Pune is just the name of another city because we’ve had a history of one attack in every six weeks: does it really matter where it happened and where it’ll happen next?

Needless, the usual charade followed this time as well: thundering media noise, outraged bloggers, shocked stars, a whimpering BJP, and the rest. It’s quite amusing actually. When 26/11 happened, India was under attack! and Mumbai (was) besieged! complete with the media copywriters’ semen stains on the headlines. But poor Pune has been robbed of such glamour. What the ugly assortment of politicians, penpushers, kingmakers, and the crown prince don’t realize–or don’t want us to know is the fact that India has been under attack for more than 1000 years. More on that after asking a rapid-fire round of questions:

• Dear Shahrukh Khan, this attack was done by your good neighbours. No. we’re not questioning your patriotism. We need honest answers. Your “good neighbour” remark might’ve been in the context of your IPL tomfoolery but Pakistan’s cricket team is NOT Pakistan. It’d do good for you to read this letter addressed to you. And next time, please don’t take Shakespeare’s “all the world’s a stage” too literally.
• Dear media, I know you’re already overworked with 24/7 spinning. And one of your Gin-sipping sisters has already speculated something about Sanathan Sanstha. Do us a service. Just STFU. We know operate largely in the space of cerebral vacuum but for once, don’t go overboard trying to prove it again and again. We know you won’t show the same spine you displayed in hammering the recent Shiv Sena hooliganism. Also do not spin the following:
• • Terror has no religion
  • Muslims are victims
  • This happened in <insert city of your choice> because Hindu fanatics are very strong here
  • The spirit of <insert city of your choice> will keep us going!
  • Shiv Sena and Taliban/JeM/LeT are the same
  • Secularism is under threat
  • Any and/or all of the above
• Dear fence-sitters and liberals, do not wax eloquent on the need for a “responsive” and “preventive” security apparatus, latest technology, advance warning signals, effective policing/Home ministry, international pressure, and similar nonsense.
• Dear Rahul Gandhi: where are you? The country needs you now! You can take a break from giving sleepless nights to those pretty university lasses.

What was limited to just Kashmir has merrily spread across the land in a space of just 6 years. A phenomenon familiar to anybody who has read Indian history–not the Romila Thapar version. To them, we’re a land of Kaffirs. Our eminent op-ed writers who try to explain this away are actually insulting the unblemished religious fervor of the perpetrators. These guys also harbour the illusion that Pakistan is really a democratic country–witness their several calls to “restore demoratic processes/norms/machinery” in Pakistan. Pakistan remains an Islamic theocracy. It’s even “purer” than Saudi Arabia in that it routinely vacuum-cleans non-Sunni Muslims (Ahammadiyas for example).

And because it is an Islamic theocracy, it is faithful to the Koran. Those who use the fancy military-jihadi complex need to consider this. What is the raison d’être for this military-jihadi complex? What propels and sustains it? The answer is uncomfortable but so is the truth. Military-jihadi is actually using the same word twice. If you are a pure Islamic country, your military exists not just to defend but to launch Jihad when the time is opportune. Also, Jihad essentially implies that you need to use military might to cleanse the world of infidels. There’s a reason why the likes of Kasab are given hardcore military training. To them, they are soldiers of Allah, sevants of the Prophet (PBUH). It’s therefore irrelevant if they are army regulars or freelancers. As history shows us, there’s no such thing as permanent peace in nations firmly under the sway of Islam. A current state of peace is simply preparations for the next Jihad. Which is why it is very important to use terms with full knowledge of their exact meaning. “Islamic terror” simply means Jihad. You cannot separate Islamic terror from its teachings. And it is the teachings that provide the justification for what’s known as the military-jihadi complex. People who call for a dismantling of this complex need to read the Quran and the Hadis first.

In the end, India has to take care of India’s interests. A friend might lend a supporting shoulder but you need to shed your blood and tears; he can’t do it on your behalf. Every country has its own methods to teach its enemies a lesson in a way they think is fit. Appealing to the US to mount pressure, etc won’t work. Pakistan’s relentless attacks against India is India’s problem. Talking international diplomacy and strategy is an optional next step. The first step is to grow a spine. (Vetoed! said Sonia).

Which city wants to go next?

Technorati : Congress Party, India, India Going to Dogs, Indian Politics, Islam Watch, Islamic Terrorism, Media Watch, Pakistan, Pseudosecularism, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Pune, Pune Blasts, Terrorism, UPA
Del.icio.us : Congress Party, India, India Going to Dogs, Indian Politics, Islam Watch, Islamic Terrorism, Media Watch, Pakistan, Pseudosecularism, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Pune, Pune Blasts, Terrorism, UPA

Legend: The ones in large font in Red show the biggest threats.

Click here to view the full size of the image.

Every application by a divorced woman under section 125… of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pending before a magistrate on the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that code… be disposed of by such magistrate in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

This quote is from that spectacular, Congress party-created monster called The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986. That it was one of the chief factors leading to Rajiv Gandhi’s downfall is purely incidental, and depending on which side of the fence you are on, equally led to the rise of “Hindu fundamentalism.” Also, that the entire Red Spectrum rue till date that this Act was the undoing of about forty years’ of their “hard work” is also incidental. But all these are incidental because we see subtle portents that this phenomenon is eminently capable of self-renewal. All it needs is a simple perpetuation of the current political climate.

Presenting Shah Bano version 2.0.

In the recent judgment, delivered on December 4, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Deepak Verma and Sudarshan Reddy upheld the right of a divorced Muslim woman Shabana Bano to get maintenance from her husband.

I don’t believe in the supernatural but it’s slightly eerie that the latest victim of that Congress-party-created monster shares the same last name as her predecessor. That this news, crucial to the ailing health of our democracy, appeared in an obscure column in the Indian Express is also evidence of the fine mess we’ve created for ourselves. In the ‘80s, this was both front-page news and the subject of passionate editorials that played out for months.

Predictably, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has issued a veiled threat of sorts.

“The Supreme Court judgment is a direct interference in Muslim personal law. It is also against the Shariat, which states that marriage is a contract between two individuals and it becomes null and void after divorce,” said Maulana Khalid Rashid, a member of the board.

And to be sure, and in keeping with the times, it has pulled a buy-one-get-one-free stunt.

The AIMPLB will … apprise the government of its stand on two issue, the SC verdict awarding maintenance to Shabana Bano and the Liberhan Commission report,” Khalid said.

