Lies, Damned Lies and Meera Nanda

My wait didn’t go in vain. I knew it the moment the world learned that the Norwegian lunatic-killer took inspiration from a vast range of literature critical of Islam, Marxists and their fellow travellers and that literature included writings that emanated from people sympathetic to Hinduism. I knew someone would make a connection between Anders Behring Breivik’s heinous deed and Hinduism and everybody who’s ever spoken or written in support of Hinduism.

And so, the JNU-visiting Gorgon emerges once again on the pages of Open magazine to regurgitate her Hindu hatred. Unlike in her previous utterances of incoherence about Yoga, she doesn’t restrict her attack to anything or anyone specific. This time, she spares none. Her piece is like the textual equivalent of Breivik’s shooting rampage.

Before we get into the specifics of Nanda’s venomous anti-Hindu outpouring, it helps to examine how Open magazine has framed the article’s context. Take a look at the following pictures that appear at the beginning of the piece.

Picture 1: Photograph of what looks like an RSS camp with members doing PT drills

Meera Nanda 1

Open’s caption: PARALLELS OF PARANOIA The European Far Right shares something with its Indian counterpart: a vivid and highly vocalised fear of ‘Islamisation’

Picture 2: Photograph of prominent RSS guru and leader Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar

Meera Nanda 2

Open’s Caption: GROUPTHINK Guru Golwalkar of the RSS drew inspiration from Europe’s Nazis in the 1940s

What’s more significant is that Open has filed this story under the Bigotry category. A typical reader hurriedly glosses over seemingly innocuous phrases like parallels of paranoia and the Orwellian GroupThink but these small things send out powerful subconscious messages and create lasting associations. Ask anybody in the advertising industry. It’s also a vile form of chicanery in that these are mere assertions with no basis in either history or fact as we shall see.

At the outset, Nanda argues that Breivik was a product of “years of immersion in a worldwide web of anti-Islamic ideas espoused by cultural purists and nationalists of all stripes” and that India “figures quite prominently in this web of hate.” From here, she embarks on leaps of logic, distortion of history, selective quoting, and emitting copious amounts of bile against anybody who’s sympathetic to Hindu causes and revivalism and reserves special-quality bile to those that criticize Islam.

Two points are immediately apparent. The first is Nanda’s usage of the term “anti-Islamic ideas,” which simply means that even well-reasoned criticism of Islam is branded as anti-Islamic and therefore not worth examining. The second is linking Breivik’s mindless violence to these criticisms. If we apply the same reasoning to Meera Nanda’s nonsensical “critiques” of everything Hindu (from water conservation to Yoga to Ayurveda), can we make a reasonable case for a hypothetical Marxist nut who goes on a killing rampage of say Yoga teachers? If that sounds absurd, let’s see what she says in her now-familiar tone of supremely misplaced confidence.

THE SIMPLE FACT is that some of the most revered personalities of the Hindu Right have actively cultivated and nurtured links with the European New Right. We don’t have to go as far back as the Nazi-loving founding fathers of the Sangh Parivar.

The simple fact is that Meera Nanda is a liar. First, the reasons why Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler are different but the burden of proof is on Nanda (if she believes in things like proof) to show otherwise. Second, Golwalkar disowned the book he wrote admiring Hitler, a fact Nanda cleverly conceals. What she also conceals is that the same Hitler was engaged in a sinister deal with the greatest Left Wing Satan of all time, Stalin. Nanda’s resume amply demonstrates her service to the cause of the Left. And thus it proceeds, the exercise of first laying the foundation based on untruths and insinuation. From demonizing Savarkar and co, she turns her attention to what she calls

…a newer generation of Hindu chauvinists that raves and rants against ‘Semitic monotheistic religions’—Islam, above all. This new Hindu Right has managed to move beyond the old Nazi fixation on racial purity to a new ideology of hate based on cultural and religious purity that is proving to be attractive to ‘crusader nationalists’ such as Breivik and his fellow ‘patriots’ from Europe, North America and Israel.

To her vomit-stained glasses, every critique of Islam becomes a “rant and rave” and a “hate-filled ideology.” This tarnishing technique is aimed at preempting attempts by people who want to study Hindu revivalism and/or critiques of Islam. Which becomes very evident because she devotes a bulk of her venomous piece to pouring dung on what has emerged in recent times as one of the most definitive critiques of Islam and Christianity, and equally, a forceful and authentic exposition of various aspects of Hinduism spawning history and politics among others. In a negative tribute of sorts, she says:

The new Hindu Right has been honing its radical critique of Islam and Christianity from the perspective of ‘yogic spirituality’ largely through books published by the Delhi-based publishing house Voice of India (VoI), which was founded in 1981 by two ardent Hindu revivalists and anti-Communists, Ram Swarup and his friend, Sita Ram Goel (both now deceased). VoI’s goal is to produce ‘bauddhik kshatriyas’ (intellectual warriors), who will defend Hindu society against the triple ‘threat’ of Islam, Westernisation and Marxism. The signature theme of VoI thinkers is to attribute these three ‘evils’ to ‘Semitic’ or monotheistic religions that are ‘inherently intolerant’ because they believe in One True God, One Truth and One Book.

And the underlined words show Meera Nanda’s signature theme of naked deceit. VoI thinkers do not attribute the intolerance because Islam & Christianity believe in One God and One Book but because the One God-One Book proponents insist that that is the only God and all other Gods are false and must be destroyed. Of course, Meera Nanda doesn’t mention the inconvenient latter part. It’s again a familiar trick: demonize everybody whom the so-called Hindu Right respects. Thus it’s unsurprising that Meera Nanda’s Galaxy of Hindu Villains stars such people as Sita Ram Goel, Ram Swarup, Koenraad Elst and David Frawley among others. Koenraad Elst gets five-star treatment. Here’s how.

