42 innocent Indians were killed by the serial blasts that took place in Hyderabad last Saturday.
What happened in Hyderabadwas not an isolated incident. India has been under siege for over 50 years. No country under the sky has lost so much of innocent lives to jihadi and leftist terrorism as India has lost.
As Times of India report puts it, “India has since 2004 lost more lives to terrorist incidents than all of North America, South America, Central America, Europe and Eurasia put together. All of these vast swathes of the globe lost a total of 3,280 lives in terrorist incidents between January 2004 and March this year. India alone lost 3,674 lives over the same period of three years and three months”
How to prevent these attacks? Nobody has ever heard our leaders discussing that.
When Hyderabad was attacked -
“The Govt won't be cowed down by terror” –screamed Shivraj Paltil, union Home minister.
“This is an act of cowardice” –Renuka chowdary quipped.
And there ended the matter.
After two days -
“City life bounced back to normalcy”, “That’s the spirit of Indians” – Newspaper headlines cheered!
When there is a need for clear and decisive actions, our leaders throw only words.
If words had any killing-power, most of the terrorists would have been killed by now!
When you need some consoling words, you won’t get even them!
Consider this: on July 7, the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife visited the tube stations of London where the terrorists had planted bombs and killed innocent British citizens. They placed flowers at the spots of the blasts and prayed quietly for their fellow citizens. Contrast this with our own Dr. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Very next week, on July 11, he kept himself away from the functions that paid tribute to hundreds of those who lost their lives to serial blasts that took place on the same day last year in local trains of Mumbai.
When Muhammad Hanif, a Muslim doctor, was detained on terrorism-related charges in Australia, Dr. Singh said he lost his sleep. Perhaps he might have even got a sleep debt! But when it comes to the victims of terror attacks, not a single expression of solidarity!
Noted security expert B. Raman has this sad tale:
“How many acts of jihadi terrorism we have had in India since the present Government came to power in Delhi in 2004? Delhi, Varanasi, Mumbai, Malegaon, Bangalore, Samjota Express, Hyderabad. There has been no satisfactory progress in any of these investigations. In the past, our Police might have been criticized in some instances for its inability to prevent acts of terrorism, but it had generally received very high praise for its successful investigation. We all felt proud of the Mumbai Police of the 1990s recently when the case relating to the Mumbai blasts of March, 1993, in which about 250 innocent civilians were blown up by jihadi terrorists, ended in conviction. There were many other cases in which too the Mumbai Police of the 1990s had covered itself with credit. So too the Delhi Police. So too the Police of other cities. Why there is a perception now that they are not as good as they were in the 1990s? Has there been deterioration in their competence?
“No. In the 1990s, they received the full backing of the political leadership of those years, which took active interest in the investigation. The political leadership of those years did not give sermons to the police not to do anything which might be viewed by the Muslims as stigmatizing or targeting their community...The political leadership of today gives sermons and no leadership. It avoids active monitoring and supervision of the investigation lest the Muslims misunderstand.”
[These questions were asked to me by an NGO about Indo-US nuclear deal –GAK]
1. Why China is opposing Indo - US 123 nuclear deal?
Energy security acts as a catalyst to all-round development. China does not want India to become regional superpower.
2. Left and BJP are opposing the deal. What are the main differences between their opposition? (OR what are the different positions in India on 123 aggreement? which line is most advantageous to India?)
Indian Left cannot think beyond China. They serve Chinese interests.
But what about BJP? The seeds of Indo-US strategic-cooperation were sowed during Vajpayee's premiership. Now, confused BJP is not making correct assessments. It wants to score political points.
3. How could the differences between Congress, Left and BJP could be bridged regarding 123 aggreement?
This is an impossible task.
4. If we scrap the deal, how should we deal with China, Pakistan and US?
Current isolation of India will continue.
5. If we go ahead with the 123 aggreement - how should we approach the problem of engaging US?
123 agreement has a limited scope. It has many safety valves. Engaging US is important. It should not be altered with 123 agreement in force. Nuclear testing involves many risks even without the deal. For its own interests india has to take such risks, as it had done in 1998. Even with the deal, India can go-ahead with its decision of testing nuclear device regardless of the international ramifications. So, with or without the deal the situation remains same. Why anybody should lose assured fuel-supply?