While the AIMPLB counts for next to nothing, it’s nevertheless better to be on guard and call its bluff before it decides to get bolder. Indeed, Shah Bano version 1.0 happened because we failed to nip such divisive calls in the bud. Perhaps the AIMPLB has forgotten that Indian Muslims are Indians first and everything else later. The AIMPLB’s statement can reasonably be interpreted as a sneaky attempt at encouraging and fostering separatist tendencies.

The Supreme Court doesn’t really care what the Shariat says and consequently doesn’t need to give a whit about “interfering” in the Muslim personal law. India is not Saudi Arabia.

To be sure, the AIMPLB’s attack of the Supreme Court’s judgment if anything, only highlights the plight of poor Muslim women and the urgent need to address this. The National Commission for Women (NCW) given its 17-year old history has done precious little to help these women. On the other side, we don’t see any “spontaneous” emotional outbursts from the secularist and women’s liberation quarters considering that Shabana Bano’s “crime” was that she was unable to bring in the dowry demanded by her husband’s family. To be fair, a lone article in the Indian Express welcomed the Supreme Court’s judgment but didn’t get to the fundamentals, something everybody wants to avoid.

And what everybody wants to avoid even mentioning is the fact that Indian society cannot survive for long unless a solid Uniform Civil Code is implemented starting now. But the history of Muslim appeasement that began under Pandit Nehru has, Frankenstein-like, spun out of control. The placation is only increasing with time and perhaps reached a miserable pitch when Manmohan Singh proclaimed that Muslims have the first claim to resources: the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs has already granted 100% approval, and released funds for 21 districts in Uttar Pradesh to “uplift” minorities with more districts to follow.

In a way, the AIMPLB is irrelevant today because the UPA has taken upon itself the task to systematically bend to and satisfy every whim of the minorities before they even demand it. And so, if the combined clerical might of the Muslim lobby applies enough pressure, the UPA might “reconsider” the Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of Shabana Bano.

Vir Sanghvi is the Guru I have been looking for. And in the true spirit of the Indian tradition, I must present my Guru Dakshina, my debt of gratitude to Vir Sanghvi.

Presenting, December 8, Vir Sanghvi for Dummies.

1. Was there the concept of temples in India to begin with?

A: Hard to say but we can trace the origins of temples to the Aryans. The Aryans were nomadic tribes who wandered into India, massacred and drove away the native population. Once they were well-settled in India, they began to enslave those of the natives that were left. They invented animist rituals, which eventually became a tool for the priestly class to oppress the weaker sections of the society. Temples were a later growth of this, originally, priestly phenomenon. They needed Gods to embed superstition and fear firmly into the minds of the lower classes. They kept the knowledge of these rituals and mantras to themselves and thereby exerted enormous influence over kings and businessmen who contributed generously to these temples.

2. Whatever, but how does this justify Muslim invaders destroying temples?

A: Like I said, Muslim invaders destroyed temples to loot their riches and also for religious reasons. Justification of their act is not relevant here. Again, like I said, they lived in different times and their primary aim was money. You see, all religions are equal and as I have shown, nobody’s hands are entirely clean in this matter.

3. So are you willing to admit that Islam is intolerant?

A: No. What I’m saying merely is that all religions are inherently intolerant.

4. But I have read somewhere that more than most of the mosques today stand on sites of or were built using the materials of the temples Muslim invaders destroyed?

A: Yes and no. Much of this is disputed. When there are ideological differences among archaeologists, the less said about historians, the better.

5. Let’s assume that the Kaba was destroyed and the Hindus wanted to build a Rama temple on that site. Isn’t this is the same phenomenon?

A: There’s a difference. It is yet to be proven that Rama was actually a historical figure while it is beyond doubt that Mohammed is a historical figure. Besides, the followers of every religion have a right to decide on matters concerning their religion.

6. But that means you’re granting different principles to different religions.

A: No. In case of Mohammed, he has the weight of history behind him while Rama is mostly a mythological figure. Moreover, as I said, there are many birthplaces of Rama.

7. How about all those destroyed temples, which have no such controversies?

A: Point taken. But you forget that we’ve not resolved just one controversy. Who knows what issues will crop up when we examine them! Which is why I said it’s best to bury these frivolous topics.

8. Fine but your reasoning doesn’t make sense. How does historicity matter? We’re talking about applying a uniform principle in dealing with such matters.

A: It’s not that simple. It takes a secular bent of mind to understand the historical, religious, and societal complexities involved in such matters. The fact that you’re asking this question shows that your understanding is tinged with the motivation of avenging historical wrongs.

9. If you say it’s a question of avenging historical wrongs, doesn’t it also imply that the Muslims of today are somehow responsible for the wrongs committed by their forefathers?

A: Oh! I see I have been talking to a communalist! 

Related posts:

• Ayodhya for dummies – the real ones
• The BJP and the Ayodhya Demolition

About two months ago, I had posted about the dangerous, long-term outcome of what I called Love Jihad. This phenomenon ever since, is steadily receiving the attention it deserves. And no thanks to the Slimes for making it front page headlines for at least two days. The Slimes wouldn’t dare antagonize the Islamic lobby if its back wasn’t solidly protected.

Love Jihad is just another variant of the Jihad, which Islamists have been waging against India on multiple fronts. This Jihad is increasingly finding support from within. Neither is it met with the iron handed response it deserves. Even sensible commentators have lapsed into using the safe, “terrorist” term instead of calling the phenomenon by name: Islam-inspired religious war against infidels.

Stephen Brown at FrontPage Magazine explores this in great detail. I’ve reproduced it in full here.

Read and weep.

The “Love Jihad”

To the “hard jihad” of Muslim terrorism and the non-violent, “stealth jihad” challenging Western societies, the oxymoron “love jihad” can now be added. But this latest form of Islamist aggression has nothing to do with love but rather, like its soulmates, with hatred for the infidel and women.

The love jihad’s modus operandi involves a heartless strategy of luring vulnerable girls and young women to convert to Islam by feigned love and promises of marriage. But instead of marital bliss, the girls unwittingly trapped in its deceitful web usually wind up in the hands of Muslim fundamentalist organizations.

The south-western state of Kerela in India is the latest place where this perverse practice has raised its ugly head. Authorities in this state of 32 million are holding in jail two young Muslim men who stand accused of “luring” two non-Muslim university students with promises of marriage “for the purpose of conversion.”

In court, both students testified the two men “trapped” them and forced them into converting. One told the court she fell in love with one of the men, a senior student at her college, and eloped with him. But instead of the expected marriage, she and the other woman were taken to a Muslim center where they were subjected to Islamic extremist propaganda.