Evidence of the global reach of the VoI-school of Hindutva can be found in the 1,518-page-long manifesto titled 2083: European Declaration of Independence that the Norway killer posted on the internet just hours before he went on his rampage. The manifesto makes two references to a Belgian writer, Koenraad Elst.

What is amazing is how she concocts phrases like VoI-school of Hindutva as though that is a self-evident truth. VoI or those who run it haven’t—in my readings—claimed themselves to be Hindutva votaries. Even if they did, it doesn’t blunt the kind of work they’ve done. If anything, the solid and sometimes, original research produced by VoI hasn’t ever been refuted anywhere so far. The likes of Nanda have merely ground their teeth in impotent rage and cursed the research but haven’t refuted it. Here’s a sample:

The first time Elst is mentioned is as the authority behind the highly contested claim that Muslims enslaved Hindus and drove them to their death in the Hindu Kush mountain ranges, now in Afghanistan. (This reference appears in an article by Srinandan Vyas, which is reproduced in the manifesto.)

Highly-contested claim eh? Now let’s see what exactly Elst has said, which Nanda has quoted in her putrid piece.

On p.140, an article by Srinandan Vyas quotes me as explaining that Hindu Kush, the name of a mountain range in Afghanistan forming the border of historic India, is Persian for “slaughter of Hindus”. Originally Hindu Koh, “Indian mountain”, it was amended to Hindu Kush because, as Moroccan traveller Ibn Battuta explained, numerous Hindu slaves on transport would die there from the cold. So the name does not refer to the mass killings of Hindus by the Muslim invaders, of which there have been many, but to another factor of the bleeding of India by Islam, viz. mass enslavement.

(For those who want to read the scholarly version of the Hindu Kush event, here’s Elst again:

As for another compelling evidence that nails Meera Nanda’s “highly-contested” lie, we can ask her to look up Muslim Slave System in Medieval India by K.S. Lal. But then K.S. Lal is also published by VoI and in the Meera Nanda Cult of Logic, it stands as invalid proof.  But back to Elst, who Nanda quotes again:

Elst is quoted here to suggest that though Islam is in decline, it can still take over Europe before it collapses. (Here Elst is quoted in an article by Fjordman, the anonymous Norwegian blogger well known for his anti-Islamic views and greatly admired by Breivik).

As before, let’s see for ourselves the exact words of Elst.

On p.339, an article by Fjordman on Brussels Journal quotes me as predicting the impending implosion of Islam, then paraphrasing me as warning that before the end comes, Islam can still come to dominate Europe. Islam’s intention to take over Europe is well-documented, and like other historical facts it is not susceptible to being altered by Breivik’s irrational crime. As it happens, my thinking about the magnitude of the risk of Islam succeeding in taking over Europe has evolved, I am now less pessimistic about it than in the 1990s. But either way, it is perfectly legitimate to think about these serious matters. So no, I do not feel embarrassed in any way by seeing these observations of mine reproduced by any of Vyas’s or Fjordman’s readers. As the French saying goes, la vérité est bonne, “truth is a good thing”. It never causes harm by being known.

On the contrary, if I could turn the clock back, I would try to save Breivik’s victims by advising Breivik to read the Brussels Journal. There he would have learned that the threat is not quite as dramatic as he imagined, indeed quite manageable by normal democratic means; and that killing Muslims (let alone non-Muslims) is not the way to counter the expansion of Islam.

Meera Nanda quotes him correctly but partially and selectively. Read the underlined words above and draw your own conclusions. What was Meera Nanda banking on: the non-availability of information, ignorance, laziness—or all of the above—of her readers who would, like in the old days, take her word at face value? She heaps more scorn on Elst linking him with think-tanks and organizations and parties and blogs that espouse hatred of Islam. Guilt by association, etc. But there’s a reason why she has reserved the worst of her demonic ire towards Elst: because of this scholarly whacking of yet another old masterpiece of Nandaesque Nonsense. And on and on she harps about VoI authors interspersing her rant frequently with “right,” “right wing,” “extreme critics of Islam and Christianity” before finally arriving at this:

… the founding fathers of VoI also tried to encourage the revival of pre-Christian and pre-Islamic pagan religions on the assumption that these ancient Indo-European religions shared the polytheism and ritualism of Hinduism.

On the assumption Ms. Nanda? Really? For all her unquenchable Hindu hatred, we must regard her as a scholar even if her scholarship is in the disservice of truth. On that basis, what kind of a scholar uses the word “assumption” as loosely as she’s done here? There’s a vast body of scholarship that has shown—with proof unlike Nanda’s Scholarship-by-Assumption & Assertion—parallels in the so-called pagan religions. Google for “pre-Islamic Gods in Arabia.” Also, why do we find so many similarities in “nature Gods” in ancient Hinduism and the Greek mythology/culture? And why do “pagan” cultures like Hinduism regard Feminity with reverence and why Semitic religions have only a Male as God? And why except for Hinduism, none of these “pagan” religions and cultures have survived. It’s because Hinduism has lived to tell the tale.

From here, she embarks on an even viler journey.

NOW THAT BREIVIK’S manifesto has revealed the names of anti-Islamic authors, bloggers, websites and groups that shaped his thinking, the great washing off of hands has begun. Just about everyone named by Breivik has issued stern statements distancing him/herself from his violent deeds.