There are questions about Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's mishandling of the issue. His secrecy, and the speed he maintained in sealing the deal raised many questions. His penchant for US is also well known.
I'm not aware of any secret clauses of the agreement. In a limited scope, the deal should be of help. But this should not be coupled with broader strategic issues. Those issues should be addressed seperately by India and the United States.
Nowadays, the "Prince of the Congress Party" Rahul Gandhi’s political speeches start with references to his family and ends with it.
It is very strange to here past things from the mouth of a young man. Is this the only worthy family of India? What about Lal bahadur Shastri's contribution? As a young leader, what is Rahul’s own contribution? What can he offer to the country's welfare? What are his plans and programmes for the bright future of India? Why his party is averse to modern, humanitarian ideas? Why the same old dirty caste and communal politics?
In Uttar Pradesh, he said: "once we promise, we deliver at any cost". He criticized Congress' previous Prime minister P. V. Narasimha Rao (and will. of course, criticize Manmohan Singh too very soon!).
His obsessed statements about his family implies that:
1. You should always vote for "the family". 2. You should trust only Gandhi family members, and no other congress leaders. 3. Congress without this family is a big zero. 4. Lal Bahadur Shastri and P. V. Narasimha Rao were not as good as Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. 5. These "outsiders" were inefficient and sinners. 6. "The family" is God's own family which was sent to earth to die for other's sins. The family is the only saviour. 7. Those who were born and will born in this family born to rule (sorry, to save) this country. 8. As some tribal villages have village-ruling families, India's ruling family is Indira's (sorry, Sonia's) family.
This was what Rahul meant!
His tunnel vision, with selfish motives cannot bring the sinking Congress to the forefront in Uttar Pradesh.
He is the old dictatorial family's new burden on the nation. If he wants cash in on the so-called achievements of his family, he should also be prepared to pay the political price for its follies and sins, such as the imposition of emergency on the nation for personal gains.
(A reader has translated this article of mine from Kannada. I had written this piece for my weekly column in Karmaveera. Many websites have carried it. -GAK)
"On January 8th, I reached Mantralaya. After taking the darshana of Brundavan of Sri Raghavendra Swami, I decided to go to the Panchamukhi-kshetra where Swami-ji had performed penance for 12 years. This is the place where Raghavendra Swami was blessed by Sri Anjaneya Swami. To go to Panchamukhi which is 21 kilometers from Mantralaya, I took an auto-rickshaw.
”As soon as we left Mantralaya, we saw a Christian colony. We saw a white colored church. The door of every house had a big cross on it. On the top of every house there was a picture of Jesus also. I thought they may be the houses of local Christians.
”After I continued on the road for 5 kilometers, I saw another large church. Around the church there were crosses on all the surrounding homes. It seems that the homes were recently decorated. As we came near the Panchamukhi village, a big steeple welcomed us. There also was a big church under construction.
”Out of curiosity, I asked the auto-rickshaw driver about this. He said the following: ‘Sir, in every village in this district, there is a church. Some villages are completely Christian. These people have been tempted with new houses or jeeps or auto-rickshaws. This is famine-struck area. The farmers are on point of committing suicide. In this state of desperation, who would say no to money?’."
The above experience is of Gurudutt, a Non-Resident Indian. He has already published this on the internet. A copy was sent to me from my friend by email.
There was a campaign to convert Tirupati to Christianity. Pejawar Swamiji investigated and confirmed this to be true. He then fought against this plot of the missionaries. After the opposition of the Christian community of Andhra, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Samuel Rajashekhar Reddy pledged not to endanger the Hindu identity of Tirumala.
Now the same warning bells are being heard around Mantralaya. Why is it happening like this?
"We shall encircle and undermine them and finally storm". This was the proclamation of the missionaries of the 19th century. Even in the present day, this motto is still in practice. In the Iraq War, as the American army advanced, American Baptist and Pentecostal missionaries entered Iraq to convert the people like how sheep are herded. In 2004, the Christian Science Monitor reported in detail about this. It is breaking news that now “candlelight processions” have begun in villages across Nepal.