The case has created such concern that Kerela’s High Court ordered the police to investigate the organization responsible for the conversions, the Campus Front, which serves as the student wing of the Muslim fundamentalist organization, the Popular Front of India. It is believed more than 4,000 Hindu and Christian young women in Kerela have converted to Islam in the last six months.

The Times of India reports that Kerela’s Hindu and Christian religious authorities are so alarmed at this development that they are cooperating to “combat the ‘social evil’ which. . .is hitting their respective communities hard.” It is suspected that college girls and working women are especially targeted.

“It’s shocking but it is happening. Many Christian families are getting affected,” said a member of the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council.

One report states the “jihad Romeos” in Kerela are given cell phones, bikes and fashionable clothes to accomplish their sinister mission. They have two weeks to find a girl of another religion and six months to convert her to Islam. If the girl shows no interest within two weeks, they are to leave her and find another.

For every conversion, the men also receive a monetary reward. The money for the “love jihad” in Kerala is reported to come from “foreign sources.”

If a recruiter does marry his convert, he is encouraged to have four children with her. Some believe this capability to bear offspring is the reason why young women are targeted. With conversion, their reproductive powers are taken away from a competing religion and increase instead the Muslim extremist demographic.

But while the term love jihad may be new, the tactic is already a known one. In the 1990s, Sikhs in England believed young women in their community were being targeted for conversion. Young Muslim men looking for prey were even thought to have attended parties for young Sikhs, while pretending to be Sikhs themselves.

Sometimes, however, the jihad Romeos in England used a more brutal approach. A story in the Daily Mail two years ago stated that police were targeting such Muslim extremists and working with universities against “aggressive conversions.” These involved Hindu and Sikh girls being beaten up and terrorized by the Muslim men they were dating until they converted.

The Hindu Forum of Britain, the story says, claimed hundreds of Sikh and Hindu girls were victims of such vicious intimidation. Some even had to leave their university to escape their tormentors.

“Some girls are petrified because they are constantly being phoned up, having their door knocked on,” a Hindu Forum member said at the time.

But the best evidence that this form of jihad has been in operation for some time comes from a former Muslim extremist, who converted to Christianity. In the book, Why We Left Islam, a compilation of testimonies by former Muslims who left their faith, the unidentified apostate gives a powerful account of his days as a jihad Romeo in Egypt who targeted Coptic Christian girls.

Like in Kerela, the former Muslim testifies that money was paid for conversions and that it came from outside the country. And the higher the educational and social status of the victim’s family, the more money the jihad Romeo received.

Unlike in India though, the recruiters would parade the converted girl through the streets, playing music and waving flags, while yelling “Allah Akbar.” The goal, he said, was to humiliate the Christians, especially the men, and dishonor their families in a country where the women are the family’s honor. But such parades were banned in 1985.

All kinds of tricks, he writes, were used to convert the girls. From outright expressions of love and attending their churches to trapping them in moral scandals, everything was fair game. In this, the extremists were often helped by young Muslim women who identified likely targets, encouraged the Christian girl in the “relationship,” and would even help set up the morally compromising situations.

While ruining the lives of others, the former Muslim states he thought he was serving his religion, since Muslims “were in a perpetual war with the ‘filthy infidels’.” He lived for three years with one woman he had converted, tormenting her mercilessly, while converting seven other Christian women during that time.

In essence, the love jihad is a form of demographic aggression. Like the “stealth jihad”, which employs political activism to achieve Islamist aims in Western societies, it employs deception and is viewed as a useful tactic in bringing about Islamic world domination. That, however, is of little solace to the many precious young women whose lives it has destroyed.

Technorati : Commentary, India, Indian Politics, Islam, Islam Watch, Media Watch, Personal Freedom, Politics, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Secularism, Society & Culture
Del.icio.us : Commentary, India, Indian Politics, Islam, Islam Watch, Media Watch, Personal Freedom, Politics, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Secularism, Society & Culture

In the past four years, some 5,000 Hindus may have crossed over from Pakistan, never to return. It has not been easy abandoning their

homes, sometimes even their families, but they say they had no choice: they had to flee the Taliban.

It started as a trickle in 2006, the year the Thar Express was flagged off. The weekly train starts from Karachi, enters India at Munabao, a border town in Barmer, and runs up to Jodhpur. In the first year, 392 Hindus crossed over.

This grew to 880 in 2007. The next year, the number was 1,240, and this year, till August, over 1,000 have crossed over. They just keep extending their visas and hope to become Indian citizens.

Their plight is heart rending for you and me.

The fear of Taliban is just another facet of the issue. The larger issue is the real plight of Hindus in the Land of Pure. They have, and will continue to remain worse than Dhimmis, ripe meat for the picking–their wives and daughters carried away and ravished at will. But their condition will not be highlighted or even mentioned in any international “Human Rights (sic)” forums, the media, or talk shows. The “plight” of an Afzal Guru, and Kasab, the new star-in-the-making is far more rewarding than the thousands of Hindu families that prefer to abandon everything and become refugees just so they can continue to live as Hindus.

Without exaggeration, these people are true Hindus, unafraid and unashamed of calling themselves so and I salute them. They’re neither the “safe” nor the “liberal” Hindus who think of their Hinduness as only a subject for intellectual masturbation. And they have had a very bitter taste of what the Religion of Peace does.

Now, just picture the hollering that’d surely erupt if Indian Muslims had similarly fled to Pakistan citing the same reasons. Oh and according to Renuka “Pub” Chowdhury, we do have a Hindu Taliban (sic sic sic).

Endnote: What surprised me most was the fact that the Slimes actually reported this. In their scheme of things, the lives of Hindus don’t matter.

Technorati : Hindus Flee from Pakistan, Hindus Hunted Down, Hindus under Seige, History, Human Rights, India, Islam Watch, Pakistan, Pakistan-Watch, Plight of Hindus
Del.icio.us : Hindus Flee from Pakistan, Hindus Hunted Down, Hindus under Seige, History, Human Rights, India, Islam Watch, Pakistan, Pakistan-Watch, Plight of Hindus

A pattern seems to have emerged over the past decade or so in the US. Each time any U.S-based Hindu organization(s) hosts a fairly well-attended event, alarm bells sound off from the expected quarters. These expected quarters wake up and emit a major stink about the–yawn–dreaded Hindu communalism/fascism/quest for revenge… The yarn is the same, only the hues are different. And so it is with this latest piece de disgrace (requires free registration to read) by Vijay Prashad, a well-known Hindu baiter, and rabid Marxism-retching machine stationed in the US. He is also a co-founder of a rather aptly named organization called FOIL (Forum of Indian Leftists). Frankly, I’m not as charitable as Rajiv Malhotra who engaged him in a debate in Loutlook Outlook India in 2004. It’s pointless to debate with avowed Marxists becuase you already know their “methods” of analysis and “mode” of reasoning.

