Another politician , a "Bahubali" bites the dust . Besides the anti-social and political ramifications , there is certainly a Socio-Religious side to the gruesome murder in cold blod. Mr. Rai was a bhumihar leader from UP's eastern part also called Purvanchal (includes Bihar as well). This entire belt has seen a selective population explosion , that is , a tremendous increase in population which be attributed mostly , if not entirely, to the muslims. Ghazipur , Azamgadh and MAU has a sizeable muslim population.Now let us digress from this . Talk of MAU brings us to the topic of recent communal rights there , which most of the " well-informed" people would be aware of . Media reported it as "Communal riots in MAU , several "people" killed. Well what it didnt tell us is that most of these "people" belonged to the same community : HINDUS and ofcourse Hindus are children of a lesser GOD but that is not all. They are not alone in this : SIKHS too are children of the same lesser God. Perhaps only "Islamic God" or Allah , whose ONLY prophet is Mohammed ( May peace be upon him) is all powerful. Clearly omnipresent , All Mighty , omnipotent and Fully Armed.
The riots in MAU started when Hindus were taking out a procession , the occassion being "Bharat Milap". This didnt register well with the "peaceful muslims" and so they felt obliged to attack it when the procession passed through their "sphere of influence". This ofcourse, they did in full conformance with their religious laws and duties which mandates that Kafirs and idolators should be killed and their places of worship destroyed.
Having accomplished their goal of disrupting the procession of the "infidels" the pious and religious moslems rallied to do the next logical thing: resort to arsoning , killing and mass scale plunder.
We should not blame muslims but overselves. We have been dormant for too long . Even Geeta preaches "Shatham prati shathiyet" . After Guru Gobind Singh's murder by a muslim who was part of Guru's Fauj, there was a policy which said "Dont Befriend a Turk ( a muslim) even if he is the only person left on Earth".
As I pointed out earlier , Hindus are not alone in this, Sikhs have suffered greatly. Firstly at the Hands of Congress in 1984 and then at the hands of kashmiris in J&K.
Why doesn't media clearly say that Hindus were and are still being butchered in MAU. Why perpetrators of riots against the SIKHS are yet to be brought to book? Why is it that when Hindus retaliate in Gujarat , secular spirit of the country is hurt and its image tarnished but when Hindus are massacred , secularism does just fine. Is it that the secular health of the nation is inseperably linked with the wellbeing of just one community : muslims? Is it that a muslim life is dearer to India than a Hindu / Sikh life? Are Hindus / Sikhs second class citizens in their own country? Is this a reward for Hindus being nationalistic and for Sikhs who guard the borders? Or is it a reward for muslims for being traitors and terrorists? I guess they had to be amply rewarded for Sarojini Nagar , Mumbai Blasts and Chittisinghpura.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Monday, November 28, 2005
Nathuram Godse's speech
Nathuram Godse had this to say in his defense. Gopal Godse is no more and this is dedicated to this unsung patriot and nationalist who gave the best years of his life so the Generation of today could live in peace. RIP --> Shri NathuRam Godse, Shri Narayan Apte and Shri Gopal Godse. They knew that their lives would be doomed without any possibility of relief but still they went ahead with their mission for the sake of the nation . Nathuram Godse's ashes have not been consigned to Ganga as he had willed that his ashes be immersed in Indus in Akhand Bharat ( inclusive of Pakistan). Let us not be oblivious to this supreme act of self denial and sacrifice .
Nathuram Godse's defense speech in court
(This is the speech given by Nathuram Godse in the court when he was tried for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi)
Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other.
I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Nairoji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England, France, America and' Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.
Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence, which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.
In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical, as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen forever for the freedom they brought to them.
The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very well in South Africa to uphold the rights and well being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and everything; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.
Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with, as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster.
Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and crossbreed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.
From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork.
The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism, secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.
One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.
Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless.
Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House.
I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots.
I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims.
I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.
Nathuram Godse's defense speech in court
(This is the speech given by Nathuram Godse in the court when he was tried for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi)
Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession. I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other.
I have read the speeches and writings of Dadabhai Nairoji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England, France, America and' Russia. Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.
All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well being of all India, one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan, my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.
Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji's influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence, which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day. In fact, honour, duty and love of one's own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.