This statement is unmatched for its pure villainy. Washing off of hands? Those named by Breivik have done the right thing, the decent thing, the moral thing. Is it their fault that Breivik took a reasoned criticism of Islam to an extreme level? Nanda characterizes this extreme behaviour as “shaped his thinking” by which she tries to imply that Elst et al brainwashed him. Which is perfectly accurate given Nanda’s worldview, which works in the reverse.  If that’s villainous, wait till you read the next sentence where she quotes Elst again:

Elst himself posted a statement stating that ‘The Brussels Journal never ever carried calls to counter Islam by means of bombs and shoot-outs… It only carried criticism of Islam, but that is a perfectly legitimate exercise.’

And here’s Elst’s complete statement:

Beirvik’s manifesto contained the reproduction in full of some articles from the Brussels Journal, a libertarian-conservative blog website. Predictably, the Belgian and some international media, which never liked the website’s consistent stand for freedom of speech in the face of Islamic attempts at muzzling it, have tried to impute responsibility for Beirvik’s hideous act to this defender of freedom of expression. But in reality, the Brussels Journal never ever carried calls to counter Islam by means of bombs or shoot-outs, whether of Muslims or non-Muslims. It carried criticism of Islam, but that is a perfectly legitimate exercise. As Karl Marx put it, criticism of religion is the start of all proper criticism. Enemies of the freedom to criticize religion are simply enemies of freedom.

So Nanda’s omission of Elst’s mention of media criticism is necessary to hide her real grouse against Elst. He’s a vocal critic of Islam and makes no bones about it. And that’s Nanda’s biggest problem. Like her Marxist compatriots worldwide, she cannot digest any criticism of Islam. She exhibits the same intolerance to its criticism as a famous Left lunatic who wrote about how the US “invited” 9/11.  If Islam doesn’t assimilate in a host country, it is somehow the problem of the host country. If Taliban wants to impose Islam, it’s because the US is bad.

A term that’s recently become popular among these intolerant defenders of Islamism is Islamophobia. The term simply means that if you criticize Islam in any way, you deeply fear it.  So everybody from Shivaji to Swamy Vivekananda to Sita Ram Goel to Pat Condell to Ayan Hirsi Ali to Koenraad Elst to Daniel Pipes to Geert Wilders are Islamophobes. This term although essentially meaningless is actually a shield to deflect, deter, and put a sense of shame into people who want to critically examine Islam. This term is a stock favourite among the self-proclaimed multiculturalists who were lions in the heydays of Marxism and who’ve now been reduced to wearing multicultural sheep-clothing. Meera Nanda offers a ready exhibit of this sheep-bleating:

…the agenda of the Islamophobic Right is much larger than spilling blood in the streets. As he made clear over and over again, Breivik’s primary objective was to ‘create a platform to consolidate anti-Marxist forces before Europe is overwhelmed demographically by Muslims’.  In other words, his first priority was to take down ‘cultural Marxists’ or multiculturalists, who are supposedly ‘appeasing’ Muslims…Breivik advises his Hindu nationalist brothers to first go after the ‘cultural Marxist government’ and its left-wing sympathisers

The truth is on the wall. Let’s take India’s case where the Marxist brain operating for 60+ years has systematically and comprehensively polluted public discourse, appeased the Muslim vote bank(eminent examples are Kerala and West Bengal, which have handed over large parts of these two states to rabid and violent Islamists who now have the power to make laws), and are in the process of creating an entitlement economy (the NAC and its toxic schemes constitute rear-entry Communism). This selfsame phenomenon is prevalent in differing degrees across Europe. Why doesn’t anybody ask the question that until Muslim immigrants flushed its lands, postwar European society was relatively stable and conflict-free? Perhaps Meera Nanda doesn’t realize how ridiculous this sounds coming from her, but let’s hear her out. This is pure comedy.

But what exactly do Breivik and his stormtroopers have against these multiculturalist ‘cultural Marxists’? The answer is simple: cultural Marxists say ‘all cultures and religions are equal’. The problem with cultural Marxists, Breivik says, is that they are egalitarian and want to create ‘a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition’. But it is ‘evident’ to him that all people are not equal, because all cultures and religions are not equal. Multiculturalists and cultural Marxists are, therefore, guilty of spreading the ‘politically correct’ but false ideology of tolerance and equality of all faiths and all cultures.

This equality is not acceptable to cultural nationalists: if all cultures are equal, how can they oppose the influx of what they see as inferior cultures? If all cultures are equal, how can they carry on their ‘consciousness-raising’ campaigns against The Quran and Sharia? If all cultures are equal, what is special about their own Christendom?

Instead of my observations, here’s an excerpt from one of the best critiques of multiculturalism that I’ve read (Recommended reading).

Multiculturalism rests on the supposition—or better, the dishonest pretense—that all cultures are equal and that no fundamental conflict can arise between the customs, mores, and philosophical outlooks of two different cultures. The multiculturalist preaches that, in an age of mass migration, society can (and should) be a kind of salad bowl, a receptacle for wonderful exotic ingredients from around the world, the more the better, each bringing its special flavor to the cultural mix. For the salad to be delicious, no ingredient should predominate and impose its flavor on the others.

Even as a culinary metaphor, this view is wrong: every cook knows that not every ingredient blends with every other….These practices send the message that newcomers to Britain have no obligation to learn English—indeed, that the obligation is the other way around: that the British state must make itself clear in Arabic, Farsi, Russian, Somali, Swahili, and many other languages…We must persuade, not coerce or indoctrinate, and to do so we must first disabuse our intellectuals of the notion—frivolous but damaging—that society should be a cultural salad.