For the last two decades, the Christian churches in Europe have lost the attraction of the people. This is no secret. In European news media, reports and statistics are always confirming this. Therefore, the Catholic Church in Europe has wanted to convert people from other parts of the world for a long time.
America, which is comprised of groups of small churches, is competing with the Catholic Church. Before Catholic missionaries can start their work abroad, the Baptist and Pentecostal missionaries beat them to it. They will spend any amount of money to bring non-Christians into their fold. It is difficult for the Vatican to accept this approach.
Cut-throat marketing! To convert non-Christians, there is competition between different churches! Not only this, but there is also a competition to convert other Christians from one church to another. In this also, Americans are far ahead.
There is a reason for this. In America, conversion has become a multi-billion dollar business. Missionaries get good income. Their plans have a budget and their commissions are proportionate to their success. Vacation, traveling and other perks are available to them. There are not just ordinary missionaries. These people may be tele-evangelists like Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn. They are kings of billions of dollar businesses!
To resolve the inter-church disputes, arising from attempts to convert non-Christians, there was recently a conference in Geneva to consider the viewpoints of all churches. A common "code of conduct" for conversion was mooted.
"In one Christian family, the husband is Catholic, the wife is an Evangelical Protestant, and the children are Pentecostal Protestants. We should stop this," says Sweden Lutheran Reverend Hans Yuko who took part in the Geneva World Council of Churches Conference. By 2009, the code-of-conduct is expected to be ready.
This basically means "we should not eat the whole animal when it is caught in a trap; we should compromise by sharing it and eating in pieces"!
In other words, Mantralaya is for one group, Tirupati is for another group, Iraq is for another and Nepal is for yet another!
[I wrote this in 2003. In the present Indian era of Rahul Gandhigiri, and the ruling alliance's great obsession with everything Islamic, I am posting this article, which, I believe, unveils the background -GAK]
We will understand our secularists’ mindset better if we acknowledge the fact that Islam is very much involved here, either as Islamophobia or as Islamophilia. Egypt-born Islamic-scholar Bat Ye’or, who has studied Christian and Jewish societies, called this meek mindset as dhimmitude that never questions its inferior status vis-à-vis Muslims.
According to her: “Dhimmitude derives from the surrender of the Christian clergy and political leaders to the Muslim jihad armies, and their submission to Islamic domination of both their lands and peoples. In exchange, they received a pledge of protection ('dhimma') from the Muslim sovereign - and the cessation of the jihad war. This "protection" was conditioned on a ransom payment (jizya) that was extorted from the vanquished Christian and Jewish populations (dhimmis). Sometimes, Christian submission to Islam was rooted in personal ambition. Dhimmitude often induced self-hatred, and hatred against Jews and Christians who resisted the jihad and Muslim domination. Christian dhimmitude has been a world force for Islamization throughout history.”
Hindus too have a similar history. And a section of the Hindu society was also subjected to the force of Dhimmah. “I realize that my study of dhimmitude remains incomplete,” says Bat Ye’or, “ because it is limited to Jews and Christians. It should be supplemented by the dhimmitude of the Zoroastrians, located in an inferior category, and that of Buddhists and Hindus, considered as idolaters. A few books on this subject have recently been published in India. The picture they paint is similar to that of regions to the west of the Indian subcontinent.”
In the Indian context, I called our secularism, which is nothing but the manifestation of Hindu-dhimmitude mindset, as dhimmitva in my writings.
There are many attempts to equate Indian secular mindset with the vote-bank politics. But they cuold not prove its reliability because the pro-Islam secularists do not abandon their brand of “secularism” even if they do not get the votes of Muslims. This is a very curious-mindset, which has nothing to do with the original concept of secularism.
Originally secularism was a political concept that took shape in nineteenth century Europe as a revolt against the Church’s dominance over the affairs of the State. Secularism secured independence to the State from the control of the Church. So, essentially it is a power of the State that intends to give equal rights to all citizens without bothering about their religious faiths.
