By Dr Pravin Togadia
A few years back a wonderful movie had made a great splash. Many flocked to watch it and almost all liked it. It depicted an upright police officer in charge of busting jehadi terror modules in Bharat. While doing his duty he comes across a popular ghazal singer. The officer also happens to be very fond of ghazals and adores the singer who tells the officer that he was originally from Bharat but at the time of Partition he had to flee India. The singer also invites the officer to see his ancestors’ haveli on Bharat-Pakistan border near Jaisalmer. It so happens that the officer, in the process of investigating one of many terror attacks, reaches Jaisalmer. His deep investigations direct the trail to a spot where arms, ammunition and people to be supplied for such attacks are hidden. And this spot happens to be the same haveli of that popular ghazal singer. Shocked and saddened, the officer requests the singer to surrender. He not only refuses but creates a huge media campaign posing himself as a victim. The officer had to face a lot of social flak and governmental pressure, but does not give up the truth. Ultimately, the officer catches the singer and before the officer arrests him, the singer kills himself in front of many policemen confessing to the crime while blaming Bharat and glorifying Pakistan. The movie was Sarfarosh.
Yes, I know, this is a serious type of a column and not a movie story-telling forum.
But a somewhat similar situation is being enacted in Bharat these days and that too by film personalities who never wasted a single opportunity to hysterically yell and condemn all that is Hindu, who blamed entire Gujarat for 2002 riots and who blamed entire Bharat for Malegaon. They even blamed Bharat for jehadi attacks on Mumbai! The comment of a veteran film man then was that instead of blaming people like Kasab we should find out why these poor innocent youth get into such acts-if at all they have done it! He did not have the similar logic for Gujarat. The same man was seen on almost all TV channels demanding all to be put behind bars and immediately hanged whose names had figured in the phone calls list in Gujarat-then be it even a driver who might be daily confirming the time to report! But the same filmy man and his family forgot their logic of that time. Now when his son’s phone records, meeting records, pub-going records are all splashed with jehadi David Headley alias Dawood Gilani from Pakistan, he suddenly remembers the principle that unless proven otherwise everyone is innocent! He and the family are even throwing filmy dialogues and playing ‘me victim’, ‘me hero’ etc games. It is time that Bharat stands up and tells this filmy family that command over language and proficiency in acting are not proofs of innocence. This family even has the audacity to tell Bharat that its son is a hero because he himself went to police!
This is not being written to blame anyone in particular. But the point is celebrity syndrome of media and the society at large and the celebrity itch of a few celebrities to put themselves on a higher pedestal and keep on speaking on each and every issue on the same media. It is a hurdle in true justice. Highly-opinionated shrill voices, a very typical attitude siding a particular community and pronouncing judgments treating oneself as not only above judiciary but also above God are the characteristics of such a few celebrity groups. They are not like the common poor people on the streets who express their honest opinions on some TV shows. This group of the so-called celebrities has a specific agenda and that is to tom-tom greatly about only a particular community. This group vanishes when millions of Tamil Hindus get brutally attacked in Sri Lanka or in Malaysia or even in Assam! This means they are biased; they not only blah-blah on media all the time but also have an agenda against the majority of this nation. Their celebrity status gives them access to media. They even try to influence the judiciary through their blah-blah and their behind-the-screen activities- anyway most of them are expert in scripting and acting!
All famous people do not do this. All celebrities do not indulge in such gross misuse of their celebrity status. But those who do so are dangerous to the nation. Sometime back, a senior celebrity-cum-political leader went on the platform of Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind and said, "Hamare aur Jamiat ke usul ek hai." After some time when Jamiat came out with frivolous fatwas, the same leader wasn’t even available for comments. This is the point. Preaching is okay when it does not touch them, but the moment what goes around comes around, the same celebrities start speaking of principles of justice or showing off glycerin tears!
The serious part of it is that a section of media gives in to their tactics, which affects the very basis of justice and influences the investigations. Some years back, a channel ran a story "Rapist Uncle" based on an FIR by a niece. Police kept on requesting the channel not to say so until investigations are done. But the channel continued. Socially and mentally hurt, that man and his wife committed suicide. A day after this, the police came to conclusion that he was innocent and even that niece confessed to a fake FIR. Many social celebrity activists said all sorts of things about that man on that channel. The celebrity itch and some media enamoured by them got a family killed in the process! One hopes the judiciary would take a suo moto note of such proxy killings by the celebrity itch and biased media trials. Most media in Bharat are balanced and try to give views of both sides. But a few with a specific agenda or revenue compulsions go beyond the social duty and that’s the fodder of such celebrities.
Investigating agencies, the judiciary and the common man have a socio-legal responsibility to stay balanced, not to get influenced by such celebrity itches or media trials and keep on doing impartial investigations and justice. Lately, there has been a fashion that some investigation agencies leak selective information to their media ‘friends’. Going beyond that some celebrities use this information to express their biased opinions and even pronounce the judgments even before the investigation begins! This not only jeopardizes the cases in question but also many people in the society have to undergo the worst type of social stigma and even sometimes undue police wrath.
Two days back an international political celebrity US Prez Barack Hussein Obama pronounced that Tibet is a part of China. Maybe. But while saying so, Prez Obama’s celebrity itch forgot to even verify as to what Indo-China accord between China and Pandit Nehru says. China ignored that accord and only expected Bharat to follow it! But international celebrity-hood of Prez Obama has over-ridden his balancing responsibility (or so to say even he has a specific agenda.). Such celebrities ill-affect even international relations while a few national celebrities ill-affect national social relations.
Bharat does not live on Page-3 of some English glossies. Bharat also does not live in the arm-chaired AC net magazines. Bharat enjoys watching movies, listening to good music, seeing great paintings and appreciating creativity. But when some celebrities in such fields, using their social status, hurt the very logic of justice, it is time that Bharat, its investigating agencies and the judiciary stand up and tell such people to focus on their fields and not to interfere and disturb social systems of Bharat. It has almost become a notion these days that freedom of expression is available only to such celebrities and so-called pseudo-social commentators. Before the celebrity itch virus spreads further, let’s start common man’s justice council to check such a menace, work towards preventing such ‘holier than thou’ attitudes and ensure that no partial favours are done by the governments to such celebrities and to their families or neither is there a hard view only because one is a celebrity. Let us ensure that there is a true justice for all.
(The writer is a renowned cancer surgeon and secretary general of VHP. He can be contacted at drtogadia@gmail.com)
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Barack Obama, us and the US
India will have to fight its own battles. It cannot expect the US to help us fight them, argues Tarun Vijay.
Two kinds of people are complaining about Barack Obama's Asia tour. One, those Americans who have been seeing America in the George W Bush mould for too long. They get depressed about a placid president and hence describing his Asia visit as 'timid' or too yielding to China.
They would have loved an Obama chiding the Chinese and demanding a human rights commission on Tibet. Obama didn't oblige them. He needed a facelift for the US and tried his best.
In the second category of people, we stand out brightly. We like others to do our unfinished jobs. It is not amazing to see Indian cry babies complaining too much that Obama didn't do enough for us. We forget he is the president of the United States and his first and foremost duty is to serve her interest and not ours.
And he did well for the US in his first Asia tour that took him to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea in nine days -- with the maximum time being spent in China, the Asian superpower who spoke to the White House with an erect spine and received a warm hug.
In fact, Obama is the first US president after a long time who presented the image of an amiable, friendly and accessible head of a superpower that had otherwise become synonymous with crude diplomacy laced with military adventurism during the Bush era.
In Japan Obama won a standing ovation when he presented his Pacific connection story -- a very personal and a touching one indeed. And in China his descent from Air Force One alone holding an umbrella amidst Shanghai's first rains won him instant fans.
If Obama has won another friend for Washington, why should we complain if our leaders are on a spree to lose all and bend backwards for an audience with a queen or an alien benefactor?
Americans are a patriotic people who elect leaders with a spine, never compromising national security and always honouring their security forces.
If we don't do that, should we be complaining about it to the White House? Or should we set our own house right?
Here is a nation that doesn't honour its soldiers and keeps negotiating with traitors. We are a State that doesn't care about its farmers till they block Delhi's [ Images ] roads. We get enmeshed in hot money pursuits stashed in places like Laos and Liberia, and no one believes the culprit will ever get punished.
Who knows if a Koda or a Reddy will get 20 plus MPs in the next election and be inducted as the Cabinet minister in charge of internal security?
We kow-tow disoriented before the most horrendous of jihad sponsors and keep inviting murderers for talks and talks and then again talks for decades without resolving the main issues of contention.
Then, one fine morning, when we see the leader of a strong nation discussing our problems with his counterpart, we feel oh, why has he not helped us solve our problems with China? And with Pakistan? And while we have signed a nuke deal, why should it put pressure on us to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty too?
The US did what it did because that is what it thought was good for it. Obama is not ruling the US to ensure India benefits. Is that clear?
And look how our leaders, the great, patriotic, democratic representatives of this land behave. Here is a 'certificate, which I quote from a national daily: 'Vice-chief of the Indian Air Force, Air Marshal P K Barbora, said, "Politicians cutting across party lines are upsetting armed forces modernisation and procurement programmes." He further added, "The fact remains that the IAF's fleet of fighter aircraft is getting depleted. The navy's submarine strength is dwindling and the army has not added a new gun to its heavy artillery in more than 20 years. The weapons, ammunition and systems with the armed forces are getting outdated faster than the government is able to replace them. Irresponsible politics over the years, sometimes when a party is in government or sometimes when it is in the Opposition -- it has all along been seen that whenever the government of the day clears something, the Opposition says no. This badly impinges (on the preparedness) of the defence (forces)," he said.'
Do we need more to complain to Obama?