The current occasion that rudely shook him awake concerns a fund-raising event in the US to build a Hindu Holocaust museum in Pune. That a whopping $50000 was collected in these recessionary times probably added to Prashad’s fear-ridden angst.

The Hindu Holocaust museum is a project pioneered by Francois Gautier who has written about it on several occasions. Gautier wrote some of the initial pieces on the subject some six years ago. However, Vijay Prashad wakes up only now.

Given his ideological propensities, Vijay Prashad naturally feels:

• There was no Hindu Holocaust–or the largescale massacre of Hindus is exaggerated
• Islam didn’t spread in India through violence
• Hindus (Kings) were equally if not more violent than Muslim conquerors
• Hindus and Muslims regarded each other as brothers

Pretty much what we can expect from his ilk. But it’s one thing to state these misleading assertions in casual conversation and another to actually present it as truth in face of a mountain of evidence against it. Let’s examine Vijay Prashad’s assertions first and then his “evidence.”

Unfounded Assertions

Viraat Hindu Sabha (VHS).. claim that over the past thousand years, millions of Hindus were killed, with the intention to wipe Hindus off the map.

The numbers are vague, as one might expect, but the culprit is precisely defined: Islam. The VHS uses the phrase “Islamic genocide of Hindus” to make its case. To me this is remarkable stuff. It reduces the complexity of the subcontinent’s rich history into a simple morality play that has only two characters: the Hindu and the Muslim. The latter is the invader who has come and killed the former. Nothing else matters. The idea of the Hindu Holocaust casts the Hindu as history’s victim, who should now become history’s aggressor to avenge the past.

The numbers are definitely vague but not quite how Vijay Prashad puts it: when millions are killed, it is humanly impossible to get an exact body count. Does Vijay Prashad really expect historians to give us a figure like 2634581 instead of saying 2 million? I’ll recount what I had quoted in an earlier opinion piece on the same subject:

In his Growth of Muslim Population in India, Prof KS Lal estimates that the Hindu population decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD and 1525 AD, an extermination unparalleled in world history…The conquest of Afghanistan in 1000 AD saw the annihilation of its entire Hindu population. Even today, this region is known as the “Hindu Kush,” which literally means “Hindu slaughter,” named after that massacre. In 1399, Taimur killed 1,00,000 Hindus in a single day, and the Bahamani Sultans made it a sacred duty to kill 1,00,000 Hindus every year.

A standard cloak behind which every Leftist/secularist hides is the “complexity of the subcontinent’s history.” In other words: I will not tell the truth much less accept that any such thing could have ever happened. Additionally, the reductionism that Prashad talks about is actually his fellow-travellers’ work: by cleverly diverting any attempt to critically examine Islam’s history in India into the Hindu vs Muslim “morality play” he refers to. Much of serious scholarly work on Islam’s history rightly places the critical lens on Islam’s foundational doctrines rather than on Muslims as a people.

To set the record straight, Hindus were, and continue to be victims of Islamic aggression. Every single contemporary history written by court hagiographers of various Sultans repeatedly refer to cleansing the land of infidels, breaking their false (idols) Gods, converting the “idol-temples into Masjids,” wiping out the religion of darkness, in exalted language. Vijay Prashad can supply us with the appropriate phraseology to describe the plight of the people who were thus cleansed, their beliefs violated, their lands usurped, and their way of life chopped off: victims seems a sensible word to me.

The idea, as Prashad says, is not to become aggressors or avenge past wrongs. A whole load of very good revival work is done simultaneously in many areas of human study to recover the wealth of knowledge contained in the Hindu past: archeology, metallurgy, architecture, and polity. The idea also, of the Holocaust Museum is to show what is possible under fanatical regimes and rulers like Aurangzeb. None of these efforts can be remotely called aggression.

But all of this is just the beginning.

Historical (non) Evidence

The actual story unfolds when Vijay Prashad embarks on an Islamic whitewashing spree.

If you read the historical records carefully, you will find that many Hindus participated in the slaughter of other Hindus, and that the Hindu Buddhist battles of the ancient world were perhaps more bloody than anything that comes afterward. Or indeed, that the systematic violence against dalits and other subordinate castes should hold our attention far more than it does.

This is a classic.

The louder scholars like Prashad stress on reading historical records, the more our suspicion tends in the opposite direction. Hindu kings did slaughter other Hindus but in this context, it conceals a very vital point that Prashad wants to sweep away. The motive for infighting among Hindu kings was not religious conquest or domination. The Hindu-Buddhist “battles” were mostly fought in scholars’ assemblies and not on real battlefields. Whatever the actual, physical battles that occurred can hardly qualify for something as severe as “more bloody than anything that comes afterward.” At the least, Vijay Prashad should provide one shred of evidence to back this up. Equally, the “systematic violence” against dalits is largely exaggerated and terminologically incorrect. First, there was no “caste” or group of people called “dalits” in the period Prashad refers to. Shudras were the “lowest” caste. Besides, we have numerous examples of Shudras who later became kings. Prashad would have us believe that “systematic” violence is the same as what Islamic kings did to the native Hindu population. The good professor of South Asian History should not be reminded of basic principles of logic.

Let’s see what he says about how Islam came into India.

When Islam enters the subcontinent, it does not come in the saddlebags of the Ghaznis or the Ghouris, but amongst the rumble of goods brought by traders. Early conversions are not by the sword but by the merchants.

Prashad very conveniently refuses to put even an approximate timeline to “when Islam enters the subcontinent.” Instead he talks about Ghaznis and Ghouris. I hate to disappoint him but this particular morsel of history dates farther back than Ghaznis and Ghoris. As early as CE 664, Abdur Rahman, an Arab invader took Kabul (then part of India). However, it took at least two centuries for Mohammad Bin Qasim–an Arab again–to successfully occupy parts of Sindh around CE 711-712. Subuktgin and his prodigious son, Mohammad of Ghazni, and then Mohammad Ghori were all Turks. I leave it to the reader’s intelligence to deduce from this piece of historical evidence that Qasim, Subuktigin, and the two Mohammads were merchants.

What comes next is even better.

There was killing, but that was as much for reasons of warfare and plunder as for reasons of God and tradition. An interested reader might want to look at the distinguished historian Romila Thapar’s superb book “Somnatha: The Many Voices of a History” (Penguin, 2005). There, Professor Thapar shows us that Mahmud Ghazni’s destruction of the Shiva temple in 1026 was driven not so much by a fanatical religious belief but because his father, Subuktigin, needed money to sustain his faltering kingdom in Central Asia. Now it is certainly true, as historian Mohammed Habib put it, that there was “wanton destruction of temples that followed in the wake of the Ghaznavid army.