In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India. It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history's towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical, as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen forever for the freedom they brought to them.
The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very well in South Africa to uphold the rights and well being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way. Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and everything; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma's infallibility. 'A Satyagrahi can never fail' was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is.
Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible. Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with, as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster.
Gandhi's pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India. It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India, Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect; it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and crossbreed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma's sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India. His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.
From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi's infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork.
The Congress, which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism, secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947. Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls 'freedom' and 'peaceful transfer of power'. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called 'freedom won by them with sacrifice' - whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country - which we consider a deity of worship - my mind was filled with direful anger.
One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan, there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.
Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah's iron will and proved to be powerless.
Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building. After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House.
I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots.
I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy, which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi. I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi's persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims.
I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Miasmic Milieu -- The story so Far!
The Indian conventional wisdom is AT it again . Let's analyse things: Abu Salem , the dreaded Mumbai Don and a D-Company "key resource" is brought back to India after 10 years of cat & mouse race. The cost incurred by the government : a cool 50 crores and still counting . Ofcourse we paid for it , we who pay the taxes. And to what end , when we cannot hang him or even sentence him to life. Thousands of people died and received a paltry sum as compensation . There are families who lost their sole earning member and struggle hard to make the ends meet and often cannot afford two square meals. There are people who lost their limbs and now life is a living hell for them. Now let us compare this to a day is Abu Salem's life in "judicial custody" . He orders his favourite food mostly consisting of biryanis , kebabs and exotic food of various kinds. He gets his designer after shave and soaps. Ofcourse nobody seems to question what has Abu Salem done to deserve this princely treatment. I am sure Indian Government is doing its best to assuage and mitigate the pain,suffering and a sense of loss of people who suffered during the Mumbai Blasts.
Sanjay Dutts and Salman Khans roam freely . Salman drinks himself crazy and mows down a dozen of hapless labourers. Sanjay Dutt acts a storekeeper for arms and ammunitions provided by the D Company . He is acquitted. Their links with the underworld have been proved. Also,
Abu Salem is guaranteed to get a let off with no punishment or only a minor sentence of couple of years. And we are supposed to believe the Government everytime it says "Guilty would not be spared and they will be held responsible and brought to book". After being free , Abu Salem has a very modest business worth 3000 crores to fall back on. And then the Logical thing to do for him would be to contest elections and become a respected politician . Ofcourse this would be the apotheosis of secularism in India. We would succeeded in making even a dreaded gangster of the minority community a successful and respected politician , maybe even a minister.
Long Live Secularism!!
Sanjay Dutts and Salman Khans roam freely . Salman drinks himself crazy and mows down a dozen of hapless labourers. Sanjay Dutt acts a storekeeper for arms and ammunitions provided by the D Company . He is acquitted. Their links with the underworld have been proved. Also,
Abu Salem is guaranteed to get a let off with no punishment or only a minor sentence of couple of years. And we are supposed to believe the Government everytime it says "Guilty would not be spared and they will be held responsible and brought to book". After being free , Abu Salem has a very modest business worth 3000 crores to fall back on. And then the Logical thing to do for him would be to contest elections and become a respected politician . Ofcourse this would be the apotheosis of secularism in India. We would succeeded in making even a dreaded gangster of the minority community a successful and respected politician , maybe even a minister.
Long Live Secularism!!
Thursday, November 24, 2005
MF Hussain's paintings(Artistic license or sacrilege)
Decide for your selves!!! Will he try the same with Islamic figures and personalities . Why can't MF hussain make use of such incidences from Islamic history rather than letting his senility get better of him. To hindus Sita and Hanuman shared a mother-son relationship . Such denegration is an affront. But we let MF Hussain carry this out and a certain section of "broadminded , secular thinking and forward looking " intellectuals are not only willing to look the other way but also provide active as well tacit support to Mr Hussain . All in the name of "Artistic license" . Unless we suffer from selective amnesia , the same Broadminded intellectuals with secular leanings and proven credentials were crying murder just because the movie "Gaddar" had Sakina as the name of the protagonist who marries a sikh and applies sindoor. If Muslims take this as unacceptable , then how can Hindus be expected to bear with people like MF Hussain?