Now that our prime minister is in the US, guess what the 'biggest' secret that the wizards of the PM's media advisors doled out just before Dr Singh left for the US was. Some gems from a news agency report: 'As the silence fuelled speculation, the White House finally broke the silence to let out the closely guarded secret saying that the dinner would be held under the massive tent instead of the ornate state dining room. The tent option has been picked up as the guest list mushroomed and instead of 120 which the ornate room can accommodate, the Obamas are inviting close to 400 people for their first state dinner on November 24.'
That's all we need. Khana peena aur ghoomna (food, drink and travel). Be happy that Obama is giving a lavish dinner to not just 120, but to 400 of all the important, leading Indian lights of American life. Is that a mean achievement?
The US and China know what they want. China made the US accept its significant role in Asia, turned India into an area to be watched, controlled and helped to stay calm while remaining friendliest with Pakistan.
Both the US and China do not recognise Kashmir as a part of India. They look at the area as an unsettled matter, help Pakistan with dollars and military help, turn a blind eye towards Pakistan using their arms and grants against us, have done nothing to help India post 26/11, have refrained to tell Islamabad to stop its patronage to anti-India elements.
One of them attacked India in 1962; the other had remained a silent spectator then. Even so our analysts and Washington watchers feel at least now the US should help us. Wow!
When we are left to our own, we do better.
Obama postponed his meeting with the Dalai Lama before his China visit. We stood firm and allowed the Dalai Lama to go to Arunachal Pradesh. We trusted the US, inked a controversial nuke deal and hence invited China's bitter reaction expressed through its Arunachal raga, almost reminding of a cold war. The US did not even smile as if this doesn't concern it. And naturally so. Why should our spondylitis make the US lie low?
We have got to deal with the US on our own strength and de-link relations with China from Washington and the Dalai Lama. If we have to save Arunachal, it would be done on the shoulders of leaders in Delhi who have a spine and a will to raise the military strength to a winnable level. Not that we have to increase the numbers of fighter jets and submarines and nuke bombs to what Beijing possess.
Wars are not won by exchanging lists, but by the fierce resolve to destroy the enemy with a first strike mental make-up.
As one American commentator put it succinctly, 'Overall, Obama's Asia policy has been largely driven by events and domestic priorities rather than by an over-arching strategic vision. The Obama team had to closely coordinate with China on financial matters in response to the financial crisis.'
Hence, Obama won't care about India's case on Kashmir or rescuing Aung San Suu Kyi, leave aside helping the Dalai Lama to get back to Tibet honourably. His priorities are different.
Feeling euphoric seeing Obama hiring a few Americans with Indian faces on his team make no sense. They would be overburdened to ensure nobody blames them emotionally helping India crossing lines of American interest.
After all, Washington didn't allow Indian intelligence officers to question David Coleman Headley arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on charges of plotting terror attacks in India though India had allowed the FBI to interrogate Ajmal Kasab, the lone terrorist held in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
The US hasn't yet taken Indian companies, including the Indian Space and Research Organisation, off the blacklist prohibiting US agencies dealing with them. It is pressurising India to sign the CTBT without considering that we are surrounded by two nuke powers hostile to us.
The US didn't help us in 1962, bullied us in 1971, put hurdles in our way to punish Pakistan post Kargil, thus helping Islamabad's dictator, didn't take up our case post 26/11.
Washington -- or for that matter any superpower -- respects those who have strength and show an unyielding attitude.
Till we have such rulers who choose a date like 26/11 to be in Washington, rather than being in Mumbai comforting the nation, we can't stop greater powers meddling in our region and affairs.
Tarun Vijay is Director, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation
Two kinds of people are complaining about Barack Obama's Asia tour. One, those Americans who have been seeing America in the George W Bush mould for too long. They get depressed about a placid president and hence describing his Asia visit as 'timid' or too yielding to China.
They would have loved an Obama chiding the Chinese and demanding a human rights commission on Tibet. Obama didn't oblige them. He needed a facelift for the US and tried his best.
In the second category of people, we stand out brightly. We like others to do our unfinished jobs. It is not amazing to see Indian cry babies complaining too much that Obama didn't do enough for us. We forget he is the president of the United States and his first and foremost duty is to serve her interest and not ours.
And he did well for the US in his first Asia tour that took him to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea in nine days -- with the maximum time being spent in China, the Asian superpower who spoke to the White House with an erect spine and received a warm hug.
In fact, Obama is the first US president after a long time who presented the image of an amiable, friendly and accessible head of a superpower that had otherwise become synonymous with crude diplomacy laced with military adventurism during the Bush era.
In Japan Obama won a standing ovation when he presented his Pacific connection story -- a very personal and a touching one indeed. And in China his descent from Air Force One alone holding an umbrella amidst Shanghai's first rains won him instant fans.
If Obama has won another friend for Washington, why should we complain if our leaders are on a spree to lose all and bend backwards for an audience with a queen or an alien benefactor?
Americans are a patriotic people who elect leaders with a spine, never compromising national security and always honouring their security forces.
If we don't do that, should we be complaining about it to the White House? Or should we set our own house right?
Here is a nation that doesn't honour its soldiers and keeps negotiating with traitors. We are a State that doesn't care about its farmers till they block Delhi's [ Images ] roads. We get enmeshed in hot money pursuits stashed in places like Laos and Liberia, and no one believes the culprit will ever get punished.
Who knows if a Koda or a Reddy will get 20 plus MPs in the next election and be inducted as the Cabinet minister in charge of internal security?
We kow-tow disoriented before the most horrendous of jihad sponsors and keep inviting murderers for talks and talks and then again talks for decades without resolving the main issues of contention.
Then, one fine morning, when we see the leader of a strong nation discussing our problems with his counterpart, we feel oh, why has he not helped us solve our problems with China? And with Pakistan? And while we have signed a nuke deal, why should it put pressure on us to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty too?
The US did what it did because that is what it thought was good for it. Obama is not ruling the US to ensure India benefits. Is that clear?
And look how our leaders, the great, patriotic, democratic representatives of this land behave. Here is a 'certificate, which I quote from a national daily: 'Vice-chief of the Indian Air Force, Air Marshal P K Barbora, said, "Politicians cutting across party lines are upsetting armed forces modernisation and procurement programmes." He further added, "The fact remains that the IAF's fleet of fighter aircraft is getting depleted. The navy's submarine strength is dwindling and the army has not added a new gun to its heavy artillery in more than 20 years. The weapons, ammunition and systems with the armed forces are getting outdated faster than the government is able to replace them. Irresponsible politics over the years, sometimes when a party is in government or sometimes when it is in the Opposition -- it has all along been seen that whenever the government of the day clears something, the Opposition says no. This badly impinges (on the preparedness) of the defence (forces)," he said.'
Do we need more to complain to Obama?
Now that our prime minister is in the US, guess what the 'biggest' secret that the wizards of the PM's media advisors doled out just before Dr Singh left for the US was. Some gems from a news agency report: 'As the silence fuelled speculation, the White House finally broke the silence to let out the closely guarded secret saying that the dinner would be held under the massive tent instead of the ornate state dining room. The tent option has been picked up as the guest list mushroomed and instead of 120 which the ornate room can accommodate, the Obamas are inviting close to 400 people for their first state dinner on November 24.'
That's all we need. Khana peena aur ghoomna (food, drink and travel). Be happy that Obama is giving a lavish dinner to not just 120, but to 400 of all the important, leading Indian lights of American life. Is that a mean achievement?
The US and China know what they want. China made the US accept its significant role in Asia, turned India into an area to be watched, controlled and helped to stay calm while remaining friendliest with Pakistan.
Both the US and China do not recognise Kashmir as a part of India. They look at the area as an unsettled matter, help Pakistan with dollars and military help, turn a blind eye towards Pakistan using their arms and grants against us, have done nothing to help India post 26/11, have refrained to tell Islamabad to stop its patronage to anti-India elements.
One of them attacked India in 1962; the other had remained a silent spectator then. Even so our analysts and Washington watchers feel at least now the US should help us. Wow!
When we are left to our own, we do better.
Obama postponed his meeting with the Dalai Lama before his China visit. We stood firm and allowed the Dalai Lama to go to Arunachal Pradesh. We trusted the US, inked a controversial nuke deal and hence invited China's bitter reaction expressed through its Arunachal raga, almost reminding of a cold war. The US did not even smile as if this doesn't concern it. And naturally so. Why should our spondylitis make the US lie low?
We have got to deal with the US on our own strength and de-link relations with China from Washington and the Dalai Lama. If we have to save Arunachal, it would be done on the shoulders of leaders in Delhi who have a spine and a will to raise the military strength to a winnable level. Not that we have to increase the numbers of fighter jets and submarines and nuke bombs to what Beijing possess.
Wars are not won by exchanging lists, but by the fierce resolve to destroy the enemy with a first strike mental make-up.
As one American commentator put it succinctly, 'Overall, Obama's Asia policy has been largely driven by events and domestic priorities rather than by an over-arching strategic vision. The Obama team had to closely coordinate with China on financial matters in response to the financial crisis.'
Hence, Obama won't care about India's case on Kashmir or rescuing Aung San Suu Kyi, leave aside helping the Dalai Lama to get back to Tibet honourably. His priorities are different.
Feeling euphoric seeing Obama hiring a few Americans with Indian faces on his team make no sense. They would be overburdened to ensure nobody blames them emotionally helping India crossing lines of American interest.
After all, Washington didn't allow Indian intelligence officers to question David Coleman Headley arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on charges of plotting terror attacks in India though India had allowed the FBI to interrogate Ajmal Kasab, the lone terrorist held in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
The US hasn't yet taken Indian companies, including the Indian Space and Research Organisation, off the blacklist prohibiting US agencies dealing with them. It is pressurising India to sign the CTBT without considering that we are surrounded by two nuke powers hostile to us.
The US didn't help us in 1962, bullied us in 1971, put hurdles in our way to punish Pakistan post Kargil, thus helping Islamabad's dictator, didn't take up our case post 26/11.
