The Mullah of JNU Speaks…

From one secular fundamentalist to another: from Shekar Gupta to Purushottam Agarwal (?).

A certain Purushottam Agarwal, who teaches at the Mosque of JNU has taken it upon himself to unlayer the multi-layered issue of the Modi visa denial episode. So he begins with a quote from Samuel Huntington only to pour venom on the scholar. The reason is not far to seek. He has done some nationalist posturing, which angers this preacher of communism secularism. For the commies there are no nations, nationalism is an empty word, or it is a word loaded with imperialistic meaning.

Bristling with nationalist anger, Huntington shares the consternation of a CIA official who said in 1999, ‘‘the CIA can no longer count on the co-operation of the American corporations as it was once able to do because the corporations view themselves as multinationals and may think it not in their interest to help the US government.’’

And if he reads Huntington a bit deeper, he’ll be delighted; for Huntington is another Islam apologetic. In an interview, Huntington says this about Islam:

I don’t think Islam is any more violent than any other religions, and I suspect if you added it all up, more people have been slaughtered by Christians over the centuries than by Muslims. [...] Islam, like any great religion, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. People like bin Laden can seize on things in the Koran as commands to go out and kill infidels.

After politely denouncing Huntington, the cleric of JNU turns full throttle on Modi. It’s Modi-bashing season again.

He was on Cloud Nine when Bush got the second term, finding exciting similarities between the Hindutva and the ‘Bushtva.’

Really? A word or two to substantiate that you know for sure that Modi was on Cloud 9? And does the JNU cleric care to define what Bushtva is?

The moral responsibility of the man whom the Supreme Court of India obliquely described as the ”modern day Nero” should have stirred the Indian political establishment long before an act of the US administration.

The Indian Express has followed a pattern here. There was silence initially, in the Indian Express camp when the US revoked Modi’s visa: no articles, no “analyses.” Understandable because the Indian Express is in the pay of Madam; Manmohan being Madam’s man stood up to the US, and sided by Modi. And now, from the House Nigger to the Red Mullah, the Indian Express is sparing no effort to make sure to portray this issue in all gory hues:

• By obscuring the real reason why there’s so much anger against the US: its hypocrisy.
• Praising the US for giving us a “wake up call” against “Moditva” while it has no moral right to do given its record of supporting dictators and all kinds of human rights violators.

Suddenly, people like Purushottam Agarwal and the Indian Express are paying floral tributes to America. Till the other day, the Mecca of Pseudo Secularism was up against everything with the letters U S in it.

Does a cynical politician have a right to go scot-free after presiding over complete and deliberate breakdown of governance,…

Notice again and again that our secularists have completely passed off an allegation as fact–that Modi is guilty of the riots–while there’s not a single legal judgement that proves he is guilty.

Ironically enough, the US decision in denying visas to Modi simply reaffirms its own sovereign right of regulating the entry of the aliens, and that is why the PMO cut a sorry figure for itself in the whole affair.

Note again (grrrr!) that this Marxist Eminence nowhere mentions that the reason for which the visa was rejected was what caused the furore. Nobody questioned the US’s sovereign right. And how about showing us a single piece of evidence which proves that the PMO cut a sorry figure? And then this academic retard further exposes his credentials by laying the blame on India’s door, specifically the Prime Minister.
In fact, it was the Indian establishment, which seemed like interfering with the sovereign right of the US to regulate its policy of allowing or disallowing aliens on its soil, not the other way round.
Yeah, when it comes to Hinduism in general, and Modi specifically, the whole country is called into question! Anybody who blindly slams Modi should automatically be right: proof or no. So when he says that the Indian establishment was in the wrong, can’t we reasonably conclude that he is pointing to Manmohan Singh? And because Manmohan Singh is guilty, the US must automatically be right! Shame on you, MadMan and others for not mastering this fundamental principle of logic!

The US further scored a diplomatic point, when it referred to the indictment of Modi by the National Human Rights Commission of India- a document which should have been taken into account by the PM and other leaders before accusing the US of ‘‘judging an elected chief minister on the basis of mere allegations.’’

Is that so? Let’s see what the Prime Minister said, and what the NHRC said.

Manmohan Singh: Mr. Chairman, Sir, the American Government has also been clearly informed that while we respect their sovereign right to grant or refuse visas to any person, we do not believe that it is appropriate to use allegations or anything less than due legal process to make a subjective judgement to question a constitutional authority in India.

The NHRC:The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), whose findings the US claimed formed the basis for denying visa to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, today shot back at Washington, saying the Bush administration had blown its observations over the 2002 riots out of proportion. Our approach was mainly limited to the Best Bakery case…there was no indictment in general of Mr Modi or his government,” a top NHRC official told UNI.

(Courtesy: JK)

So, here’s another evidence of secularist doublespeak. Two points: the NHRC itself makes it clear that there’s no indictment of Modi or his government, whereas this licenced liar says the opposite with a straight face. Second, while the law has not found Modi guilty so far, this seasoned sycophant falsely puts the NHRC statement as evidence of the correctness of the reason given by the US to deny the visa! So, the words of the NHRC–falsely quoted–and a host of NGOs openly hostile to Modi not to mention Hinduism, are put on a pedestal higher than the law of the land. This my dear readers, is one of the defining characteristics of pseudo secularism.

To invest national sentiment in such a syndrome is perilous to the very spirit of the national self-respect and also to equally important sense of international accountability.

Yeah sure. International accountability. Apart from a bunch of half witted theoreticians like you, no other country has really bothered too much about “international accountability,” least of all the US. They know that a “house divided against itself falls,” international accountability be damned. I recall an incident that occurred in Singapore many years ago. A US citizen was jailed for spitting chewing gum on the streets of Singapore. The US immediately stood up for its “wronged” citizen and tried to bear down Singapore–to no avail. And in India, when a PM takes a sensible stand forgetting ideological/political differences, we have a self-proclaimed bunch of intellectuals cretins who say it is good to have a house divided against itself. Moreover, this patented pervert of secularism (or his bretheren) never uttered a cry of protest when Tiananmen Square happened. Indeed, for all you know, they’d have rejoiced it as a triumph of the proletariat or some such perversity. Nor do they express their concern over narrow concepts such as nationalism when their last Red bastion adopts an aggressive cultural revival.

The actual reason for the visa denial is no secret: a select bunch of very powerful people exerted enough pressure on Bush to get Modi’s visa revoked. The JNU Mullahs however hard they try, cannot obscure this fact. I recall what David Frawley told me when I met him last week. Commenting on the 2004 US elections, he said, for the first time in the history of America, the society had been totally polarized–religiously polarized. While in some states Bush won by as huge a margin as 2/3, he lost in other states by an equal percentage. And that Bush today is surrounded by religious fundamentalists of the worst sort.

Not to mention indirect supporters like this JNU Mullah.