But unlike Christians and Muslims, Hindus never had a theocratic state of their own. They had never known theocracy till the advent of Islamic rule in this country. Hindu secularism was not born, with the new Constitution of India, in 1950, nor in 1976 when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi inserted the word “secularism” in the preamble of the Constitution after putting the whole nation in the state of emergency.
In fact, Sanathana Dharma, the original name of Hinduism, has always supported pluralistic society anf traditions. It is absolutely not possible for it to proclaim a state religion and impose it by force. Dharma is not a concept that can be imposed through fraudulent means or through the power of the sword.
Contrast Sanatana Dharma with Islam. Islam has a fully developed theory and the apparatus of a theocratic state. In fact, it is not possible to spread Islam without any theocratic means. Except Turkey, no Islamic state has encountered a revolt from within, in such a scale, which can separate Islam from the affairs of the state. Because Islam accepts or knows no political system other than theocracy. It is very difficult to retain Islamic beliefs for a long time in pure secular environments where natural human instincts and reason have credence over unverifiable faiths. So, in order to sustain its original militant nature, Islam needs artificial support systems within a secular set-up.
And Gandhi’s secularism was one of such artificial support systems. In India, the Gandhian-secularism was the first major perversion of the original concept. Since religion was not a private matter to him, Gandhi’s secularism was not a separation of State and religion. In fact, his brand of secularism was a blind-worship of all religions and it believed that it was the primary duty of all to extend equal respect to all religions, no matter what their claims were.
In the name of communal amity, Gandhi created an illusion of Hindu-Muslim unity and developed and introduced a method to achieve it. Under his method, Hindus had to sacrifice everything and tolerate all sorts of demands and actions of Muslims. This illusion dragged him to support even the Khilafat movement, which was nothing but an Islamist revivalism that took thousands of Hindu lives.
From his flawed theory of equal-respect-to-all-religions-is-secularism, Gandhi quickly marched towards the-essence-of-all-religions-are-actually-one-and-the-same theory and powerfully propagated it. And that was a great myth, which still haunts Hindus.
But it was Marxists who gave the grand theory of Minorityism to the whole world. Indian Marxists gave it to the British-rulers and to the Congress Party. Even today, the Congress Party, which has no ideology of its own, draws heavily from the far left.
Marxists, whose global support to the cause of Jihad is well known now, successfully created an impression that in India, the minorities, especially Muslims, are living under the mercy of a Hindu majority. That gave rise to the two-nation theory and culminated in the partition of the country in 1947.
Now, the secularism means protection of minorities against the majority. Secularism has become a system that gives more and more special rights to the “minorities”. It even fodders the fire of separatism. So, Indian secularism is no more than an anti-Hindu doctrine. All those who want to destroy Hindu culture and society support it.
The motive of dhimmitva forces is to serve the religious line of Islam. Like Islam, this dhimmi-secularism also has a deep thread of intolerance toward unbelievers of this kind of dhimmi ideology, especially if those unbelievers are believed to be a threat to the religious ambitions of Islam.
The fact that these dhimmis are working tirelessly in support of the most intolerant, aggressive and fundamentalist part of Islam cannot be ignored. Take Jihad for example. This war is responsible for the creation of dhimmis throughout the world.
As Bat Ye’or rightly says, non-Muslims have to criticize the prejudices and laws, which, over the centuries, reduced them to a humiliating subhuman conditions. But strangely, if you start asking questions on the doctrine of Jihad, the very next moment they will brand you as a “communal” fanatic, and even a terrorist who is trying to malign and swallow a peace loving minority religion!
Of course, this is a standard response of a Jihadi activist. So, the voice of a fanatic Islamist finds itself replicated in “secular” mouths! But no secularist will mind if you make any number of statements against Hinduism. They can tolerate any number of unfair criticisms against Hinduism, but no fair criticism on Islam is tolerated. In their eagerness to serve their Islamic masters’ aspirations and ambitions they needlessly denigrate their own religion, Hinduism.
This is so, because dhimmitva agrees with the Muslim notion of Islam’s infallibility. So, dhimmis-secularists never question Muhammad’s code. They do not allow anyone to discuss about Islam frankly and openly like one discusses Hinduism. Of course, you can praise it! But there is no room for dissent and no room for doubt.