Washington -- or for that matter any superpower -- respects those who have strength and show an unyielding attitude.
Till we have such rulers who choose a date like 26/11 to be in Washington, rather than being in Mumbai comforting the nation, we can't stop greater powers meddling in our region and affairs.
Tarun Vijay is Director, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Dr Singh's State visit to Washington, DC may be disastrous.
Rajeev Srinivasan on why he fears Dr Singh's State visit to Washington, DC may be disastrous.
In the old black-and-white Frank Capra film Mr Smith Goes to Washington an idealistic small-town man played by James Stewart is elected to the US Congress, where he is appalled by corrupt politics; but in the end his innocence wins over the blase denizens of the capital.
In a sense, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's [ Images ] trip to the US in the near future is being portrayed in the same way, but the Indian is neither as idealistic nor as naive as the Jimmy Stuart character, nor is there likely to be a happy ending.
US President Barack Hussein Obama [ Images ] has just returned from a tour of Asia. And exactly where did he go? China and Japan [ Images ], and also Singapore and South Korea, but not India [ Images ]. This one fact speaks volumes about the mind-share India occupies in the American establishment: India is not important. (Nor is it part of Asia according to them, but we will not digress. However we can be quite sure that a future Obama trip to India, if any, will be bracketed with one to Pakistan. Welcome to re-hyphenation.)
Obama's joint statement with Chinese strongman Hu Jintao could well have been written by the Chinese, when it comes to its perspective of India: It referred to the India-Pakistan problem and suggested that China should intervene in it. The implication is that China is the master of Asia, and that lesser powers such as India and Pakistan (yes, hyphenation again) must listen to China.
Then there was the recent appointment of Robin Raphel to the Richard Holbrooke [ Images ] team dealing with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Raphel is well-known as one of the most virulent and vitriolic critics of India in the entire US Democratic set-up. She was, until August, a registered and paid lobbyist for Pakistan. She is infamous for insisting that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] to India is not final, and for asserting that Pakistan is the very epitome of a 'model, modern, and moderate Muslim nation'.
On top of this, rediff.com reported last week that Christine Fair, who had rubbed Indian officials the wrong way recently regarding Baluchistan, was offered a job as the 'South Asia' expert in the Obama administration, which apparently she turned down.
The indications, therefore, are that the Obama administration does not take India seriously. All of the latter's hollow pretensions to great-power-hood have been seen through by the Democrats, one might think.
But if they are so smart, why do Democrats persist in kow-towing to China and pouring money into Pakistan? It must be because it is standard Democratic Party policy. Despite the illusions many Indians harbour, Democratic administrations have been nastier towards India in general, notwithstanding the sterling counter-example of the Republican Nixon-Kissinger duo sending the 7th Fleet to the Bay of Bengal in 1971 to intimidate India.
Liberal-left types in the West, despite protestations to the contrary, are fascinated by totalitarians and fascists. They are impressed by Vietnamese who defeated them, and Chinese who fought them to a standstill in Korea.
On the other hand, they despise a weak and moralising nation like India (some of them have not yet forgotten V K Krishna Menon's marathon speech at the United Nations, nor all the hot air about non-alignment.
Obama is the only US president in recent years to have refused to meet the Dalai Lama [ Images ], as appeasing China is high on his agenda; similarly the Democratic fascination with Mohammedan tyrants as well.
Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution wrote in The Wall Street Journal that Obama may well be following in Jimmy Carter's footsteps. Carter, of MEOW fame (moral equivalent of war), who groveled to Middle-Easterners, bringing upon himself the Iran hostage crisis that destroyed his presidency.
Obama is going down this path with his Af-Pak policy, which consists primarily of outsourcing the Afghan problem to Pakistan's Inter Services intelligence, to be followed by the United States declaring victory and leaving. He is ignoring the instructive example of Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler [ Images ].
Meanwhile the ISI cannot believe its good luck: Obama is showering billions on it on top of the $11 billion that Bush has already given them, with nothing to show.
On top of this, there is an entire generation of Cold-War-era non-proliferation ayatollahs, many of them Democrats with ties to Obama, who believe India has no business maintaining a nuclear arsenal. These people are on the ascendant, and strangely they have no problem with proliferation by China or Pakistan: The The Washington Post reported how the CIA merely stood by and watched when China delivered two full-fledged nuclear bombs to Pakistan in 1982.
Shortly thereafter, Pakistan, as part of the A Q Khan nuclear Wal-Mart, happily proliferated these to third parties.
Quite clearly, the non-proliferation ayatollahs have a rather interesting twist on semantics: for them, 'proliferation' is defined as India creating a minimum deterrent to defend itself from two nearby rogue States. Of course, these are the same people who created treaty after treaty -- Non-Proliferation Treaty, Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- whose prime intent was to contain the Indian nuclear deterrent.
The respected Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reported recently that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is bigger than India's, and that they are growing it rapidly. India has no more than 60 to 80 warheads, Pakistan at least 70 to 90, and China 240.
Of course, India is also handicapped by not having a proven delivery vehicle like an intermediate-range ballistic missile that can reach Beijing [ Images ] (and also by having voluntarily declared a moratorium on nuclear testing). This should be enormous cause for concern for India, because it leaves India vulnerable to the blackmail of a first strike by Pakistan or China, neither of which has ever said they will not indulge in a first strike. India cannot deter them because the threat of a second strike is meaningless if the others's arsenals and delivery systems are bigger and more reliable.
On the political side, here is another fear -- about what Manmohan Singh may concede in Washington. His recent trips have left a trail of wreckage as far as India's foreign policy is concerned. This leads one to wonder whether the foreign ministry lacks the resources to brief the prime minister.
Look at what the PM has said on previous trips abroad:
In Britain in 2005, while receiving an honorary degree from Oxford, Singh said that colonialism had done India good. He claimed that India benefited from 'meeting the dominant empire of the day'. He omitted to mention that the dominant empire had stolen roughly $10 trillion, and left hitherto prosperous India poverty-stricken.
In Havana at the Non-Aligned Meet in 2006, Singh informed a delighted General Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] that Pakistan was also a victim of terrorism, just like India, and absolved the Pakistani State of involvement in acts of terrorism. This, almost immediately after the Mumbai [ Images ] blasts in July of that year.
In the US in 2008, with George Bush [ Images ] a lame duck and the Democrats rampant, Singh assured Bush: 'The people of India deeply love you'. Exactly how did Singh arrive at this conclusion? And how exactly did he think this would be received by the severely anti-Bush Democrats, who were likely to win?
In Sharm-al-Sheikh, Egypt [ Images ], in July 2009, Singh gratuitously introduced Balochistan into the Indo-Pakistan dialog and promised a delinking of talks from terrorism. The grateful Pakistanis are now using Balochistan as a major card in their propaganda claiming Indian malfeasance there. They have also concluded that the 26/11 Mumbai siege has now been forgotten by India -- that is, Pakistan can proceed with further acts of terrorism with no untoward consequences.
Aren't there people who know how to craft diplomatic verbiage that serves the usual purpose -- to obfuscate and mystify while sounding pious -- instead of having the PM say things that then require substantial damage control?
What might the PM agree to in Washington this time? One grim possibility looms. There is a lot of talk about the G-2 from people like Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Cold Warrior and eminence grise extraordinaire (who can forget he was an admirer of Osama bin Laden [ Images ] in the old days?). The G-2, that is, the US and China, is to divide the world up among them: the Atlantic and the Eastern Pacific to the US, while the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean Rim belong to China.
China is delighted to go with this prescription, which is reminiscent of Spain and Portugal dividing up the world between them with the Vatican's blessings some centuries ago. A few months ago, a Chinese admiral suggested precisely such an outcome: They would look after the Western Pacific, he kindly offered the Americans the eastern part of the Pacific.
It is entirely possible that, given the trial balloon of the Sino-US statement on China's role in South Asia, the Americans will convince Manmohan Singh to endorse the idea of the G-2. There will be the usual round of 'clarifications' and 'retractions' and howls about 'misquotes', but at the end of the day, it would be plain as daylight that India had publicly accepted banana-republic-dom in the Asian Century.
We have to be prepared for such an eventuality. And that is why the US does not respect India as a potential ally. India is only a source of raw materials and a market, just as the imperialists saw it. India does not deserve any respect, either. A wimpy India -- which cannot deter even a failed state like Pakistan -- is merely an extra in the big scheme of things.
A nation that has no long-term strategic intent, and whose leaders can be easily manipulated through flattery, is a banana republic. Unlike China, which intends to rule the world, India, which can only imagine itself as a second-rate power, will remain one. Welcome to realpolitik.
In the old black-and-white Frank Capra film Mr Smith Goes to Washington an idealistic small-town man played by James Stewart is elected to the US Congress, where he is appalled by corrupt politics; but in the end his innocence wins over the blase denizens of the capital.
In a sense, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's [ Images ] trip to the US in the near future is being portrayed in the same way, but the Indian is neither as idealistic nor as naive as the Jimmy Stuart character, nor is there likely to be a happy ending.
US President Barack Hussein Obama [ Images ] has just returned from a tour of Asia. And exactly where did he go? China and Japan [ Images ], and also Singapore and South Korea, but not India [ Images ]. This one fact speaks volumes about the mind-share India occupies in the American establishment: India is not important. (Nor is it part of Asia according to them, but we will not digress. However we can be quite sure that a future Obama trip to India, if any, will be bracketed with one to Pakistan. Welcome to re-hyphenation.)
Obama's joint statement with Chinese strongman Hu Jintao could well have been written by the Chinese, when it comes to its perspective of India: It referred to the India-Pakistan problem and suggested that China should intervene in it. The implication is that China is the master of Asia, and that lesser powers such as India and Pakistan (yes, hyphenation again) must listen to China.