Let’s look at what these early gentlemen, “merchants” of Islam did, in order of their time in history.

• Abdur Rahman: Forcibly converted a few thousand people to Islam (Tarikh-i-Ferishtah, Persian text, Nawal Kishore Press, Lucknow 1865, Vol.1, p.16.)
• Mohammad Bin Qasim: He established mosques, appointed Muslim governors, and propagated Islam in cities and towns like Alor, Nirun, Debul and Multan. In Debul, he enslaved and converted women and children, and left a 4000-strong Muhammadan garrison at the place. In Multan about 6000 persons were forcibly converted to Islam. Al Biladuri’s narrative points to large-scale conversions in Sawandari, Basmad, Kiraj, and Alor (Chachnama, Futuh-ul-Buldan).
• Mohammad Ghazni: Starting with his first attack around 1000 CE, this darling of secular historians has left behind a wealth of Hindu skulls and converts in the general region of Peshawar to Kanauj (in the East) and to Anhilwara (in the South). In terms of numbers, all inhabitants of the populous town of Bhera (whose ruler, Maharaja Jayapala and his 15 chiefs were taken captivej and either killed or converted), and some 10000 people in Baran (Bulandshehar) were forcibly converted to Islam (those who refused were killed). For city-wise conversion statistics, see Utbi’s Kitab-i-Yamini.
• Mohammad Ghori: His massacre of Hindus at Kol (today’s Aligarh), Kalingar and Varanasi is one of the unparalleled achievements of Islamic invaders of India. He slaughtered some 20000 Hindu prisoners and offered their heads to crows. He also holds the distinction of destroying Buddhist stupas, shrines, and monks on an industrial scale. Equally notable is his victory over Prithviraj Chauhan and the sack of Delhi, which he reduced to ashes and killed around a lakh people (Taj-ul-Maasir and Takikh-i Fakhrud-din).

I’ve purposely not included other luminaries like Allah-ud-din Khilji, Qutub-ud-din Aibak, the Bahamani Sultans, and the vandals of the Mughal empire in the interest of adhering to Prashad’s timeline.

It is unsurprising that he refers us to the 4000-Rupee lunch historian, Romila Thapar’s book, which issues the requisite character certificates for these invaders. I hate to shatter Prashad’s heroine worship, but the Expensive Lunch Professor’s Somanatha book has already been ripped to shreds critiqued very competently by Meenakshi Jain. Which is why, Vijay Prashad’s parroting hurts the ear:

When one looks at the sources contemporaneous with the Ghaznavid attacks, one finds that they mention these but only as a series among many. There was nothing about them that merits the term “Holocaust,” even as they were certainly destructive of the temples and of the people who worshipped there. What Thapar points to is that this was not all done by the Central Asia marauders.

We’re talking about at least 800 years of Islamic rule in India, not just the Ghaznavid period, Mr. Professor. It that combined period Gautier talks about in the context of Hindu Holocaust. This does not include the 1-3 million Hindus killed by the Pakistan Army in the 1971 massacre of (the then) East Bengal. Nandan Vyas, in his Hindu Genocide in East Pakistan (Young India, Jan 1995) pegs the figure at 2.4 million Hindus. This figure is alone enough to call it a Hindu Holocaust but perhaps the good Professor won’t be satisfied unless he sees heaps of millions of slaughtered Hindus to grant us the usage of this term.

Negationism Redux

Actually Vijay Prashad’s intentions are quite noble. He wants to stop communalism in its tracks at all costs. And so he slips yet another serpent out of the Marxist bag.

Indeed, there is little evidence of animus between Hindus and Muslims in the few hundred years after the entry of Ghazni. In the 13th century, a local raja, Sri Chada, granted a merchant from Hormuz the right to build a mosque on temple land. He also provided the mosque with a disbursement for teachers and preachers, for the daily reading of the Quran and for the celebration of festivals.

Hormuz is a straight import from Romila Thapar’s textbook on Somanatha, which as I’ve noted earlier, presents some problems.

Thapar makes much of a land grant by the Hindus of Somanatha to a trader from Hormuz for constructing a mosque some two centuries after Mahmud’s raid. Yet this Hindu gesture only reinforces the opposing perspectives of the two sides. While the Arab trader wished Somanatha might come to Islam, his Hindu hosts showed no desire to convert him, and facilitated the construction of a mosque so he could properly adhere to his faith. Thapar’s shoddy insistence that the gesture was dictated by the greed of Hindu traders for a share of the Arab trade is typical Marxist drivel.

For a more detailed (and tragic in the end) history of the Hormuz affair, see this, which Prashad naturally doesn’t tell us because whitewashing of Islamic atrocities prohibits mixing any other colour. Negationism in other words. Negationism also takes the garb of presents a phony history where Hindus and Muslims had nothing but brotherly love for one another. Ordinary Hindus were little better than slaves–dhimmis, under a Muslim king whereas Hindu kings allowed their Muslim subjects to build Mosques and generally let them be. Elst explains this quite well:

Note that attempts are made to deny this history. In Indian schoolbooks and the media, an idyllic picture of Hindu-Muslim harmony in the pre-British period is propagated in outright contradiction with the testimony of the primary sources. Like Holocaust denial, this propaganda can be called negationism. The really daring negationists don’t just deny the crimes against Hindus, they invert the picture and blame the Hindus themselves. Thus, it is routinely alleged that Hindus persecuted and destroyed Buddhism; in reality, Buddhist monasteries and universities flourished under Hindu rule, but their thousands of monks were killed by Ghori and his lieutenants.

Note Elst’s mention of primary sources. We have “historians” like Romila Thapar who write ancient Indian history with zero knowledge of Sanskrit, and medieval Indian history omitting histories/sources that quote from primary sources. And we have Vijay Prashad.

Preempting Tactics

Vijay Prashad is quite expectedly, derisive of the likes of Gautier and Elst. He does nothing to conceal it.

Gautier came to India from France about 30 years ago, and settled in Pondicherry. He has written a few tracts and writes occasionally for the newspapers. His work reads like another European apologist for extreme Hindutva, Koenraad Elst. Both went to strict Catholic schools and now hold a deep animus against Christian missionaries, but seem to take their venom out mainly against Islam. Gautier and Elst want to make plain the “Muslim genocide against Hindus.” But neither is a serious student of history, with little idea of how to read historical texts. They draw more from a misplaced passion than from a real, sober scientific exploration of the facts.