It takes only a Marxist to not recognize a commonsense fact that cultures are not equal because people are not equal and that criticism of a culture or religion doesn’t mean criticism of its adherents. Or the fact that there is such a thing as a violent religion. Using her own leaky logic, can we conclude that Meera Nanda hates Hindus? But we digress. From eulogizing multiculturalism a.k.a. Marxism, Nanda turns her attention yet again on the dreaded Hindutva folks. Guess who she picks on this time? Subramanian Swamy for his ill-advised piece in DNA and then claims that

What distinguishes the VoI-brand of Hindutva—and pushes it into the global network of Islamophobia—is its staunch opposition to the mantra of sarva dharma samabhaav, the Hindu equivalent of multiculturalism. Hinduism, they assert, is not any ordinary religion, but rather contains the very essence of religion itself: it is sanatan dharma, the Eternal Cosmic Truth. To equate Hindu dharma, this mother of all Truth, with violent, materialistic and monotheistic ‘creeds’ like Islam amounts to equating dharma with adharma,..As Sita Ram Goel, the founding member of VoI, put it, “To entertain samabhaav (equal regard) for Islam and Christianity, by giving them the status of dharma is to extend [an] invitation to doom… These ideologies are not worthy of being called dharma in any sense of the word. Contrary to this, they are brimful [sic] of imperialistic expansion.”

All of this is accurate and is backed by mountains of historical proof. If Islam was a religion in the true sense of the word, why did the warriors of Islam who went about conquering the world report to the HQ a.k.a the Caliphate for a few centuries? That’s imperialism, in case Nanda doesn’t know the definition. Why did the Church need to wield political power if its primary job role was disseminating spirituality? Alien Islamic invaders as well as fully-Indian Sultans regularly sent gifts and slaves to the Caliphate. Contrast these with an Alexander who invaded India but didn’t impose his belief system on Indians. Also, Dharma at the very basics is that which is in consonance with a natural order and forbids encroachment of another person’s property or beliefs or lifestyle. Most with commonsense would agree that this is a recommended approach to life and religion, which is why it is valid for all times and hence called Sanatana or Eternal. It takes only a Meera Nanda to spew poison against people who uphold a religion that espouses it.

And then she fires her final salvo where she draws a neat equation of Breivik=Elst. In her own words:

Once they got rid of the mantra of sarva dharma samabhaav, VoI militants declared an open war against Islam. Their new consensus is that rather than ‘appease’ Muslims by pretending to respect their religion, Hindus need to debunk the claims of the ‘false’ and ‘monstrous’ doctrines of Islam. Indeed, Koenraad Elst has himself applauded this new war on Islam…he has proclaimed that, “Every Muslim is a Sita who must be released from Ravana’s prison. We should help Muslims in freeing themselves from Islam.”

This is exactly the agenda of the Norway killer—to ‘educate’ Norwegian society, including Muslim immigrants—that ‘Islam is not a religion but a political ideology.’ 

If Meera Nanda had even a shred of decency or honesty in her, she’d ask these questions:

  • Why are so many Westerners angry and/or scared of Islam and Muslims?
  • Why didn’t we see issues like the Minarets ban, burqa ban and Londonistan even 30 years ago?
  • Why has the United Nations’s resolution on Freedom of Speech invited such stark and widespread criticism?
  • Why is outrage generated over building a mosque at Ground Zero?
  • Several such similar questions but you get the gist

Instead, she does what cowards are best at doing: she evades the issue by demonizing the people who are unafraid of telling the truth and using that demonization as a weapon to prevent people who seek it. Come to think of it, Breivik has delighted the likes of Meera Nanda. Imagine if it was a crazed Islamic fanatic who had done the shooting. Meera Nanda & co would have had sleepless nights trying to brew some “explanation” about how Norway treated its minorities badly etc. Instead, the shooting was done by a self-confessed Right-wing Nationalist much to their glee.

Hence this toxic piece.

Postscript: For all her self-righteous verbal dysentery against anybody who criticizes Islam, Meera Nanda must read her own piece. It drips copiously with words like “violent,” “anti-Islamic,” “Islamophobia,” “extreme,” “hatred,” “Islam-bashers,” “Nazi-loving,” “exterminate,” and so on.

Some multiculturalist.

167 comments for “Lies, Damned Lies and Meera Nanda

  1. Amit
    August 17, 2011 at 7:27 PM

    “I mean, even Winston Churchill once wrote admiringly of Hitler, and nobody tries to evade that when asked.”

    I don’t see any evasion going on here – Sandeep did write that Golwalkar admired Hitler. All the evasion is just in Dilip’s mind and a figment of his imagination. We have Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose who allied with the Germans during WWII, and he is still considered a hero. So, where does the question of evasion come? It’s only idiots who try to cast aspersions based on “hindsight is 20/20.”

  2. neelkanth
    August 17, 2011 at 7:27 PM

    @Dilip D’Sousa

    First of all, a simple two-word google search would have answered your question.

    Then, when people post links to articles which more than adequately answer your question, even that is not sufficient for you. You actually want us to take the trouble to type and answer your question?

    You have written a book too haven’t you? Expected more from you. But you are not even in the category of Loneranger. He knows that to last here and troll around, he must hide vileness and hubris. You are too stupid for even that. You have been beated by a muslim troll. Congrats and take a hike lowlife.

  3. Sandeep
    August 17, 2011 at 7:26 PM


    Phew! Finally. Me too. Much delighted at your admission.

    PS: No. I’m not reluctant. I don’t believe in spoonfeeding you. You can draw your own conclusions, which you already have.

  4. cricfan
    August 17, 2011 at 7:23 PM

    “What is that reason(s), can you spell them out instead of being coy? ”

    Exactly the same reason why many German Jews admired him right up until 1938, but certainly not the same reason why you and your goose-stepping friends might admire Hitler.

  5. Amit
    August 17, 2011 at 7:23 PM

    LOL. I love reading Dilip’s comments, dripping with sanctimony and seeped in self-righteousness, which provide much humor.