Pseudo Secularism In India
Few pertinent questions which might be troubling you as well :-
1) Why are all terrorists muslims? If terrorists are driven by mercenary motives , then why do only muslims fall for it?
2) If they are brainwashed how come the previlege of being brainwashed is extended only to moslems?
3) Why is ISLAM a party to all the troubles in the world right from Kashmir to Chechnya. From Palestine to Afghanistan . From Denmark(most recent) to London to NY.
4) Why is it fashionable to be Pro-Muslim?
5) A simple parody of the HUTCH advertisement:
Yeh Batao Secularism ka matlab kya hota hai ? No favoritism for any particular religion hota hai ? Nahi Na . Main Batata hun. India Ka secularism ab bas pro-muslim pack mein.
6) Why do we cry ourselves hoarse over Gujarat when we are silent about Kashmir masaccre of pundits. Muslims in gujarat have been rehabilitated but the kashmiri pundits still live in deplorable conditions. Why is any government assisstance and succour not extended to them?
7) In the only state in India in which Muslims were a numeric majority , they have driven out all the Hindus and Sikhs. What are we doing to stop it from recurring in UP/BIHAR/BENGAL/KERELA. Demographics in these states is taking a turn for the worst.
8) Why was media silent when the muslims torched Sabarmati express?
9) Why is congress which allies with LJP secular whereas BJP and Sangh communal. LJP clearly campaigned in favour of a muslim CM . Is this secularism ?
10)When the country was partitioned and all Hindus/Sikhs driven out of pakistan , why did our leaders ( Gandhi & Nehru) ask the muslims to stay back? If pakistan for mussalmans then why is India not for Hindus?
11) Why doesnt the Govt. drive out the Bangladeshi muslims . They breed here and assisst terrorists and create law and order situations. They attack red fort and still are not driven out due to "VOTEBANK" politics.
12) Why is aligning with JAMAIT-E-ISLAMI and Indian Muslim League not communal? Due to the biased media I am sure half of you would ask what is Jamait-e-Islami?
13) Why have different laws for muslims when this is a secular country. Why does the govt pander to their whims and fancies ? why are there seperate laws for muslims??
14) Why so much of special treatment for HAJ pilgrims when there are not for pilgrims to Mansarovar . Why should the government sponsor their trips with taxes which people like us pay.
15) No other religion preaches hatred and intolerance against other religions. Sikhism suffered a lot under muslim rulers. Most of their Gurus and their followers were brutally massacred and butchered. Still Sikhism never preached hatred against Islam. Guru Gobind Singhjee drafted muslims in his army .Result: He was murdered in his sleep.
16) Do muslims have any other identity than ISLAM?
17) While all the world was united in condemning Taliban for destroying the BAMIYAN buddha statues, the Imam of Jama Masjid held the action right and Islamic .
18) Why have all muslim rulers plundered Hindu temples. Right from Ghori , Ghazni , Aibak to Aurangzeb?
19) Why is so there so much of hue and cry over Ayodhaya ? Muslims destroyed the ancient temple , the very birthplace of Lord Rama and if Hindus have reclaimed what is rightfully theirs why is there so much of "Shor Sharaba" about it?
We always want to correct the wrongs committed in the past. Eg the wrongs against Jews by thte Nazis or the wrongs against blacks by the whites . Why is it that there is invariably no redressal of the wrongs committed against the Hindus?
20) Why is sacrifice and tolerance be expected only of Hindus ? Why should one particualr religion continue to bear the brunt of muslim brutalities inflicted upon it ? Why ask us to give up Ayodhaya and Mathura When they are OURS .
21) Are we Hindus spineless? Are YOU spineless? Do YOU take pride in your religion? Do you practice tolerance to such an extent where the line between tolerance and inaction/cowardice/apathy is not visible?
1) Why are all terrorists muslims? If terrorists are driven by mercenary motives , then why do only muslims fall for it?
2) If they are brainwashed how come the previlege of being brainwashed is extended only to moslems?
3) Why is ISLAM a party to all the troubles in the world right from Kashmir to Chechnya. From Palestine to Afghanistan . From Denmark(most recent) to London to NY.
4) Why is it fashionable to be Pro-Muslim?