Then there was the recent appointment of Robin Raphel to the Richard Holbrooke [ Images ] team dealing with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Raphel is well-known as one of the most virulent and vitriolic critics of India in the entire US Democratic set-up. She was, until August, a registered and paid lobbyist for Pakistan. She is infamous for insisting that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] to India is not final, and for asserting that Pakistan is the very epitome of a 'model, modern, and moderate Muslim nation'.
On top of this, rediff.com reported last week that Christine Fair, who had rubbed Indian officials the wrong way recently regarding Baluchistan, was offered a job as the 'South Asia' expert in the Obama administration, which apparently she turned down.
The indications, therefore, are that the Obama administration does not take India seriously. All of the latter's hollow pretensions to great-power-hood have been seen through by the Democrats, one might think.
But if they are so smart, why do Democrats persist in kow-towing to China and pouring money into Pakistan? It must be because it is standard Democratic Party policy. Despite the illusions many Indians harbour, Democratic administrations have been nastier towards India in general, notwithstanding the sterling counter-example of the Republican Nixon-Kissinger duo sending the 7th Fleet to the Bay of Bengal in 1971 to intimidate India.
Liberal-left types in the West, despite protestations to the contrary, are fascinated by totalitarians and fascists. They are impressed by Vietnamese who defeated them, and Chinese who fought them to a standstill in Korea.
On the other hand, they despise a weak and moralising nation like India (some of them have not yet forgotten V K Krishna Menon's marathon speech at the United Nations, nor all the hot air about non-alignment.
Obama is the only US president in recent years to have refused to meet the Dalai Lama [ Images ], as appeasing China is high on his agenda; similarly the Democratic fascination with Mohammedan tyrants as well.
Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution wrote in The Wall Street Journal that Obama may well be following in Jimmy Carter's footsteps. Carter, of MEOW fame (moral equivalent of war), who groveled to Middle-Easterners, bringing upon himself the Iran hostage crisis that destroyed his presidency.
Obama is going down this path with his Af-Pak policy, which consists primarily of outsourcing the Afghan problem to Pakistan's Inter Services intelligence, to be followed by the United States declaring victory and leaving. He is ignoring the instructive example of Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler [ Images ].
Meanwhile the ISI cannot believe its good luck: Obama is showering billions on it on top of the $11 billion that Bush has already given them, with nothing to show.
On top of this, there is an entire generation of Cold-War-era non-proliferation ayatollahs, many of them Democrats with ties to Obama, who believe India has no business maintaining a nuclear arsenal. These people are on the ascendant, and strangely they have no problem with proliferation by China or Pakistan: The The Washington Post reported how the CIA merely stood by and watched when China delivered two full-fledged nuclear bombs to Pakistan in 1982.
Shortly thereafter, Pakistan, as part of the A Q Khan nuclear Wal-Mart, happily proliferated these to third parties.
Quite clearly, the non-proliferation ayatollahs have a rather interesting twist on semantics: for them, 'proliferation' is defined as India creating a minimum deterrent to defend itself from two nearby rogue States. Of course, these are the same people who created treaty after treaty -- Non-Proliferation Treaty, Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- whose prime intent was to contain the Indian nuclear deterrent.
The respected Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reported recently that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is bigger than India's, and that they are growing it rapidly. India has no more than 60 to 80 warheads, Pakistan at least 70 to 90, and China 240.
Of course, India is also handicapped by not having a proven delivery vehicle like an intermediate-range ballistic missile that can reach Beijing [ Images ] (and also by having voluntarily declared a moratorium on nuclear testing). This should be enormous cause for concern for India, because it leaves India vulnerable to the blackmail of a first strike by Pakistan or China, neither of which has ever said they will not indulge in a first strike. India cannot deter them because the threat of a second strike is meaningless if the others's arsenals and delivery systems are bigger and more reliable.
On the political side, here is another fear -- about what Manmohan Singh may concede in Washington. His recent trips have left a trail of wreckage as far as India's foreign policy is concerned. This leads one to wonder whether the foreign ministry lacks the resources to brief the prime minister.
Look at what the PM has said on previous trips abroad:
In Britain in 2005, while receiving an honorary degree from Oxford, Singh said that colonialism had done India good. He claimed that India benefited from 'meeting the dominant empire of the day'. He omitted to mention that the dominant empire had stolen roughly $10 trillion, and left hitherto prosperous India poverty-stricken.
In Havana at the Non-Aligned Meet in 2006, Singh informed a delighted General Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] that Pakistan was also a victim of terrorism, just like India, and absolved the Pakistani State of involvement in acts of terrorism. This, almost immediately after the Mumbai [ Images ] blasts in July of that year.
In the US in 2008, with George Bush [ Images ] a lame duck and the Democrats rampant, Singh assured Bush: 'The people of India deeply love you'. Exactly how did Singh arrive at this conclusion? And how exactly did he think this would be received by the severely anti-Bush Democrats, who were likely to win?
In Sharm-al-Sheikh, Egypt [ Images ], in July 2009, Singh gratuitously introduced Balochistan into the Indo-Pakistan dialog and promised a delinking of talks from terrorism. The grateful Pakistanis are now using Balochistan as a major card in their propaganda claiming Indian malfeasance there. They have also concluded that the 26/11 Mumbai siege has now been forgotten by India -- that is, Pakistan can proceed with further acts of terrorism with no untoward consequences.
Aren't there people who know how to craft diplomatic verbiage that serves the usual purpose -- to obfuscate and mystify while sounding pious -- instead of having the PM say things that then require substantial damage control?
What might the PM agree to in Washington this time? One grim possibility looms. There is a lot of talk about the G-2 from people like Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former Cold Warrior and eminence grise extraordinaire (who can forget he was an admirer of Osama bin Laden [ Images ] in the old days?). The G-2, that is, the US and China, is to divide the world up among them: the Atlantic and the Eastern Pacific to the US, while the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean Rim belong to China.
China is delighted to go with this prescription, which is reminiscent of Spain and Portugal dividing up the world between them with the Vatican's blessings some centuries ago. A few months ago, a Chinese admiral suggested precisely such an outcome: They would look after the Western Pacific, he kindly offered the Americans the eastern part of the Pacific.
It is entirely possible that, given the trial balloon of the Sino-US statement on China's role in South Asia, the Americans will convince Manmohan Singh to endorse the idea of the G-2. There will be the usual round of 'clarifications' and 'retractions' and howls about 'misquotes', but at the end of the day, it would be plain as daylight that India had publicly accepted banana-republic-dom in the Asian Century.
We have to be prepared for such an eventuality. And that is why the US does not respect India as a potential ally. India is only a source of raw materials and a market, just as the imperialists saw it. India does not deserve any respect, either. A wimpy India -- which cannot deter even a failed state like Pakistan -- is merely an extra in the big scheme of things.
A nation that has no long-term strategic intent, and whose leaders can be easily manipulated through flattery, is a banana republic. Unlike China, which intends to rule the world, India, which can only imagine itself as a second-rate power, will remain one. Welcome to realpolitik.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The unpardonable mistakes of Indira Gandhi
By Dr Jay Dubashi
Smt Indira Gandhi not only brought violence but also corruption. Twenty-five years after her death, we are still trying to cope with both. The Naxalites are a direct end-product of the Emergency. If it is not wrong to use violence to put down your political enemies-which is what the Emergency was all about-why is it wrong to use violence against those who have stolen your lands and your livelihood and are now busy stealing your homes in the name of progress?
"Had she lived on, she would have been 92 years old this year," wrote an old colleague of Indira Gandhi on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of her violent death. He was wrong. Had she not been killed by her bodyguards, she would have been killed by someone else. She was destined for violent death, like Charles I of Britain and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan.
Mrs Gandhi was not a nice person to know or work for. I doubt if she had any friends. There was a twist in her temperament that kept her away from the rest of the society. I once watched her at a public ceremony over which she presided. A man, a foreigner, wanted to speak to her; so he sent her a note. Mrs Gandhi nodded and the man approached her and was with her for three or four minutes. But not once did Mrs Gandhi look at him, let alone shake hands with him. He left a note on the chair next to her and walked away.
Mrs Gandhi was at odds with every one, or almost every one, in her circle-her husband, her aunts, her cousins and almost her entire cabinet. She was not on speaking terms with any of them. She walked out on her husband, or maybe her husband walked out on her, within five years of getting married. She hated her aunt, Vijayalakshmi Pandit so much that she would have sent her to jail to keep company with two other women she disliked, Rajmata of Gwalior and Maharani of Jaipur, had some friends not intervened. These two ladies were sent to Tihar Jail out of personal pique. If they were maharanis, Mrs Gandhi was an empress in her own right. And the only way to show them their place was to put them behind bars.
She had no friends, only hangers-on, and she made sure they knew their place. One of the toadies was Khushwant Singh, who went out of his way to defend the Emergency-he was not the only one; there were other toadies too-hoping to earn her favours, but he fell foul of her when he started boosting her daughter-in-law, a Sardarni.
Another toady was PN Haksar, a communist, who had managed to get into the foreign service with postings around the world, but not in the US. Haksar was related to the Kauls of old Delhi, whose daughter had married Jawaharlal Nehru. The Kauls and the Haksars were also neighbours. Haksar later became Mrs Gandhi's principal secretary-so did another Kashmiri, PN Dhar-and as a good communist, did whatever the commies wanted him to do, including abolishing private purses and nationalising banks.
But as happens to toadies everywhere, Haksar fell foul of the empress and was shifted to the Planning Commission, a useless posting meant for pensioners. One day, I went to see him at his house on Race Course Road, Haksar sat alone in his vast dark drawing room with curtains drawn at the height of winter, wondering what he had done to draw Mrs Gandhi's ire.
Haksar's uncle had a big showroom in Connaught Place, known to every shopper as Pandit Brothers. It is, I think, still there. There was also another showroom in Chandni Chowk. One day, Mrs Gandhi's police or may be Sanjay Gandhi's goons descended on the two showrooms and sealed them. For good effect, they hauled Haksar's uncle to jail to keep company with other traders. Haksar had nowhere to turn to, for all his relations-which means Mrs Gandhi's relations-were either in jail or had decamped to places far from Delhi to escape the clutches of Mrs Gandhi's favourite son. I do not know what Haksar did to escape the net, but he died a broken man.