  6. Amit
    August 17, 2011 at 7:17 PM

    And once again, the discussion is derailed and the focus taken away from the main point of this post, which was about Meera Nanda’s lies, and shifted to an irrelevant issue. People like Dilip and Loneranger are not interested in an honest discussion or exchange of views, and are here only to indulge in misdirection.

    From wikipedia:

    “Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another.”

  7. August 17, 2011 at 7:12 PM

    You never give up, do you?

    Why would I, when it’s an ever-increasing delight to see you squirm every which way you can to evade giving an answer?

    It’s an ever-increasing delight to see the evolution from “It’s not my claim” to “I have QUOTED, not ‘claimed'” to “I haven’t quoted it verbatim”.

    I didn’t see “it’s not true or doesn’t exist”. I just asked because you claimed it, “Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?”

    It’s baffling that you are so reluctant to answer this. If it’s a matter of historical record, like with the shameful behaviour of the catholic church and the pope during WW2, it should be possible to simply say: “yes, they admired Hitler, and for these reasons”. I mean, even Winston Churchill once wrote admiringly of Hitler, and nobody tries to evade that when asked.

    Or are you ashamed of that historical record?

    It’s also an ever-increasing delight to see the innumerable directions in which people here flail about: the tired old “anti-Hindu” and “anti-India” stuff, the “troll” stuff, the self-conscious “comrade” stuff, the “your tribe” stuff, the naming of boys stuff … plenty of stuff, but not a word of it an attempt to answer the question.

    Which, of course, is this: Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?

    An answer would be nice, for a change. Somebody here, I believe, will eventually find the substance to try it. Somebody.

  8. Ranger
    August 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM

    Anand, I vaguely remember Mr.D’Souza from a long time ago….he used to have an anti-hindu blog….those were in the days when blogs first came into the scene. Now he guest writes for some anti-India blogs (like and perhaps a few others). He is just one of those people who think they are worth a lot more than they really are and are angry with the world for not seeing them as they see themselves.

  9. Ranger
    August 17, 2011 at 5:05 PM


    Indian muslims admire Osama. Why ?

    Many muslim boys in India are named “Saddam”. Why ?

    Most muslims who stayed back in India after partition also voted in favor of Muslim League, wanting Pakistan to be formed. Why ?

    Indian Christians like yourself remain silent about the genocide of hindus in the North-East, and support the “Nagaland for Christ” campaign by your church. Why ?

    You are a leftist as well. (Center-left, liberal, secularist – whatever you call yourself) Your tribe supports the beheading of tribals and security men by your comrades , “Gandhians with Guns”. Why ?

    Answer these questions first. I have a few more questions to ask you after you do that. And once you answer all my questions, I will tell you for sure why the dudes Savarkar and Gowalkar admired Hitler.

    Dhanyavaad. Have a nice day.

  10. Anand
    August 17, 2011 at 3:48 PM


    Are you saying Comrade D’Souza is a leftwing troll who goes around trying to bait rightwingers? I don’t think so. I am not sure of that.

    Comrade L-Ranger, actually searching for “maoists” and “behead” on Google throws up many hits. Here for example, with a gory picture:

    Bhagalpur: A very shocking incident of Maoists came to light on Saturday in Bhagalpur.

    The Maoists beheaded one of their own after rendering him a traitor who had allegedly become a police informer.

    Comrade Sen’s Jesuits speak of compassion, humanity, kindness and motherhood and other good stuff. Why do they love these Maoist scum?

  11. 2bornot2b
    August 17, 2011 at 3:35 PM

    @loneranger – Go and read your posts here and decide who writes utter crap. It is a shame you visit here again and again even after convincing yourself that we write ‘utter crap’. It is a shame on your intelligence that you keep reading the ‘utter crap’ written here. May be time it is to spend your productively elsewhere?

  12. Sandeep
    August 17, 2011 at 3:34 PM


    You never give up, do you? Honestly, I see no point doing this back and forth. There’s plenty material available to answer your question. Use Google for starters. Just because I haven’t quoted it verbatim doesn’t mean it’s not true or doesn’t exist. I’m not here to teach you history lessons. Meanwhile, carry on baiting!

  13. August 17, 2011 at 3:25 PM

    it is THIS history from which I have QUOTED, not “claimed.”

    Really? You have quoted some history?

    This is the sentence in question “First, the reasons why Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler are different …”

    Please point out to me where in those words you say you are quoting someone/some history. If it is a quote, I would expect you to provide a reference (e.g. “According to XYZ, the reasons why Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler are different…”).

    Since you provided no reference, the reasonable inference is that you are making this claim. So I am asking you: Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?

  14. Sandeep
    August 17, 2011 at 3:10 PM


    Are you:
    a. comprehension-challenged?
    b. trying to provoke me?
    c. both (a) and (b)

    Just for your benefit, I’ll say this one LAST time.

    Yes. Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler. And YES, the fact that Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler is RECORDED IN HISTORY. And it is THIS history from which I have QUOTED, not “claimed.” You impute that THIS historical fact as my “claim.” And the reason they admired Hitler is also given in the same history. And NO, I’m not here to teach you that history. Since you admitted that you “didn’t know Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler,” I ask you–for the 4th time I think–to read that history.

    Are we clear? No? Let’s look at this with another example. It’s a tidbit from your hypothetical biography.

    “Dilip D’Souza is a male. He studied Engineering at BITS Pilani. He now pursues writing full-time.”

    If I say “Dilip D’Souza is a writer” is it a historical fact or my personal claim that Dilip D’Souza is a writer?

    PS: I STILL admire that you’ve retained your edge of baiting people.

  15. August 17, 2011 at 2:58 PM

    “It’s not my ‘claim'”.

    Really? It’s not your claim?

    You post has a sentence, and I quote it to you: “First, the reasons why Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler are different …”

    This is your sentence, not Meera Nanda’s sentence.