There are a few factors at work here. One of them is along these lines: how dare these Westerners come here and examine the primary sources instead of relying on the native “interpreters” of India to the West? The attack of obvious choice: label them as Hindutva apologist. I suspect the learned Professor Prashad has even read what Elst has written: he doesn’t take his “venom out” only against Islam but against all Prophetic religions. And then the condescending: not-a-serious-student-of-history, etcetra line as if it’s somehow enough to discredit all their work. But in a way, Prashad is right. They have little idea of how to read historical texts: by reading what’s not there, inserting what is “required,” or by omitting what doesn’t “fit,” a la secular historian.

But the eminent professor should answer how he expects us to believe his assertions galore, without a shred of evidence to back them up. Or at least tell us what his definition of “scientific exploration” is. Faith in him?

His designation reads: George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History and Professor of International Studies.

Technorati : American Hindus, Commentary, Communism Watch, Communists Watch, Hindu Holocaust, History, Indian History, Indian Politics, Islam Watch, NRIs, Politics, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Romila Thapar, US, Vijay Prashad, Whitewasing Islam
Del.icio.us : American Hindus, Commentary, Communism Watch, Communists Watch, Hindu Holocaust, History, Indian History, Indian Politics, Islam Watch, NRIs, Politics, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Romila Thapar, US, Vijay Prashad, Whitewasing Islam

The Kerala High Court on Friday released two girls, who were allegedly detained for religious conversion, to their parents…In the petition, Jacob Thomas of Pallikkal, Kottarakkara, and K Madhavan of Peroorkada, the parents of the girls, alleged that their daughters were detained by one Shehansha of Pettah, Pathanamthitta….They had left their homes and had informed their parents that they were going to convert into Islam. In the petition, the parents alleged that the girls were illegally detained and they were being forced to convert.

Apparently, there’s also another, similar incident in the Ernakulam district. From the same news report,

In a similar incident, A J Joy of Kalamassery has approached the High Court, alleging that his wife and three children were being detained by the Mounathul Islam Association, based at Ponnani, for religious conversion.

Three Muslim students, who were staying in Joy’s house, had interactions with Joy’s wife Smitha. On August 10, Smitha went to her house. Later, Smitha’s brother informed Joy that she was missing with her three children.

But then this is India and this happened in Kerala, and the media is too busy safeguarding Shahrukh Khan’s stardom and making Swine Flu a national catastrophe. Equally, the BJP and the Sangh Parivar are busy quarrelling among themselves.

When incidents like this occur far too often, they’re rightly discarded into oblivion. An incident like this a few decades ago would have led to some clash or protest indicating a society that was responsive to such outrages. But we’ve been outraged far too many times to even notice: as long as it doesn’t happen to us, etc

In plain language, this is Love Jihad and shows what Islam will do if it perceives that it’s superior in strength. Love Jihad is typically one of variations of the sacred Taqqiya tactic for conversion, among other things. But in this case, it’s violent Taqqiya, a sort of contradiction of the doctrine. Mention Love Jihad in the secular-liberal circles, and you’ll be laughed off your head in characteristic disbelief. The fact that “misguided” Muslim youth are abducting Hindu girls and marrying them to keep the Islamic baby factory well-oiled is real. No amount of secular discourse will make this go away. Thus far, these kidnappings were restricted to Hindu women but Kerala has broken new ground. Which brings us to the other dimension: the stirrings of a clash of monotheisms. The combined nexus of Islam, Christianity & Marxists have historically posited a united front to quell and browbeat Hinduism. Thus, all Hindu organizations are criticized by this nexus in the same tone, tenor, and with the selfsame self-righteousness. In this case, Islam has “tresspassed” the sacred quarters of Christians by (allegedly) abducting unsuspecting Christian girls. But the links are confusing and run deeper.

Example: Mounathul Islam Association (MIA), which has a pretty colourful past. The Christian quarter had in the past (link thanks: JK) unearthed some dirt about MIA.

Six schools in the state which had availed of Rs 30 lakh from the central funds meant for the uplift of educationally backward minorities are missing… The money was transferred to the minority community agencies by the deputy directors of education in the respective districts by bank drafts. The Mounathul Islam Association had availed of a total of Rs 15 lakh in two instalments of Rs 7.5 lakh each.

It is also no coincidence that the MIA is located in Ponnani, which boasts of itself as the “small Mecca of South India.” Tipu Sultan, after ravaging the Malabar recognized its importance and made it a thriving center for Islamic studies. In any case, when I dug around a bit, here’s what I found. The PDF copy of the Kerala Gazette confirms that MIA had indeed swindled the government of about 15 Lakh Rupees. And now the same MIA faces the charge of forcibly detaining non-Muslim girls so it can convert them to the Religion of Peace. Can we link the swindling and the use the MIA has put the money to? How many other MIAs are lurking or roaming around undetected?

More importantly, how many such girls remain locked up never to be discovered again?

Technorati : Commentary, India, Indian Politics, Islam, Islam Watch, Media Watch, Personal Freedom, Politics, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Secularism, Society & Culture
Del.icio.us : Commentary, India, Indian Politics, Islam, Islam Watch, Media Watch, Personal Freedom, Politics, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Secularism, Society & Culture

1. Tearing-my-chest-Hindus: Firebrand Hindus whose commitment to, and faith in Hinduism is unquestionable but usually lack the intellectual rigour to defend attacks on Sanatana Dharma.
2. Intellectual Hindus: Scholarly types who are up for a good debate anytime, and are willing to defend Sanatana Dharma on the strength of their erudition.
3. Practising Hindus: May also be the scholarly types. These Hindus live Hinduism complete with all its rituals and injunctions. They may or not understand the meaning, rationale, or significance of the rituals they perform. Their commitment, too, is unquestionable.
4. Atheist Hindus: A bastardized breed that wears atheism as a proud band on its forehead. This breed very vocally proclaims that it is “nastika” because Hinduism accommodates even nastikas in its fold. This breed’s reasoning typically stems from an extensive reading of Ayn Rand and the Western conception of God and seeks to apply it to Hinduism.
5. Safe Hindus: A confused creature that shuns uncomfortable questions and justifies its stance under the guise of Sarva Dharma Samabhava (all religions/faiths are equal). This creature also describes itself variously as a “believing Hindu.”

As regards the defense and propagation of Sanatana Dharma I hold #1 as of little use, and #4 and #5 as non-Hindus. But the reason that motivated me to make this list was #5.