There was also a strong streak of violence in Mrs Gandhi's character. In fact, I should say that she injected violence into the Indian political system. We shall always remember her for the dismemberment of East Pakistan-her and India's finest hour-for I doubt if any other Prime Minister would have done what she did. She never believed in the nonsense about non-violence--and also about truth-and absolutely had no compunction about using force where force was necessary. Nehru would have dilly-dallied and talked about Hindi-Paki bhai bhai. For Mrs Gandhi, there were no bhais. Violence had to be answered by violence, gun by gun, for at stake was the very existence of a nation under her charge.
It was perhaps her exaggerated faith in violence that undid her. She asked the army to enter the Golden Temple and that very day signed her own death warrant. But she did it with her eyes open.
What I do not forgive her are the ranks of riff-raff she gathered around her, men and women of no substance, whose only job was to feather their own nests and draw a veil over the dark goings-on at the heart of the administration. Mrs Gandhi not only brought violence but also corruption. Twenty-five years after her death, we are still trying to cope with both.
The Naxalites are a direct end-product of the Emergency. If it is not wrong to use violence to put down your political enemies-which is what the Emergency was all about-why is it wrong to use violence against those who have stolen your lands and your livelihood and are now busy stealing your homes in the name of progress? The Emergency too was supposed to have been imposed in the name of progress and growth. Didn't the Emergency-wallas claim that the trains ran on time? So, what is wrong in using force in clearing your lands and your homes of marauders who are arriving from thousands of miles away in search of your minerals, your water, in fact, your very life itself? And it was Mrs Gandhi who started the rot in the name of the Emergency, with her friends in the media egging her on, the same friends who are asking to put down the Naxalites and the others, also in the name of law and order-and, of course, discipline with capital 'D'.
Why did she do it? As I said, there was a kink in her character which ultimately took hold of her and those around her and perverted the very foundation of the republic. This is why we shall never forgive her. For all that she did in Bangladesh, there is a big black mark in her copybook, which time cannot erase. The legacy of violence, which is her special gift to the nation, has wiped out all the good she did or tried to do. This is a pity, but the riff-raff she surrounded herself with are partly responsible for it. Some of them are still active, now singing a new tune of secularism under a new conductor, who now speaks with a foreign accent!
Smt Indira Gandhi not only brought violence but also corruption. Twenty-five years after her death, we are still trying to cope with both. The Naxalites are a direct end-product of the Emergency. If it is not wrong to use violence to put down your political enemies-which is what the Emergency was all about-why is it wrong to use violence against those who have stolen your lands and your livelihood and are now busy stealing your homes in the name of progress?
"Had she lived on, she would have been 92 years old this year," wrote an old colleague of Indira Gandhi on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of her violent death. He was wrong. Had she not been killed by her bodyguards, she would have been killed by someone else. She was destined for violent death, like Charles I of Britain and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan.
Mrs Gandhi was not a nice person to know or work for. I doubt if she had any friends. There was a twist in her temperament that kept her away from the rest of the society. I once watched her at a public ceremony over which she presided. A man, a foreigner, wanted to speak to her; so he sent her a note. Mrs Gandhi nodded and the man approached her and was with her for three or four minutes. But not once did Mrs Gandhi look at him, let alone shake hands with him. He left a note on the chair next to her and walked away.
Mrs Gandhi was at odds with every one, or almost every one, in her circle-her husband, her aunts, her cousins and almost her entire cabinet. She was not on speaking terms with any of them. She walked out on her husband, or maybe her husband walked out on her, within five years of getting married. She hated her aunt, Vijayalakshmi Pandit so much that she would have sent her to jail to keep company with two other women she disliked, Rajmata of Gwalior and Maharani of Jaipur, had some friends not intervened. These two ladies were sent to Tihar Jail out of personal pique. If they were maharanis, Mrs Gandhi was an empress in her own right. And the only way to show them their place was to put them behind bars.
She had no friends, only hangers-on, and she made sure they knew their place. One of the toadies was Khushwant Singh, who went out of his way to defend the Emergency-he was not the only one; there were other toadies too-hoping to earn her favours, but he fell foul of her when he started boosting her daughter-in-law, a Sardarni.
Another toady was PN Haksar, a communist, who had managed to get into the foreign service with postings around the world, but not in the US. Haksar was related to the Kauls of old Delhi, whose daughter had married Jawaharlal Nehru. The Kauls and the Haksars were also neighbours. Haksar later became Mrs Gandhi's principal secretary-so did another Kashmiri, PN Dhar-and as a good communist, did whatever the commies wanted him to do, including abolishing private purses and nationalising banks.
But as happens to toadies everywhere, Haksar fell foul of the empress and was shifted to the Planning Commission, a useless posting meant for pensioners. One day, I went to see him at his house on Race Course Road, Haksar sat alone in his vast dark drawing room with curtains drawn at the height of winter, wondering what he had done to draw Mrs Gandhi's ire.
Haksar's uncle had a big showroom in Connaught Place, known to every shopper as Pandit Brothers. It is, I think, still there. There was also another showroom in Chandni Chowk. One day, Mrs Gandhi's police or may be Sanjay Gandhi's goons descended on the two showrooms and sealed them. For good effect, they hauled Haksar's uncle to jail to keep company with other traders. Haksar had nowhere to turn to, for all his relations-which means Mrs Gandhi's relations-were either in jail or had decamped to places far from Delhi to escape the clutches of Mrs Gandhi's favourite son. I do not know what Haksar did to escape the net, but he died a broken man.
There was also a strong streak of violence in Mrs Gandhi's character. In fact, I should say that she injected violence into the Indian political system. We shall always remember her for the dismemberment of East Pakistan-her and India's finest hour-for I doubt if any other Prime Minister would have done what she did. She never believed in the nonsense about non-violence--and also about truth-and absolutely had no compunction about using force where force was necessary. Nehru would have dilly-dallied and talked about Hindi-Paki bhai bhai. For Mrs Gandhi, there were no bhais. Violence had to be answered by violence, gun by gun, for at stake was the very existence of a nation under her charge.
It was perhaps her exaggerated faith in violence that undid her. She asked the army to enter the Golden Temple and that very day signed her own death warrant. But she did it with her eyes open.
What I do not forgive her are the ranks of riff-raff she gathered around her, men and women of no substance, whose only job was to feather their own nests and draw a veil over the dark goings-on at the heart of the administration. Mrs Gandhi not only brought violence but also corruption. Twenty-five years after her death, we are still trying to cope with both.
The Naxalites are a direct end-product of the Emergency. If it is not wrong to use violence to put down your political enemies-which is what the Emergency was all about-why is it wrong to use violence against those who have stolen your lands and your livelihood and are now busy stealing your homes in the name of progress? The Emergency too was supposed to have been imposed in the name of progress and growth. Didn't the Emergency-wallas claim that the trains ran on time? So, what is wrong in using force in clearing your lands and your homes of marauders who are arriving from thousands of miles away in search of your minerals, your water, in fact, your very life itself? And it was Mrs Gandhi who started the rot in the name of the Emergency, with her friends in the media egging her on, the same friends who are asking to put down the Naxalites and the others, also in the name of law and order-and, of course, discipline with capital 'D'.
Why did she do it? As I said, there was a kink in her character which ultimately took hold of her and those around her and perverted the very foundation of the republic. This is why we shall never forgive her. For all that she did in Bangladesh, there is a big black mark in her copybook, which time cannot erase. The legacy of violence, which is her special gift to the nation, has wiped out all the good she did or tried to do. This is a pity, but the riff-raff she surrounded herself with are partly responsible for it. Some of them are still active, now singing a new tune of secularism under a new conductor, who now speaks with a foreign accent!
Friday, November 13, 2009
Hindu Muslim marriages: NO!
By Kuru from Mumbai
Hindu-Muslim marriages are extremely offensive for the reason that the Muslim groom imagines himself to be a "conqueror" of one of the kafirs in the way of his ongoing personal jehad against kufr. Thus these marriages are, therefore, a provocation to all the Kafirs (HIndus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jews and so on) on earth. NB: Hindus are described as kafirs in Koran which is word of God for the Muslims. Collectively, the Muslims are committed to degrade, subdue, subjugate, enslave, convert, even kill, a kafir (non Muslim) who refuses to convert. millions of Hindus paid with their lives, often in the most brutal manner like Guru Tegh Bahadur, the two little sons of Guru Gobind Singhji and the brave boy Hakikat Rai. Hindus escaping from Pakistan and Bangladesh know this at their cost.
Hindu Muslim marriages are obnoxious since the girl must convert to Islam for her safety. If, on the other hand, the groom converts to her Hindus faith then he is inviting his murder at the hands of Muslim zealots. Let us not have short memory to serve the enemy.
Hindu Muslim marriages are objectionable because their children also must be raised as followers of Mohammed of Alien ARABIA. NB: If the converted Hindu brides go on giving them countless more Muslims then secularism and democracy in Bharat will not only be seriously endangered but wiped out. We cannot watch our slow extinction. NB: This is exactly what happened in West Punjab, Kashmir and East Bengal. Let us not be blind to reality.
Hindu Muslim marriages "stink" because a girl brought up in atmosphere of freedoms is forced to sacrifice her own "way of life" and do things that are obnoxious to her nature due to her upbringing, for example, eating or cooking beef, wasting precious hours of life learning the Arabic language in order to read the Koran, even having to hide under a burqa or face cover, especially if she goes with him to his Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan or Turkey, etc.
Hindu Muslim marriages are most degrading and insulting to Hindu and Sikh girls who are second to none on earth but have to enter a dark medieval society where she could be one of four wives and unable to object or protest.