    Any reasonable reader, which I presume all yours are, which I like to presume I am, would read this sentence and conclude that you are claiming that Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler.

    I didn’t know Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler. You have just claimed that they did. Therefore, I ask you: Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?

    Would you care to answer?

    Thank you.

  16. Anand
    August 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM

    Hello Comrade L-Ranger, howdy dude. Long time no write.

    Here is for you, not for D’Souza. Happened while you were away.: Comrade Binayak Sen’s pals were up to the usual mischeif:

    Maoists behead man in Orissa
    Phulbani (Orissa), Jul 31, (PTI) :

    Suspected Maoists beheaded a man in Brahmanigaon area of Kandhamal district today, police said.


    Bihar: Fearing Maoists, 600 tribals flee villages
    August 05, 2011 13:07 IST

    More than 600 tribals residing in Kaimur hills in in Bihar have fled from their homes fearing Maoists, police officials said on Friday.


    There’s also an interview with an ex-Maoist (female) who quit the ranks unable to stand getting treated like the sex toy of fellow comrades. Trying to look it up for you.

    We should discuss the depradations of Sen’s pals, comrade. Hitler and Savarkar can wait. When I say “we”, I say you and I, not Comrade D’Souza.

  17. Anand
    August 17, 2011 at 2:41 PM

    Oops, while I was composing my comment, Loneranger is also back from holiday. Hurray.

  18. Sandeep
    August 17, 2011 at 2:40 PM


    Glad you remember me from the Vesana days. It’s not my “claim” (charming that you haven’t lost your art of putting words in people’s mouths) but it’s history that I asked you to read. There’s nothing to backup. You can go look up that history and confirm for yourself. Why don’t you do that first and then we’ll talk?

  19. Anand
    August 17, 2011 at 2:40 PM

    Hello folks,

    Please indulge Comrade D’Souza. He has no agenda. He is just asking an innocent question. He wants to be enlightened by you. He takes you seriously. Obviously, he has been lurking around — especially when Loneranger took a holiday — and he has been reading you with diligence. And when someone said that Savarkar admired Hitler, it agitated him, and forced him, for the first time, to open his mouth. How can anyone admire the national socialists? is the thought that perhaps is racing through his mind. He probably cannot believe the claim. It is bad enough Palestinian terrorists and Pakistani extremists want to kill those “pigs”, the Jews, but Savarkar too? No way! That’s probably what he is thinking. Clarify.

  20. August 17, 2011 at 2:37 PM

    Sandeep Vesana:

    Read history. You’ll find your answers there.

    Nice. You make a claim in your own post. But you don’t want to back it up.

    Loneranger, I noticed. Thanks.

    Jay, nobody owes me a favour. Nobody has to respond to my juvenile query time and again. Once would be nice.

  21. Sandeep
    August 17, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    Dilip D’Souza,

    >>Here’s the question: “Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?”
    Read history. You’ll find your answers there.

  22. Loneranger
    August 17, 2011 at 2:26 PM

    Hello friends..I have just come back from tihar was outside for the last 20 hours. amazing scenes and emotions.

    Dilip – This is how people here operate. If you ask them a question, they will ask some counter question but will never reply to you. They will gang up and bring up irrelevant issues and indulge in utter crap which will have no relation to your question.

  23. Jay
    August 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM

    >>…Some answers — even one — would be good. Thanks.

    @D’Souza…do the commentators on this blog owe you a favor that they have to respond to your juvenile query time and again? My humble advice to you D’Souza is to go take a hike and join your ‘secular’ friends in, as is the want of your class, indulging in a slugfest degenerating anything Sanaatam Dharm(ic)!

  24. August 17, 2011 at 1:12 PM

    One fellow says I must “show proof to the effect that Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler.”

    I didn’t make the claim, this post made the claim. I’m just asking: “Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?”

    Another fellow thinks I’m “indignant”.

    I’m not in the least indignant. I’m just asking: “Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?”

    A third makes out that this is an answer: “The pope admired Hitler. Why?”

    This is no answer, it’s a cop-out. I’m just asking: “Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?”

    A fourth tells me I’m being dishonest when I say there’s been no attempt to answer the question.

    Please show me the answer. Where in these 75 comments has someone answered my question: “Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?”

    A fifth says, “Don’t repeat yourself.”

    Good advice. But when I don’t get an answer to a question, I tend to repeat myself. This is the question: “Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?”

    The same fifth also says “Tell us why your Pope, and his minions who are believed to be Christian Gods representatives on earth supported genocide and were Hitlers willing executioners?”

    This is no answer either, just another cop-out, and he’s not my pope. In any case, and briefly, that pope “and his minions” were half-men who found it easier to bow and scrape before Hitler than stand up to him, and probably nurtured their own hatred for the Jews anyway, and that’s why they supported the genocide. Do you now have an answer to my question, which was: “Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?”

    A sixth says: “Exactly the same reason why many German Jews admired him right up until 1938, but certainly not the same reason why you and your goose-stepping friends might admire Hitler.”

    What is that reason(s), can you spell them out instead of being coy? Here’s the question: “Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?”

    Some answers — even one — would be good. Thanks.

  25. Jooske
    August 17, 2011 at 1:07 PM

    Can Meera Nanda answer these questions which the marxist professors could not and did not.

  26. RMarar
    August 17, 2011 at 5:13 AM

    About the lady Meena Kandasamy. In a cringe-inducing article on her in The Hindu she is quoted as saying “I never imagined this kind of success,” she says. “It’s really success. There’s no other way to put it.”
    Also in the article, she “coos with admiration” for Arundhati Roy’s The God of small things.
    Anyone who reads her expectorations about V.S. Naipaul (link below) will recognize the style as mimicry of her idol Arundhati Roy. Why does India produce so many of these shabby people?

