&quot;INDIA&quot; converted into &quot;DINIA&quot;

Time marched on mid, in its march, it brought to these lands the Message of Islam in 638, and the Millat of Islam in 710. The result of the arrival of the Message and of the appearance of the Millat was that, after 710, India was no longer &quot;India&quot;.

What happened to it after 710?

After 710 began its conquest by Muslims. They colonized its lands with their co-religionists, welcomed large numbers of its inhabitants to Islam and built up a mighty Millat which conquered and ruled it for twelve centuries What is more, in the course of these centuries, they changed for ever its core and creed, its character and composition, and thereby, from being the exclusive domain of Caste Hindooism and Caste Hindoos, transformed it into the joint domain of at least three great religions and three great fraternities

Dravidianism and Dravidians (who had revived under Islam), Caste Hindooism and Caste Hindoos, Islam and Muslims. In other words, from 711 onwards they slowly but surely converted India into &quot;Dinia&quot;.

It is hardly necessary to add that the explanation of the conversions of India into &quot;Dinia&quot; lies in the same creedal and human grounds as those which made it first &quot;Dravidia&quot;, and then &quot;India&quot;.

The clock of history didn't stop there either. It never does. It kept ticking away century after century and, in that process, turned out fresh forces. One of these forces was Sikhism and Sikhs. It appeared in 1499 as the fourth party hi these lands - still misnamed India, the exclusive domain of Caste Hindooism and Caste Hindoos. Naturally the appearance of this party made the lands, despite their misnomer, the joint domain of four great religions and four great fraternities and thereby, creedally and humanly, still further confirmed them as &quot;Dinia&quot;

&quot;The world's a scene of changes &quot;, they say. The world and, one may add, India in particular! The relative significance of the appearance of Sikhism and Sikhs, as the last party, endured only up to 1757. In that year there came, in organized form, Christianity and Christians to these lands, still mis-styled India - the exclusive domain of Caste Hindooism and Caste Hindoos. This added yet another religion and another fraternity to the existing seven religions and seven fraternities, including Akhootism and Akhoots, Buddhism and Buddhs, Zoroastrianism and Parsis, and thereby still further exposed the falsity of calling the lands &quot;India &quot; - the exclusive domain of Caste Hinduism and Caste Hindoos - and established the truth of their being &quot;Dinia &quot; - the joint domain of Dravidianism and Dravidians, Akhootism and Akhoots, Caste Hindooism and Caste Hlindoos, Buddhism and Buddhs, Islam and Muslims, Sikhism and Sikhs, Christianity and Christians, and Zoroastrianism and Parsis.

This concludes the discussion of the second supreme fact and shows that creedally and humanly India is &quot;Dinia&quot;.

&quot;DINIA&quot; DEMANDS RECOGNITION

The proof of these two supreme facts once for all destroys the Myth that India is &quot;The country of India&quot; and establishes the truth that it is &quot; <i>the Continent of Dinia&quot;.</i>

Further, it shows that in re-canonizing the Myth and in rejecting the truth, the Indo-British Entente is not only perpetuating a crime against our seven religions and seven fraternities but, also, committing a fraud upon humanity and a falsification of history

Furthermore, it confers on us the right to demand the formal repudiation of the Myth and the full recognition of the truth from the Caste Hindoos, from the British, and from the world; and imposes upon us the duty to press that demand at all costs, and with all the power at our command.

Finally, it ensures us the support of the science of semantics, of the practice of nations, and of the commonsense of mankind. For the science of semantics lays down the rule that, to be true, a name or title must signify the reality of the subject named - a rule which has already been acted on in changing the old myth-born names of the present-day provinces of &quot; India &quot;. The universal practice proclaims that the names of most countries and continents, and of all nations and fraternities. do reflect their content, character, and composition. And the commonsense of mankind declares that to call the Continent of Dinia &quot;the country of India&quot; is at least as absurd as to call America. Red India : Tunis, Carthage ; France. Gaul; or Afghanistan, Gandhara.

NATIONS OF DINIA!