Enter Shashi Tharoor.

I’ve been reading Shashi Tharoor’s writings for a few years and liked an old piece he wrote about Ganesha (I’m unable to find it now). He is what I call a Safe Hindu. His writings reflect a genuine sympathy for Hinduism but he’s either too Westernized to appreciate native Hindu traditions or he simply wants to avoid controversy by taking a visibly pro-Hindu stand. He is a Safe Hindu because he hasn’t (in my readings so far) criticized Islam or Christianity’s fundamentalist tenets, and he generally treads the secularist path. Which is why this article titled Hindu fundamentals are under attack piqued my interest. When I read it in full, it didn’t let me down: it reaffirmed my faith in Shashi Tharoor as the Safe Hindu.

Shashi laments the attacks on Christians in Orissa and Karnataka and the Indian Mujahideen attacks on Delhi, Ahmedabad, and Jaipur and concludes that we must “not let either set of terrorists prevail.” In other words, he equates a purely internal conflict with a vocal terrorist group that has roots in, and is affiliated to the LeT with an ideology that has roots in Islam. Fact Check: nobody asked Christian missionaries to come to Orissa and Karnataka and abuse Hinduism as a means to convert. This is a variation of what the Indian Mujahideen did in such style. You reap as you sow. You abuse Hinduism without no provocation, and you better be prepared to face the inevitable backlash. Excuses like

The murderous mobs of Orissa sought to kill Christians and destroy their homes and places of worship, both to terrorise the people and to send the message ‘you do not belong here’.

do not hold water. There was no message of any sort that Tharoor mentions here. Actually, the last straw in the Orissa flare up was the murder of the 84-year old Swami Lakshmananda Saraswathi, a vital fact that Tharoor conveniently ignores. It is hard to believe that Shashi Tharoor is unaware of the Swami’s brutal murder. We have no choice but to call his one-sided opinion as dishonest: Safe Hindu.

Tharoor’s next lament is weepy, amusing, and ignorant all at once.

What have we come to that a land that has been a haven of tolerance for religious minorities throughout its history should have sunk so low? India’s is a civilisation that, over millennia, has offered refuge and, more important, religious and cultural freedom, to Jews, Parsis, Muslims and several varieties of Christians. Christianity arrived on Indian soil with St Thomas the Apostle (‘Doubting Thomas’), who came to the Kerala coast some time before 52 AD and was welcomed on shore by a flute-playing Jewish girl. He made many converts, so there are Indians today whose ancestors were Christian well before any European discovered Christianity (and before the forebears of many of today’s Hindu chauvinists were even conscious of themselves as Hindus).

But what these minorities –barring Parsis and Jews–have done to Hindus in return is available for all of us to read. This is also a nice instance of how Shashi Tharoor passes off myth as authentic history. All it takes is some absolutely airheaded gumption or blissful ignorance to claim that Christianity arrived on Indian soil with St Thomas the Apostle (‘Doubting Thomas’), who came to the Kerala coast some time before 52 AD …. well before any European discovered Christianity with a straight face. The myth of St. Thomas has been demolished long ago. Here’s the complete book for Tharoor’s reference. And surprise! more than a year ago, Koenraad Elst writing about the St. Thomas holy fantasy, mentions exactly the same line that Tharoor parrots here:

A predictable component of platitudinous speeches by secularist politicians is that “Christianity was brought to India by the apostle Thomas in the 1^st century AD, even before it was brought to Europe“

We’re obliged to ask Shashi Tharoor if he is playing the flute to his unsuspecting readers. Unfortunately, we’re not charmed by his music. Also, notice the casual allusion that “...and before the forebears of many of today’s Hindu chauvinists were even conscious of themselves as Hindus.” Very heart-warming specimen of what: Hindu-Christian brotherhood? Communal harmony? Or that in a very distant past, Hindus weren’t conscious that they were Hindus? What exactly does this mean?

And then he launches into a Little Women kind of tear-jerky depiction of Communal harmony in India.

The India where the wail of the muezzin routinely blends with the chant of mantras at the temple, and where the tinkling of church bells accompanies the gurudwara’s reading of verses from the Guru Granth Sahib, is an India of which we can all be proud.

Just enough to elicit puke because of what follows.

But there is also the India that pulled down the Babri Masjid, that conducted the pogrom in Gujarat and that now unleashes its hatred on the 2% of our population who are Christians.

Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat Gujarat. The number of times I’ve said “Gujarat” here is a fraction compared to the number of secular opinion pieces that have appeared since Feb 2002 on the issue.

And then we arrive at the meaty part where Shashi Tharoor declares himself a “believing Hindu” and ties himself in knots while trying jugglery in comparitive religion.

As a believing Hindu, I am ashamed of what is being done by people claiming to be acting in the name of my faith. I have always prided myself on belonging to a religion of astonishing breadth and range of belief; a religion that acknowledges all ways of worshipping God as equally valid – indeed, the only major religion in the world that does not claim to be the only true religion. Hindu fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms, since Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals; there is no such thing as a Hindu heresy. How dare a bunch of goondas shrink the soaring majesty of the Vedas and the Upanishads to the petty bigotry of their brand of identity politics? Why should any Hindu allow them to diminish Hinduism to the raucous self-glorification of the football hooligan, to take a religion of awe-inspiring tolerance and reduce it to a chauvinist rampage? Right. People who loot, burn, rape, pillage, and kill innocents in the name of Hinduism should be severely punished etc. But Shashi Tharoor does two things here. One, he simply classifies some groups as “Hindu chauvinists” and “Hindutva” without defining either term. I’ll make the job easier for him. Those labelled Hindu chauvinists are actually the Tearing-my-chest-Hindus, which I’ve already defined. Why does Tharoor overlook the fact that ugly/dishonest/crooked elements exist in every religion? More importantly, if you trace the history of communal violence, the Hindu side of the violence has always been a backlash to a violent provocation. Besides, those Hindus that indulge in this backlash have revenge as their motive. Linking this to only political motives is more than farfetched. As we see, this kind of lopsided discourse stems from Tharoor’s understanding of Hinduism.

The lack of clarity in definition is again evident when Tharoor says Hindu fundamentalism is a contradiction in terms and Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals. Here’s the thing: the instant you talk about “Hindu fundamentalism,” you implicitly assume symmetry between Hinduism and Prophetic creeds, which are inherently fundamentalist in nature. Hinduism does have fundamentals but not quite like how Tharoor understands.

With due respect to Tharoor, his assertions echo what I call Zoo Hinduism.