Hindu Muslim marriages are unacceptable where divorce can be effective and binding merely on the husband saying the word "Talaaq" three times in the manner of macho Arab savages fourteen centuries ago.
Hindu Muslim marriages are unacceptable since the status of a Muslim wife is very low. She must obey, obey and obey, or get beaten up, even locked up without food and water if the husband is angry and wants to punish her properly according to Sharia Law of his Religion.
Hindu Muslim marriages are unacceptable since the girls will not be allowed to enter a mandir or Gurdwara to listen to sweet, melodious and calming divine music ("bhajans and kirtan").
Hindu Muslim marriages are objectionable because in an Islamic society a woman’s place is in the house and she is used only to serve her man and produce children for his Rasul Allah. Talking to any other man is taboo. Many are killed every day in the Islamic world merely on suspicion if a girl or woman in seen talking to a stranger. It is called "Honour killing".
Saving girls from the "predators" means saving the future of our "Desh and Dharma". Partition was the direct result of letting them increase their numbers in our own country, and at our own cost. When they had quanity they struck and destroyed quality. So we ought to safeguard our quality, too, not just our mandirs, gurdwaras and the distinctly different ethos and "way of life". Facts ought to be stated fearlessly. Partition not only gave us bleeding memories (loss of everything precious we had, including homes) but also taught us an unforgetable lesson that those areas in which Muslim numbers had grown like cancer cells had to be amputated.
Please think of the uneven playing field. While the Muslims force their females to stay at home and dare not talk to a stranger, Muslim man or boy , on the other hand, is free to approach any Hindu or Sikh girl at place or work, club, disco, cinema, office, factory, hotel or restaurant to introduce himself, show excessive courtesy, love & devotion, exchange telephone numbers, invite her out for further secret, one to one, meetings, seduce her by giving presents from sweets to jewellery and thus physically remove her from her own family moorings. Muslim males are out and about on their own like lone hunters while self respecting Hindu and Sikh young men, brought up in ethical family atmosphere, are conditioned to respect parents, culture and social norms. A Muslim, inspired by his Koran, gets thrill introducing his non Muslim girl to his family and friends while a Hindu boy will think twice before even talking to a Muslim female, leave aside take her to his parents’ home. He is conscious of their disapproval and afraid of attack by someone from the enraged Muslim community. We see this fact in Indian films. While no Hindu actor is seen taking Muslim actresses "for a ride" all the Khans take full advantage of excessive Hindu tolerance.
Hindu Muslim marriages yes, but only if all such marriages mean the Muslim groom embracing the Hindu or Sikh Faith to honour his bride and to respect her feelings and her parents. Otherwise, as a self respecting nation we ought to make it clear to them that this is now Hindusthan, not their Islamic Pakistan, Iran or Arabia where they can make it one way traffic, i.e., each and every mixed marriage to mean "Advantage and Gain to Mohammed" but shame, humiliation and loss to us.
If we love and cherish our daughters, then a print out of this article ought to be given to each one of them. Hindu/Sikh organisations, mandirs and Gurdwaras should distribute this widely in public and congregations. Not to do so under the cover of "political correctness" will be downright cowardince and total betrayal of our own girls.
Hindu-Muslim marriages are extremely offensive for the reason that the Muslim groom imagines himself to be a "conqueror" of one of the kafirs in the way of his ongoing personal jehad against kufr. Thus these marriages are, therefore, a provocation to all the Kafirs (HIndus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jews and so on) on earth. NB: Hindus are described as kafirs in Koran which is word of God for the Muslims. Collectively, the Muslims are committed to degrade, subdue, subjugate, enslave, convert, even kill, a kafir (non Muslim) who refuses to convert. millions of Hindus paid with their lives, often in the most brutal manner like Guru Tegh Bahadur, the two little sons of Guru Gobind Singhji and the brave boy Hakikat Rai. Hindus escaping from Pakistan and Bangladesh know this at their cost.
Hindu Muslim marriages are obnoxious since the girl must convert to Islam for her safety. If, on the other hand, the groom converts to her Hindus faith then he is inviting his murder at the hands of Muslim zealots. Let us not have short memory to serve the enemy.
Hindu Muslim marriages are objectionable because their children also must be raised as followers of Mohammed of Alien ARABIA. NB: If the converted Hindu brides go on giving them countless more Muslims then secularism and democracy in Bharat will not only be seriously endangered but wiped out. We cannot watch our slow extinction. NB: This is exactly what happened in West Punjab, Kashmir and East Bengal. Let us not be blind to reality.
Hindu Muslim marriages "stink" because a girl brought up in atmosphere of freedoms is forced to sacrifice her own "way of life" and do things that are obnoxious to her nature due to her upbringing, for example, eating or cooking beef, wasting precious hours of life learning the Arabic language in order to read the Koran, even having to hide under a burqa or face cover, especially if she goes with him to his Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan or Turkey, etc.
Hindu Muslim marriages are most degrading and insulting to Hindu and Sikh girls who are second to none on earth but have to enter a dark medieval society where she could be one of four wives and unable to object or protest.
Hindu Muslim marriages are unacceptable where divorce can be effective and binding merely on the husband saying the word "Talaaq" three times in the manner of macho Arab savages fourteen centuries ago.
Hindu Muslim marriages are unacceptable since the status of a Muslim wife is very low. She must obey, obey and obey, or get beaten up, even locked up without food and water if the husband is angry and wants to punish her properly according to Sharia Law of his Religion.
Hindu Muslim marriages are unacceptable since the girls will not be allowed to enter a mandir or Gurdwara to listen to sweet, melodious and calming divine music ("bhajans and kirtan").
Hindu Muslim marriages are objectionable because in an Islamic society a woman’s place is in the house and she is used only to serve her man and produce children for his Rasul Allah. Talking to any other man is taboo. Many are killed every day in the Islamic world merely on suspicion if a girl or woman in seen talking to a stranger. It is called "Honour killing".
Saving girls from the "predators" means saving the future of our "Desh and Dharma". Partition was the direct result of letting them increase their numbers in our own country, and at our own cost. When they had quanity they struck and destroyed quality. So we ought to safeguard our quality, too, not just our mandirs, gurdwaras and the distinctly different ethos and "way of life". Facts ought to be stated fearlessly. Partition not only gave us bleeding memories (loss of everything precious we had, including homes) but also taught us an unforgetable lesson that those areas in which Muslim numbers had grown like cancer cells had to be amputated.
Please think of the uneven playing field. While the Muslims force their females to stay at home and dare not talk to a stranger, Muslim man or boy , on the other hand, is free to approach any Hindu or Sikh girl at place or work, club, disco, cinema, office, factory, hotel or restaurant to introduce himself, show excessive courtesy, love & devotion, exchange telephone numbers, invite her out for further secret, one to one, meetings, seduce her by giving presents from sweets to jewellery and thus physically remove her from her own family moorings. Muslim males are out and about on their own like lone hunters while self respecting Hindu and Sikh young men, brought up in ethical family atmosphere, are conditioned to respect parents, culture and social norms. A Muslim, inspired by his Koran, gets thrill introducing his non Muslim girl to his family and friends while a Hindu boy will think twice before even talking to a Muslim female, leave aside take her to his parents’ home. He is conscious of their disapproval and afraid of attack by someone from the enraged Muslim community. We see this fact in Indian films. While no Hindu actor is seen taking Muslim actresses "for a ride" all the Khans take full advantage of excessive Hindu tolerance.
Hindu Muslim marriages yes, but only if all such marriages mean the Muslim groom embracing the Hindu or Sikh Faith to honour his bride and to respect her feelings and her parents. Otherwise, as a self respecting nation we ought to make it clear to them that this is now Hindusthan, not their Islamic Pakistan, Iran or Arabia where they can make it one way traffic, i.e., each and every mixed marriage to mean "Advantage and Gain to Mohammed" but shame, humiliation and loss to us.
If we love and cherish our daughters, then a print out of this article ought to be given to each one of them. Hindu/Sikh organisations, mandirs and Gurdwaras should distribute this widely in public and congregations. Not to do so under the cover of "political correctness" will be downright cowardince and total betrayal of our own girls.
The rural poor fare better than in China
By John Lee
China and India will likely defy the economic malaise in Western economies and grow at more than 7 per cent this year. But that is where the comparison should end. Contrary to popular hype, India is actually outpacing China where it counts most-the economic growth of the rural poor.
Half of China’s population and two-thirds of India’s still live in rural areas-roughly 700 million people in each country, most of whom remain poor. In China, the urban-rural income ratio has become increasingly disparate; it was 1.8 times more in the mid-1980s, 2.4 in the mid-1990s, 2.9 in 2001 and now around 3.5.
This trend starkly contrasts with the early years of Chinese economic reform. Over 80% of the poverty reduction in China occurred during Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, between 1978 and 1988. Although per-capita incomes have risen since then, the net incomes of about 400 million people have declined over the past decade.
India started from a lower economic base but has made greater gains: Its urban-rural income gap has slowly but steadily declined since the early 1990s. Over the past decade, economic growth in rural India has outpaced growth in urban areas by almost 40 per cent. Rural India now accounts for half of the country’s GDP, up from 46 per cent in 1993. Unlike the Chinese, rural Indians do not have to migrate to already crowded urban areas to earn a better living.
These trends mirror the path of economic reform in both nations. China had a huge head start in alleviating poverty. It began free-market reforms in 1978, while India only started on its current journey away from socialism toward a market-based system in the early 1990s. Since the turn of the century, India has been rapidly improving, but China has been getting worse. And since 2000, poverty and illiteracy in India have halved, while the same figures doubled in China.