  27. cricfan
    August 17, 2011 at 3:51 AM

    @D’Souza I already gave u a reasonable answer, but since u insist:
    Q. Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?
    A. Exactly the same reason why many German Jews admired him right up until 1938, but certainly not the same reason why you and your goose-stepping friends might admire Hitler.

  28. NASH
    August 16, 2011 at 11:34 PM

    to jooske
    Why does Sandeeep think that Subramanian Swamy piece in DNA was ill-advised?

    1.his views seems to be consistent with what is aired on youtube.
    2.are all the five goals listed in the article ill-advised -in what sense and context? could be- stated goals to solutions provided are not related coherently.

  29. Sahana
    August 16, 2011 at 10:30 AM


    On how and why Anna (and IAC) emerged suddenly at the national stage, read this revealing piece on how the IAC hijacked the cause of a veteran Gandhian Shambhu Dutt Sharma.

  30. August 16, 2011 at 10:17 AM


    Read up on the responses. Don’t repeat yourself.

    You still did not answer:
    ” tell us why your Pope, and his minions who are believed to be Christian Gods representatives on earth supported genocide and were Hitlers willing executioners?”
    Hitler’s Willing Executioners Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust by Daniel Goldhagen

  31. neelkanth
    August 16, 2011 at 10:16 AM

    @Dilip D’Sousa

    “”but not one attempt to answer the original question. “”

    That’s plain dishonesty Mr. D’Sousa.

    Perhaps you are miffed that people didn’t jump to attention fast enough to answer your question. But that is because most people here didn’t care for your question or its answer.

    But it is interesting that out of Sandeep’s entire article, it is this which caught your attention. We see what we want to see, and don’t see what we don’t want to see. You provided examples of both.

  32. CC
    August 16, 2011 at 9:17 AM

    Mr. Dilip, you’re welcome to indulge in indignant rhetoric but people here have already answered your question. Also please accept that it is possible to answer in a question format… somewhat like on Jeopardy.

    Here’s such an answer : The Pope admired Hitler. Why?

  33. cricfan
    August 16, 2011 at 9:03 AM

    @Dilip: “Thanks for any replies.”

    and you are welcome for any thanks.

  34. NASH
    August 16, 2011 at 8:55 AM

    to the questioner

    if you have noticed @cricfan … replied with
    Was Guru Golwalkar a Nazi ?

    did you work on that ?

  35. moonclan
    August 16, 2011 at 8:44 AM

    @Dilip – please show proof to the effect that Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler.

  36. August 16, 2011 at 8:36 AM

    The pope, his minions, christian gods, Hitler’s willing executioners, Goldhagen, Luther, Germans, Poles, repudiations, Ukranians, trolls, strawmen, rats from sewers that piss … all brought to the table but not one attempt to answer the original question.

    Which was this:

    Savarkar and Golwalkar admired Hitler? Why?

    Thanks for any replies.

  37. cricfan
    August 16, 2011 at 6:36 AM

    @Ava “I think you take too seriously people like this.”
    Technically yes, but I’m not spoilt for choice, am I? I don’t see good universities where i can peacefully study my own heritage in my own country. So it’s only natural that when i see some ugly-nosed Surpanakha being given a prime-time TV excuse to take pot shots at my heritage, the inner Lakshman hits the buzzer first.

  38. NASH
    August 16, 2011 at 5:54 AM


    1.readers know when cults/religion were formed.

    2.the problem for SD started after few years
    of this formation.

    3.many have knowingly trespassed on our belief system.

    4.meera nanda,manu joesph…. are in that line of trespassers.

    5.topics as put forth by meera nanda requires a forum
    where equal opportunity is given to opposite view.

    6.since that opportunity was not given to the
    opposing view they are trespassers and belief abusers.

    7.these trespassers will always be there.

    8.they have to be dealt like the present article.

    9.may be along the way we will get better

    10.but scratch we have to … otherwise how will you
    know your strength and sharpen the faculty of …….

  39. Amit
    August 16, 2011 at 4:52 AM


    Not to mention the anti-Semitism that’s the norm TODAY in Muslim countries. Or the fact that the Muslim terrorists from Land of the Pure targeted Jews in Chabad House in Mumbai and tortured the Rabbi and his wife before killing them. Yet people like Meera Nanda and Dilip D’Souza will not question those associations and prevalent thinking behind such vile acts, let alone challenge them, and instead, will focus on an irrelevant matter like Golwalkar and his supposedly Nazi links. According to MN and DDS, Christianity and Islam can do no wrong and if they do, those wrongs are forgotten, whereas Hinduism can do nothing right. It is best to not engage with such intellectually dishonest people.

  40. JustAMinute
    August 15, 2011 at 9:26 PM

    @Malavika August 14, 2011 at 3:11 PM

    This fellow DDS is a well known troll, his pastime is erecting strawmen. He always does this sort of thing, he is like a rat that scurries out of the sewer, pisses on the sidewalk and scurries back in. Why do you bother replying to him?

  41. neelkanth
    August 15, 2011 at 8:21 PM

    Going through the link where Koenraad Elst quite thoroughly takes Nanda apart. It is worth reading.

    This is one of the best parts:

    “”But at least the factor religion creeps in when we remember that the Jews were a religious community? Not to the Nazis with their secular reductionism. They refused to see the Jews as a religious community. Instead, they defined them as a race. Whether a Jew was orthodox or liberal, whether he was loyal to Judaism or converted to Christianity, whether he was a religious believer or an atheist, all this was deemed irrelevant and none of it could save him from discrimination or deportation. The Jewish religion was, in typical reductionist fashion, dismissed as a mere epiphenomenon of the Jewish genetic make-up, as a strategy for furthering the Jewish race’s self-interest in the conditions of the pre-modern age, a strategy which the race could replace with another (e.g. atheist “Judeo-Bolshevism”) when changed circumstances required it. A race has permanent survival interests, not a permanent religion. According to Hitler, the Jews were merely fooling everyone by presenting themselves as a religious group, all in their own racial self-interest.