5) A simple parody of the HUTCH advertisement:
Yeh Batao Secularism ka matlab kya hota hai ? No favoritism for any particular religion hota hai ? Nahi Na . Main Batata hun. India Ka secularism ab bas pro-muslim pack mein.
6) Why do we cry ourselves hoarse over Gujarat when we are silent about Kashmir masaccre of pundits. Muslims in gujarat have been rehabilitated but the kashmiri pundits still live in deplorable conditions. Why is any government assisstance and succour not extended to them?
7) In the only state in India in which Muslims were a numeric majority , they have driven out all the Hindus and Sikhs. What are we doing to stop it from recurring in UP/BIHAR/BENGAL/KERELA. Demographics in these states is taking a turn for the worst.
8) Why was media silent when the muslims torched Sabarmati express?
9) Why is congress which allies with LJP secular whereas BJP and Sangh communal. LJP clearly campaigned in favour of a muslim CM . Is this secularism ?
10)When the country was partitioned and all Hindus/Sikhs driven out of pakistan , why did our leaders ( Gandhi & Nehru) ask the muslims to stay back? If pakistan for mussalmans then why is India not for Hindus?
11) Why doesnt the Govt. drive out the Bangladeshi muslims . They breed here and assisst terrorists and create law and order situations. They attack red fort and still are not driven out due to "VOTEBANK" politics.
12) Why is aligning with JAMAIT-E-ISLAMI and Indian Muslim League not communal? Due to the biased media I am sure half of you would ask what is Jamait-e-Islami?
13) Why have different laws for muslims when this is a secular country. Why does the govt pander to their whims and fancies ? why are there seperate laws for muslims??
14) Why so much of special treatment for HAJ pilgrims when there are not for pilgrims to Mansarovar . Why should the government sponsor their trips with taxes which people like us pay.
15) No other religion preaches hatred and intolerance against other religions. Sikhism suffered a lot under muslim rulers. Most of their Gurus and their followers were brutally massacred and butchered. Still Sikhism never preached hatred against Islam. Guru Gobind Singhjee drafted muslims in his army .Result: He was murdered in his sleep.
16) Do muslims have any other identity than ISLAM?
17) While all the world was united in condemning Taliban for destroying the BAMIYAN buddha statues, the Imam of Jama Masjid held the action right and Islamic .
18) Why have all muslim rulers plundered Hindu temples. Right from Ghori , Ghazni , Aibak to Aurangzeb?
19) Why is so there so much of hue and cry over Ayodhaya ? Muslims destroyed the ancient temple , the very birthplace of Lord Rama and if Hindus have reclaimed what is rightfully theirs why is there so much of "Shor Sharaba" about it?
We always want to correct the wrongs committed in the past. Eg the wrongs against Jews by thte Nazis or the wrongs against blacks by the whites . Why is it that there is invariably no redressal of the wrongs committed against the Hindus?
20) Why is sacrifice and tolerance be expected only of Hindus ? Why should one particualr religion continue to bear the brunt of muslim brutalities inflicted upon it ? Why ask us to give up Ayodhaya and Mathura When they are OURS .
21) Are we Hindus spineless? Are YOU spineless? Do YOU take pride in your religion? Do you practice tolerance to such an extent where the line between tolerance and inaction/cowardice/apathy is not visible?
The scourge called islam
Para 11 Soora 10 Ayat 105 : - And (Oh Mohammed!) set thy purpose resolutely for religion, as a man by nature upright, and be not of those who ascribe partner (to Allah) (Worshipers of many Gods.)
By breaking the idols he served the cause of Allah and by looting the gold and jewels he served his own cause of enjoying the wealth.
Para 26 Soora 48 Ayat 20 : - Allah promiseth you much booty thatt ye will capture …… It was a mere show that “He”, i.e. Kutubuddin “Constructed” a mosque out of the debris of the fallen temples. In his time the Vishnu Mandir was already there. After destroying the idols and making some changes he named it as Masjid-e-jame.
The 27 temples must have been with a conical pinnacle on them. Had they been adorned with egg shaped pinnacles, or domes, the destroyer would have retained them and, after removing idols and obtaining wealth deposited by the Hindu Builder in the past, would have boasted of having “built” 27 mosques!.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