The role of domestic consumption in the economy also demonstrates the divergent paths of these two developing giants. In China, domestic consumption as a proportion of GDP has fallen to 35 per cent from around 60 per cent in the 1980s. The Chinese "economic miracle" depends mostly on exports and state-led fixed investment. Even Beijing consistently admits this is an unbalanced, unsustainable strategy. Moreover, depressed consumption levels and correspondingly high levels of savings by the citizens of a still-poor country mean growth is uneven and benefits relatively few. In contrast, domestic consumption composes more than two-thirds of the Indian economy. India has a lot of catching up to do, but its poor are rising with the tide, unlike in China.
China’s emphasis on state-led fixed-investment growth in urban areas may have fostered this trend, exacerbating inequality and heavily favoring a relatively small number of well-placed insiders. After the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Beijing decided the state should reassert its control of economic growth, which had rested on private-sector entrepreneurship. Before Tiananmen, private-sector investment growth in rural China was growing at 20 per cent annually. After Tiananmen, it dropped to 7 per cent. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have since missed out on the fruits of the country’s spectacular growth.
The Chinese and Indian development models are not actually in competition, despite what newspaper headlines and books may suggest. But as magnificent as Shanghai now is, its shiny buildings have been built on the backs of peasants forced to deposit their savings into state-owned banks and receiving little in return. In contrast, India started its reforms 15 years later than China but is quietly and gradually building its base. Now that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is starting his second term, he will do well to reject the dangerous appeal of the Chinese approach.
(Courtesy: Wall Street Journal Asia, Mr. Lee is a foreign-policy fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, a visiting scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington and the author of Will China Fail? (CIS, 2008). Copyright 2009 Dow Jones WSJ 2July 2009 http://online.wsj.com)
China and India will likely defy the economic malaise in Western economies and grow at more than 7 per cent this year. But that is where the comparison should end. Contrary to popular hype, India is actually outpacing China where it counts most-the economic growth of the rural poor.
Half of China’s population and two-thirds of India’s still live in rural areas-roughly 700 million people in each country, most of whom remain poor. In China, the urban-rural income ratio has become increasingly disparate; it was 1.8 times more in the mid-1980s, 2.4 in the mid-1990s, 2.9 in 2001 and now around 3.5.
This trend starkly contrasts with the early years of Chinese economic reform. Over 80% of the poverty reduction in China occurred during Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, between 1978 and 1988. Although per-capita incomes have risen since then, the net incomes of about 400 million people have declined over the past decade.
India started from a lower economic base but has made greater gains: Its urban-rural income gap has slowly but steadily declined since the early 1990s. Over the past decade, economic growth in rural India has outpaced growth in urban areas by almost 40 per cent. Rural India now accounts for half of the country’s GDP, up from 46 per cent in 1993. Unlike the Chinese, rural Indians do not have to migrate to already crowded urban areas to earn a better living.
These trends mirror the path of economic reform in both nations. China had a huge head start in alleviating poverty. It began free-market reforms in 1978, while India only started on its current journey away from socialism toward a market-based system in the early 1990s. Since the turn of the century, India has been rapidly improving, but China has been getting worse. And since 2000, poverty and illiteracy in India have halved, while the same figures doubled in China.
The role of domestic consumption in the economy also demonstrates the divergent paths of these two developing giants. In China, domestic consumption as a proportion of GDP has fallen to 35 per cent from around 60 per cent in the 1980s. The Chinese "economic miracle" depends mostly on exports and state-led fixed investment. Even Beijing consistently admits this is an unbalanced, unsustainable strategy. Moreover, depressed consumption levels and correspondingly high levels of savings by the citizens of a still-poor country mean growth is uneven and benefits relatively few. In contrast, domestic consumption composes more than two-thirds of the Indian economy. India has a lot of catching up to do, but its poor are rising with the tide, unlike in China.
China’s emphasis on state-led fixed-investment growth in urban areas may have fostered this trend, exacerbating inequality and heavily favoring a relatively small number of well-placed insiders. After the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Beijing decided the state should reassert its control of economic growth, which had rested on private-sector entrepreneurship. Before Tiananmen, private-sector investment growth in rural China was growing at 20 per cent annually. After Tiananmen, it dropped to 7 per cent. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have since missed out on the fruits of the country’s spectacular growth.
The Chinese and Indian development models are not actually in competition, despite what newspaper headlines and books may suggest. But as magnificent as Shanghai now is, its shiny buildings have been built on the backs of peasants forced to deposit their savings into state-owned banks and receiving little in return. In contrast, India started its reforms 15 years later than China but is quietly and gradually building its base. Now that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is starting his second term, he will do well to reject the dangerous appeal of the Chinese approach.
(Courtesy: Wall Street Journal Asia, Mr. Lee is a foreign-policy fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, a visiting scholar at the Hudson Institute in Washington and the author of Will China Fail? (CIS, 2008). Copyright 2009 Dow Jones WSJ 2July 2009 http://online.wsj.com)
Thursday, November 5, 2009
US views on God and life are turning Hindu By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK
America is not a Christian nation. We are, it is true, a nation founded by Christians, and according to a 2008 survey, 76 percent of us continue to identify as Christian (still, that's the lowest percentage in American history). Of course, we are not a Hindu—or Muslim, or Jewish, or Wiccan—nation, either. A million-plus Hindus live in the United States, a fraction of the billion who live on Earth. But recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity.
The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: "Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names." A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur'an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal. The most traditional, conservative Christians have not been taught to think like this. They learn in Sunday school that their religion is true, and others are false. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me."
Americans are no longer buying it. According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of us believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life"—including 37 percent of white evangelicals, the group most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone. Also, the number of people who seek spiritual truth outside church is growing. Thirty percent of Americans call themselves "spiritual, not religious," according to a 2009 NEWSWEEK Poll, up from 24 percent in 2005. Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, has long framed the American propensity for "the divine-deli-cafeteria religion" as "very much in the spirit of Hinduism. You're not picking and choosing from different religions, because they're all the same," he says. "It isn't about orthodoxy. It's about whatever works. If going to yoga works, great—and if going to Catholic mass works, great. And if going to Catholic mass plus the yoga plus the Buddhist retreat works, that's great, too."
Then there's the question of what happens when you die. Christians traditionally believe that bodies and souls are sacred, that together they comprise the "self," and that at the end of time they will be reunited in the Resurrection. You need both, in other words, and you need them forever. Hindus believe no such thing. At death, the body burns on a pyre, while the spirit—where identity resides—escapes. In reincarnation, central to Hinduism, selves come back to earth again and again in different bodies. So here is another way in which Americans are becoming more Hindu: 24 percent of Americans say they believe in reincarnation, according to a 2008 Harris poll. So agnostic are we about the ultimate fates of our bodies that we're burning them—like Hindus—after death. More than a third of Americans now choose cremation, according to the Cremation Association of North America, up from 6 percent in 1975. "I do think the more spiritual role of religion tends to deemphasize some of the more starkly literal interpretations of the Resurrection," agrees Diana Eck, professor of comparative religion at Harvard. So let us all say "om."
The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: "Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names." A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur'an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal. The most traditional, conservative Christians have not been taught to think like this. They learn in Sunday school that their religion is true, and others are false. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me."
Americans are no longer buying it. According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of us believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life"—including 37 percent of white evangelicals, the group most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone. Also, the number of people who seek spiritual truth outside church is growing. Thirty percent of Americans call themselves "spiritual, not religious," according to a 2009 NEWSWEEK Poll, up from 24 percent in 2005. Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, has long framed the American propensity for "the divine-deli-cafeteria religion" as "very much in the spirit of Hinduism. You're not picking and choosing from different religions, because they're all the same," he says. "It isn't about orthodoxy. It's about whatever works. If going to yoga works, great—and if going to Catholic mass works, great. And if going to Catholic mass plus the yoga plus the Buddhist retreat works, that's great, too."
Then there's the question of what happens when you die. Christians traditionally believe that bodies and souls are sacred, that together they comprise the "self," and that at the end of time they will be reunited in the Resurrection. You need both, in other words, and you need them forever. Hindus believe no such thing. At death, the body burns on a pyre, while the spirit—where identity resides—escapes. In reincarnation, central to Hinduism, selves come back to earth again and again in different bodies. So here is another way in which Americans are becoming more Hindu: 24 percent of Americans say they believe in reincarnation, according to a 2008 Harris poll. So agnostic are we about the ultimate fates of our bodies that we're burning them—like Hindus—after death. More than a third of Americans now choose cremation, according to the Cremation Association of North America, up from 6 percent in 1975. "I do think the more spiritual role of religion tends to deemphasize some of the more starkly literal interpretations of the Resurrection," agrees Diana Eck, professor of comparative religion at Harvard. So let us all say "om."
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
There was a time when Tibet ruled China
By Arabinda Ghose
The Tibetans had never accepted Chinese suzerainty, and remained a sovereign nation forcibly under occupation and control by the Chinese. In fact Tibet had once occupied China and sacked its capital too. The time, therefore, has come to tell the people of India as also the world, that China must grant full sovereignty to Tibet and leave the Tibetans to their own fate.
It is most disconcerting for any Indian to watch the Government of India reacting in an abject manner to the objections by China to the visit by our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh visiting Arunachal Pradesh as if this country is a client state of China.
Instead of quoting the Constitution of India for asserting that this State is an inalienable part of India, as Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee did in Kolkata recently, the country wants this Government to tell China to shut up and vacate their occupation of Tibet,
What is more, it is time for India and the democratic world to demand that Tibet be given back her sovereignty because the "fact " of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, which this country had gullibly swallowed during the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Chinese had exercised control over Tibet by fraudulent and even murderous means, as will be revealed in the following paragraphs quoting reliable authorities. In fact Tibet had once occupied China and sacked its capital too.
We have in our hands two or three very reliable sources to support our views-one is a book by Nepalese scholar-politician Balchandra Sharma referring to cultural influence of Nepal over China, the second is the book Chronology and History of Nepal from 600 BC to 880 AD by Dr Kashi Prasad Jaiswal and lastly, Lhasa Vols I and II by Perceval Landon, Special Correspondent of the Times, London, who had accompanied the 1903-04 British expedition to Lhasa led by Sir Francis Younghusband.