Even Muslims who criticize militant Islam are not spared. Note that how Salman Rushdie was vehemently opposed for his novel The Satanic Verses.
There is no room in secular psyche for different perspectives, even from Muslims themselves! In his book, Muslim Politics in India, Hamid Dalwai, a Muslim writer, sums up his experience thus: “A Hindu is used to playing several roles and he is an expert in assuming different forms on different occasions. I have already referred to Hindu intellectuals and given the due praise. But I must frankly state that there is a kind of Hindu who is always terrified when he thinks of Muslims. This is no doubt a shameful state of affairs. At every critical moment this particular type of Hindu pretends to be more of a Muslim than a Muslim himself, and thwarts the attempts of those who are trying to make the average Muslim less of a fanatic”.
Suhail Ahmad Banglori, another Muslim scholar, adds: “The model behaviour expected from the dhimmis is one of submission, and acceptance of all the disabilities imposed upon them. As a reaction to the terror, Hindus, as dhimmis, feel with respect to Islam, they have practiced being inoffensive to Muslims over the centuries, and seek the Umma’s approval or avoid the Umma’s displeasure. If they organise themselves at all, it is on platforms, which the Umma certifies as permissible. Hindus thus cannot formparties on a Hindu platform, whereas the Muslim League lives on in India, after partition, without even a cosmetic change of name.”
Because their mind was subjected to severe suppression under Islamic rule. They not only submitted to Muslim power, but also, in due course deeply internalized the perfect dhimmi mind-set. They lost their reason, self-respect and even self-identity. They never consider Hindus as equal to Muslims. They never care if Hindus would be left with lesser rights than Muslims, which is the actual position imposed by the Indian Constitution of 1950, which also saw several pro-Islamic amendments. Even if it is lesser dignity, they don’t mind. Like true believers, they never put Islam under critical examination as it is “blasphemous”. And they have no courage to refuse the decision of ijma, which is the consensus of the Islamic community, ummah.
The subjugation of reason and judgment and even conscience to the dictates of Islamic dogma has led Indian secularists to perform crazy acts, all in the name of secularism.¨
The great act of launching the new leader, whose time is about to come, very sure to come, has begun!
The purpose of centenary celebrations of Mahatma Gandhiji’s Satyagraha, organised by Sonia Gandhi on 29-30 January 2007, was to launch her son Rahul Gandhi is evident.
When “Gandhigiri” is doing rounds, in its new avatar, thanks to the movie called “Munnabhai”, it is obvious for the Congress to reap the benefits of the new wave. For Congress means Sonia, it is obvious for her to think that the new wave should favour her and her family.
Delegates from 83 countries, carefully handpicked by Sonia and co., did come to the meeting, which was held at the five-star settings of India International Centre. Among them were non-aligned politicians, heads of states.
Indian opposition parties were left out, for obvious reasons, of course. You can invite foreign politicians. Because they do not challenge you in elections. How can you invite your own political adversaries?
Strangely, the veteran Satyagrahis of India, now in their 80’s and 90’s, who were the real representatives of Gandhiji, were also left out! How can those poor citizens be invited for a five-star congregation, attended by the heads of states and other VIPs to witness the rise of a new political Pole-star?
The epicenter of the show, and the new pole-star, was none other than Rahul Gandhi, the “crown prince” of India (the title conferred on him by the weekly magazine, Newsweek). Most of the African delegates were eager to get themselves photographed with him. They rushed towards him as if they were witnessing the second coming of Christ. He came to the meet. He met the delegates. And he “conquered” them! After the brief gala, he disappeared quietly.
It was just a photo-session for him. But for chosen delegates, it was a photo opportunity. He did not utter even a single word about Satyagraha. He just said it was a great learning experience for him. He was there for a few minutes. What were the lessons that he learnt, and from whom, that too in such a short time? It is not clear. And we are not expected to be clear about it.
But, it seems that Sonia's son Rahul has his own brand of “Gandhigiri”, as the reports from Amethi, his paliamentary constituency, do suggest. How Sonia and Rahul represent Gadhiji is also well known.