    This Nazi doctrine concerning the Jews may be contrasted with its diametrical opposite: the Hindu doctrine concerning the Indian Muslims. Here, biology is not the issue at all, but religion is. The body with its genetic characteristics is not the issue, the soul is. Whereas the Jews who had assimilated into German society were pushed out again because their genes were deemed irremediably foreign, an Indian Muslim’s greatest possible favour to the Hindu revivalists is to convert to Hinduism and reintegrate into the society from which his ancestors were separated by conversion. Genetically, the Indian Muslims are no different from their Hindu neighbours, and even if some of them show traits imported by Turco-Afghan invaders, no Hindu revivalist (first the Arya Samaj, later the Vishva Hindu Parishad and others) will reject them if they want to embrace India’s native religion. In Nazi Germany, race was deemed to be the decisive difference between Jews and Germans, and the Nazis cherished and maximized this cleavage by pushing the Jews out. In Hindu India, religious belief is deemed to be the knife that severed from Hindu society those who are now Muslims, and the forward policy of the Hindu activists consists in undoing that cleavage by inviting the Muslims back in, by encouraging them to liberate themselves from their divisive as well as erroneous belief system. “”

  42. Jooske
    August 15, 2011 at 7:08 PM

    Why does Sandeeep think that Subramanian Swamy piece in DNA was ill-advised?

    There was nothing new in what he said.

  43. ava
    August 15, 2011 at 5:52 PM

    The funny thing is that people like this criticize people like Naipaul and what not, but the fact remains that Naipaul remains a master of English prose while such retards remain non-entities. I think you take too seriously people like this.
    Thapar really comes across as an ignorant fool, thats why they used to say in the US in the twenties, if you have no other accomplishments or skills or education, journalism might be the profession for you….I think its time someone like Swamy shows him up as the shallow, frog that he is….

  44. Anand
    August 15, 2011 at 10:38 AM

    Subramanian Swamy’s interview with Karan Thapar

  45. Sam Donaldson
    August 14, 2011 at 11:47 PM

    Excellent work. A big fan of your blog!

  46. cricfan
    August 14, 2011 at 9:54 PM

    Not to be left behind, here is the Dravidianist Circus’ answer to Meera Nanda:
    This clown tweets “Gita is a hate-filled Jihadi Text” :))

  47. NASH
    August 14, 2011 at 3:39 PM


    1.Why are so many Westerners angry and/or scared of Islam and Muslims?
    the westerners are afraid of islam and muslims,since there crusades
    and other means did not contain the growth of islam.

    2.Why didn’t we see issues like the Minarets ban, burqa ban and Londonistan even 30 years ago?
    the population has significantly grown over thirty years and is asking its rights.

    3.Why has the United Nations’s resolution on Freedom of Speech invited such stark and widespread criticism?
    the nations that are opposing the resolution do not have freedom of speech in their countries,
    by extension it has to be criticised.

    4.Why is outrage generated over building a mosque at Ground Zero?
    at ground zero stood WTC buildings which was brought down by muslims.
    building a mosque would be symbolic in saying we are peace lovers,
    which is not the case and contradictory.thus general outrage.

    5.Several such similar questions but you get the gist.
    i got it did she?…..!

  48. August 14, 2011 at 3:11 PM

    @ Dilip
    “Malavika, thank you for your comment. Only, it didn’t answer the question. May I repeat it? ”

    Sure, you have been presented with evidence about Gowalkar. And I am no fan of Gowalkar nor I supported him, so his views are irrelevant to us here on the blog. Besides he repudiated his views on Hitler.

    Care to tell us why your Pope, and his minions who are believed to be Christian Gods representatives on earth supported genocide and were Hitlers willing executioners?
    Hitler’s Willing Executioners Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust by Daniel Goldhagen

    It is not just Germans, Poles, Ukranians were quite enthusiastic and willing participants in the genocide of Jews, Gypsies and others. Does your other ‘saint’ MArtin Luthers, his anti semitism and dehumanization of ‘others’ has anything thing to do with behavior of ‘normal’ people during the Holocaust?

  49. humanist
    August 14, 2011 at 11:48 AM

    What was going on folks. More disturbing facts about leftwing-funded Islamist Teesta Setalvad

    Bank statements show Teesta bought witnesses
    August 14, 2011 12:45:33 AM

    Navin Upadhyay | New Delhi

    Irrefutable evidence has cropped up to support charges that witnesses of the Gujarat riot cases were allegedly manipulated at the behest of social activist Teesta Setalvad to file false submission before different probe panels and courts.

    In a fresh affidavit before the special investigation team (SIT), Teesta’s former close associate Rais Khan Pathan has enclosed statements of his bank accounts to show that witnesses were paid by him on behalf of Teesta in 2003…

  50. cricfan
    August 14, 2011 at 7:32 AM

    @Dilip, a stronger and more direct question relative to the one u posed has been asked and answered in depth more than a decade ago, feel free to read:

    Was Guru Golwalkar a Nazi ?

    So much more interesting to me is the list of entire communities and organizations that not just admired, but collaborated with Hitler at some point in time: Communists, Indian Muslim League/Arabs, and the mother of all organized crime groups known as the Vatican Church, Inc., etc (If they went public, their IPO would make Apple+Microsoft+Google look like cottage industries). Would be useful to also know why these entire organizations admired Hitler, and some have not condemned Nazis to this day.

Leave a Comment