At one time, there was a breed of self-proclaimed Hinduism “experts” who wrote reams on the fabled Hindu tolerance typically on the onset of–or in the aftermath of–a Hindu backlash. That breed is almost extinct now dissolved in the heady cocktail of secular fundamentalism. Invoking the mantra of “Hindu tolerance” is still a ruse, a clever ploy to prevent Hindus from speaking out. Here’s how it will logically pan out: keep invoking this tolerance mantra every single time and you’ll have enough Hindus boiling with rage eventually. When they finally speak out, they are branded as chauvinists, fanatics, fundamentalists, goons, hate-mongers, and similar labels. A variation of this phenomenon is apparent in the whole Indology battle that rages in the US academia. When Hindus began voicing their concerns, and challenging the way their culture was “interpreted” and portrayed, hell broke loose because those controlling the discourse were threatened. In a line: Hinduism is nice and tolerant and Hindus are obedient animals in the Zoo, scared out of their wits to fight back. But once in a while when the animal bares its fangs and actually threatens to fight back, the threatened Zoo keepers use a variety of tricks to (re)tame the animal: Zoo Hinduism. I suspect Shashi Tharoor treads this familiar track with his misty-eyed portrayal of Hindu tolerance. Continuing, he says

Hinduism, with its openness, its respect for variety, its acceptance of all other faiths, is one religion which has always been able to assert itself without threatening others.

Agreed but why doesn’t he mention the record of those religions that regard tolerance as a weakness, as a licence to convert, kill, and enslave? And then he relies on another time-tested trick: quoting Swami Vivekananda.

…the Hinduism of Swami Vivekananda, who, at Chicago’s World Parliament of Religions in 1893, articulated best the liberal humanism that lies at the heart of his (and my) creed. Vivekananda asserted that Hinduism stood for “both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true.”

Assuming Swami Vivekananda included Prophetic religions in the “all religions are true” bracket, nothing really prevents us from saying that his understanding in this regard was incorrect. But we’re spared of examining the Swami because Shashi Tharoor selectively quotes him. It’s hard to believe that Tharoor doesn’t know what the Swami said about Islam, Mohammad, Christianity, and the Missionary activity. Here are some helpful resources.

You might argue why I’m bringing in Islam & Christianity when Tharoor’s focus is Hinduism. Not quite. Tharoor presents the “safe” understanding of Hinduism: the ill-understood concept of Sarva Dharma Samabhava, which Swami Vivekananda mentioned and Gandhi popularized.

Vivekananda’s vision – summarised in the credo Sarva Dharma Sambhava – is, in fact, the kind of Hinduism practised by the vast majority of Hindus, whose instinctive acceptance of other faiths and forms of worship has long been the vital hallmark of Indianness.

Sarva Dharma Samabhava doesn’t mean cowardly acceptance of insult or wanton violence. Tolerance has meaning only when it is practised from a position of strength and mutual understanding and respect for boundaries. A deer’s tolerance towards a tiger makes fine material for a comedy show. The “tolerance” of today’s Hindu is a mix of spinelessness, inertia, confusion, ignorance, and apathy. What kind of Samabhava can you have with creeds whose fundamentals dictate the conversion or destruction of people who don’t believe in them?

Shashi Tharoor gives the game away when he approvingly quotes the born-again “developmental” Marxist, Amartya Sen as saying

The Hindu militant,” Amartya Sen has observed, presents India as “a country of unquestioning idolaters, delirious fanatics, belligerent devotees, and religious murderers.”

There you have, another variant: Hindu militant! But what really catches our attention is Sen’s use of the word idolaters. This was the exact term used by Islamic barbarians and Christian “holy” fathers and missionaries to define Hindus. They were invaders, colonizers, and religious predators. What excuse does Amartya Sen have?

And then Tharoor leaves us with a plea.

Why are the voices of Hindu religious leaders not being raised in defence of these fundamentals of Hinduism?

In an earlier post, I mentioned that most Hindu religious leaders today are an impotent lot. To an extent, this impotence is also intellectual. Because, if Hindu religious leaders really cared about Sanatana Dharma’s fundamentals, the first thing they’d have done was to call for a blanket ban on conversions. Until then, we’ll have to suffer people like Shashi Tharoor.

Sigh.

Technorati : Blog, Christianity Watch, Commentary, Evangelism Watch, Fundamentalism, Hindu, Hinduism, Indian Politics, Islam Watch, Politics, Pseudo History, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Sanatana Dharma, Secularism, Shashi Tharoor, Society & Culture
Del.icio.us : Blog, Christianity Watch, Commentary, Evangelism Watch, Fundamentalism, Hindu, Hinduism, Indian Politics, Islam Watch, Politics, Pseudo History, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Sanatana Dharma, Secularism, Shashi Tharoor, Society & Culture

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh voiced India’s strong condemnation of the Israeli strikes in Gaza and expressed the hope that international community will get together to restore peace and normalcy in the region…”It is our hope that the international community will come together to restore peace and normalcy”… He also declared India’s “unstinted and unwavering support to the just cause of Palestinians”.

Needless to say, this is a continuation of Nehru’s chickenhearted foreign policy, which believed in siding with the worst regimes and ideologies and railing against democratic and open societies. No other world leader “regretted the demise of Marshall Stalin” as much as Nehru did. Thus, the Stalinist USSR and the Islamic tyrannies of the Middle East were dear to Nehru. Manmohan Singh merely represents the non-dynastic continuation of this immoral policy.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this will mean that India has no moral right to complain against Pakistan’s regular incursions on the Indian soil because this is what the rogue outift Hamas has been doing to Israel. Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization in the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel, and UK. It is banned in Jordan! However, India’s spinelessness under the Headless Wonder a.k.a Puppet Minister, has touched record levels of cowardice. India’s advanced stage of cravenness is evident from the fact that Manmohan Singh hasn’t taken the name of Hamas.

Do we interpret “unstinted and unwavering support to the just cause of Palestinians” to mean steadfast support to all brands of terror, illegal incursions, manslaughter, and wanton destruction of a peaceable nation? In the madness that is the Middle East, Israel distinguishes itself as a perverse exception because it doesn’t abide by the brute, jungle laws that its neighbours adhere to. Yet, the head of the Indian democracy has tears in his eyes for the dead terrorists and not even a note of sympathy for the innocent Israelis murdered at their hands.

I see no difference between our Puppet Minister and the Mullahs that united worldwide in baying for the blood of Israel. Oh, but the Lok Sabha elections are nearby….

Tags: Gaza, Hamas, Headless Wonder, Indian Politics, Islam Watch, Israel, Manmohan Singh, Puppet Minister, Shame on Indian Foreign Policy