For centuries we have blindly submitted to the Myth of Indianism and suffered damnation. That submission and that suffering must now end. For now we know the truth and must work to ensure our salvation. To do that successfully and speedily, we must unite to exercise our right and to fulfil our duty in order to create the Continent of Dinia. We must realize that, whatever may be our differences on other issues, the cause of the Continent of Dinia is common to us till; and that on its success depends the national life and liberty, the national position and status of us all - Muslims, Dravidians, Akhoots, Christians, Sikhs, Buddlhs and Parsis.

lnspired by this realization we must begin to exercise our sovereign right and to discharge our solemn duty by first of all recognising the truth of the Continent of Dinia ourselves. This is most vital. The laws of Nature demand it as do the laws of Nations. They demand it because, in Nature, inner-recognition ever precedes outer-recognition; and, in the Comity of Nations, self-recognition is the pre-requisite of world-recognition.

Let us, therefore, conform to the laws of Nature and of Nations and make the beginning with our own recognition of the Continent of Dinia. In so doing, let us feel fortified by the fact that we do not deny the existence and interests of any religion or fraternity : that we demand merely the recognition of the existence and the interests of our own religions and fraternities; and that. for us, not to demand that recognition would be an act religiously of renegation, morally of self-degradation, territorially of self-disinheritance, and nationally of self-destruction.

Foundation of the Dinia Continental Movement

To exercise my own right and to discharge my own duty I have made this beginning ; and to work for the recognition of the Continent of Dinia, I have founded the Dinia Continental Movement. It is a movement which transcends all communalisms&quot; and &quot; nationlisms, all provincialisms&quot; and &quot;regionalisms ; and which means to give them all a higher and nobler significance.

Its membership is open to all those people who, irrespective of religion and race, of nationhood and nationalist, of local patriotism and territorial allegiance believe in the cause of the Continent of Dinia and are prepared to work for its success and triumph.

I ask all such people to join the Movement the aim of which is to remove the denationalizing, disinheriting and dispiriting effects of &quot;Indianism&quot; and to introduce the nationalising acknowledging, and inspiring influences of &quot; Dinianism&quot;. In other words, the Movement stands for the replacement of &quot; Indianism&quot; by &quot;Dinianism&quot; and of &quot; countryism&quot; &quot; by &quot;C<i>ontinentalism&quot; . </i>This it does for the good of all the nations concerned. For only &quot; Dinianism&quot; and &quot; Continentalism&quot; can save the nations from the doom awaiting them in the country of India, and secure them their permanent deliverance in the Continent of Dinia. That is a Continent of sovereign nations, living in separate homelands, working out their individual national destinies in their own ways, and making their national contributions to the solution of the common problems of Dinia, of Asia and of the world.

In that Spirit, I ask all fraternities - Dravidian, Akhoot, Buddh, Muslim. Sikh, and Christian, and Parsi - to support the Dinia Continental Movement and so actively vindicated the sincerity of their oft expressed interest in the true welfare of all nations and all religions. For it is that welfare of all nations and fraternities which the movement seeks in the conversion of the country of India into the continent of Dinia.

It seeks that welfare in that conversion because nothing else can ensure the realization of the individual; nationhoods of all nations in their separate homelands, the recognition of the equality of all nations in the Comity of Nations, the reflection of the equality of all nations in the overall name, &quot; Dinia&quot; for all the lands of the Continent, and the creation among them all of such sentiment of common unity, of such a sense of common duty, and of such a spirit of common destiny as will inspire them all to live, to labour, and if necessary, to die for the name and fame, for the freedom and independence, and for the progress and prosperity of the whole Continent of Dinia.

This is the message of the Dinia Continental Movement. It is a message and mission which springs from the eternal laws of life, spells the liberations of all nations and fraternities, and promises the fulfilment of the destiny of the one fourth of mankind, living in the lands of the Continent of Dinia.

Let all - the Indian and the non Indian nations -study it. Let those who differ divine a nobler message and mission. Let those also agree work for it and wait for the verdict of history. I am positive that that verdict will acclaim this message and mission, bless the workers, and vindicate the Dinia Continental Movement.