We will briefly take up the writings of these three authors.
Shri Sharma who was a leading light of the Nepali Congress in the 1950s and the 1960s, had led a cultural delegation to China in the 1960s when he saw the remnants of the several architects built by a Nepalese sculpture-builder Arniko, spelt Aniko in Chinese. One of them is a monastery near Bejing, still standing. One may remind readers that the Kathmnadu-Kodari Highway which takes one to Lhasa and built by the Chinese in 1964-67, is called the Arniko Rajmarga. in Nepal.
One will find on page 79 of the book Chronology and History of Nepal from 600 BC to 880 AD the following lines: "The T’ang History, gives the contemporary history of Tibet, which had been translated by Dr S.W. Bushel, physician to the British Legation in Peking, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,1880 p.433ff. According to it, Strong-stand-Gampo (Chinese Ch/it-sung-lungtsan) died in 650 and was succeeded by his grandson aged 8,whose son Chi’nu Shsilung was killed in this expedition against Nepal and was succeeded by a minor son aged 7 in 703 A.D. It was no until 755-756 (two successions later) that the Tibetan King once more rose in military greatness by attacking China and taking its capital in 736 A.D."
So it is the T’ang history that says that a Tibetan King had actually attacked China and taken its capital. We have more evidence in the two books by Perceval Landon who incidentally, had authored a book on the ancient history of Nepal too by discovering a "vamsavali" (genealogy).
Landon’s Vol.1 has this to say about the Tibet-China relationship, abridged for want of space: "This history is not one of great interest and may be chiefly dismissed as one of continued hostility with China, but on hostility on equal terms. That the result of these border skirmishes was by no means as uniformly satisfactory to China as one may imagine from her version of the events, is clear but about the 640 A.D, the King of Tibet, Srong-tsan-Gambo, succeeded in obtaining the hands of a princess of the imperial house of the Tang against the will of the emperor and after some years of fighting.....
Strong-tsan-gambo’s grandson, Ti-strong-de-stand, resumed hostilities with China and in 763 actually sacked the capital Changam or Hsia-Fu....."
Vol II has more details of how the Chinese had controlled Tibet. One recalls that this distinguished journalist had accompanied the Francis Younghusband mission of the British to Lhasa in 1903-04. Referring to this, in Chapter I of the Vol II, Landon says :..."Before taking up again the story of the Expedition, I propose to sketch the internal affairs of Lhasa for the last few years with somewhat greater detail than before.
The key to the situation in Tibet, which was now becoming desperate, is to be found in the deliberate and steady determination of the Tibetans to do away with Chinese suzerainty. This is a policy of long standing. Thirty-five years ago, the spirit of independence was already abroad in Tibet, and there was a recognized progressive party, headed by no less a dignitary than the treasurer of the Gaden monastery. Under the old regime, as is well known, a consistent policy of regency, made possible only by the equally systematic assassination of each successive young Grand Lama before he reached the age of eighteen ,resulted in a continual regency ,and therefore, also a continued opportunity for the assertion and reassertion of the Chinese suzerainty, for no regent could be appointed without the sanction of the Chinese emperor."
The very election of the Dalai Lama himself was theoretically subject to the approval of Peking, but this prerogative was seldom or never, exercised. In other parts of the his dominions the Chinese emperor made undoubted use of his rights, Without going into more details at this stage, we would like to quote Landon once again here: "China had been of no use to them in their dispute with India (prior to the Younghusband expedition) and to have the "reincarnated" the Dalai Lama at that moment meant a repetition of the usual opportunity for the exertion of Chinese influence which would have peculiarly inappropriate and even disastrous. He was, therefore, allowed the survive maturity, but only as a religious pontiff, the temporary power remaining in the hands of the regent. But as soon as the Treaty was signed, the last vestige of Chinese influence in Tibet was thrown off by a coup d’etat, in 1805 (The Treaty was with Russia, if one is not mistaken)."
These references show clearly that the Tibetans had never accepted Chinese suzerainty, and remained a sovereign nation forcibly under occupation and control by the Chinese. The time, therefore, has come to tell the people of India as also the world, that China must grant full sovereignty to Tibet and leave the Tibetans to their own fate.
The Tibetans had never accepted Chinese suzerainty, and remained a sovereign nation forcibly under occupation and control by the Chinese. In fact Tibet had once occupied China and sacked its capital too. The time, therefore, has come to tell the people of India as also the world, that China must grant full sovereignty to Tibet and leave the Tibetans to their own fate.
It is most disconcerting for any Indian to watch the Government of India reacting in an abject manner to the objections by China to the visit by our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh visiting Arunachal Pradesh as if this country is a client state of China.
Instead of quoting the Constitution of India for asserting that this State is an inalienable part of India, as Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee did in Kolkata recently, the country wants this Government to tell China to shut up and vacate their occupation of Tibet,
What is more, it is time for India and the democratic world to demand that Tibet be given back her sovereignty because the "fact " of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet, which this country had gullibly swallowed during the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Chinese had exercised control over Tibet by fraudulent and even murderous means, as will be revealed in the following paragraphs quoting reliable authorities. In fact Tibet had once occupied China and sacked its capital too.
We have in our hands two or three very reliable sources to support our views-one is a book by Nepalese scholar-politician Balchandra Sharma referring to cultural influence of Nepal over China, the second is the book Chronology and History of Nepal from 600 BC to 880 AD by Dr Kashi Prasad Jaiswal and lastly, Lhasa Vols I and II by Perceval Landon, Special Correspondent of the Times, London, who had accompanied the 1903-04 British expedition to Lhasa led by Sir Francis Younghusband.
We will briefly take up the writings of these three authors.
Shri Sharma who was a leading light of the Nepali Congress in the 1950s and the 1960s, had led a cultural delegation to China in the 1960s when he saw the remnants of the several architects built by a Nepalese sculpture-builder Arniko, spelt Aniko in Chinese. One of them is a monastery near Bejing, still standing. One may remind readers that the Kathmnadu-Kodari Highway which takes one to Lhasa and built by the Chinese in 1964-67, is called the Arniko Rajmarga. in Nepal.
One will find on page 79 of the book Chronology and History of Nepal from 600 BC to 880 AD the following lines: "The T’ang History, gives the contemporary history of Tibet, which had been translated by Dr S.W. Bushel, physician to the British Legation in Peking, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,1880 p.433ff. According to it, Strong-stand-Gampo (Chinese Ch/it-sung-lungtsan) died in 650 and was succeeded by his grandson aged 8,whose son Chi’nu Shsilung was killed in this expedition against Nepal and was succeeded by a minor son aged 7 in 703 A.D. It was no until 755-756 (two successions later) that the Tibetan King once more rose in military greatness by attacking China and taking its capital in 736 A.D."
So it is the T’ang history that says that a Tibetan King had actually attacked China and taken its capital. We have more evidence in the two books by Perceval Landon who incidentally, had authored a book on the ancient history of Nepal too by discovering a "vamsavali" (genealogy).
Landon’s Vol.1 has this to say about the Tibet-China relationship, abridged for want of space: "This history is not one of great interest and may be chiefly dismissed as one of continued hostility with China, but on hostility on equal terms. That the result of these border skirmishes was by no means as uniformly satisfactory to China as one may imagine from her version of the events, is clear but about the 640 A.D, the King of Tibet, Srong-tsan-Gambo, succeeded in obtaining the hands of a princess of the imperial house of the Tang against the will of the emperor and after some years of fighting.....
Strong-tsan-gambo’s grandson, Ti-strong-de-stand, resumed hostilities with China and in 763 actually sacked the capital Changam or Hsia-Fu....."
Vol II has more details of how the Chinese had controlled Tibet. One recalls that this distinguished journalist had accompanied the Francis Younghusband mission of the British to Lhasa in 1903-04. Referring to this, in Chapter I of the Vol II, Landon says :..."Before taking up again the story of the Expedition, I propose to sketch the internal affairs of Lhasa for the last few years with somewhat greater detail than before.
The key to the situation in Tibet, which was now becoming desperate, is to be found in the deliberate and steady determination of the Tibetans to do away with Chinese suzerainty. This is a policy of long standing. Thirty-five years ago, the spirit of independence was already abroad in Tibet, and there was a recognized progressive party, headed by no less a dignitary than the treasurer of the Gaden monastery. Under the old regime, as is well known, a consistent policy of regency, made possible only by the equally systematic assassination of each successive young Grand Lama before he reached the age of eighteen ,resulted in a continual regency ,and therefore, also a continued opportunity for the assertion and reassertion of the Chinese suzerainty, for no regent could be appointed without the sanction of the Chinese emperor."
The very election of the Dalai Lama himself was theoretically subject to the approval of Peking, but this prerogative was seldom or never, exercised. In other parts of the his dominions the Chinese emperor made undoubted use of his rights, Without going into more details at this stage, we would like to quote Landon once again here: "China had been of no use to them in their dispute with India (prior to the Younghusband expedition) and to have the "reincarnated" the Dalai Lama at that moment meant a repetition of the usual opportunity for the exertion of Chinese influence which would have peculiarly inappropriate and even disastrous. He was, therefore, allowed the survive maturity, but only as a religious pontiff, the temporary power remaining in the hands of the regent. But as soon as the Treaty was signed, the last vestige of Chinese influence in Tibet was thrown off by a coup d’etat, in 1805 (The Treaty was with Russia, if one is not mistaken)."
These references show clearly that the Tibetans had never accepted Chinese suzerainty, and remained a sovereign nation forcibly under occupation and control by the Chinese. The time, therefore, has come to tell the people of India as also the world, that China must grant full sovereignty to Tibet and leave the Tibetans to their own fate.
Take action against Love Jehad
What is the lure of Love Jehad? The problem is old. But the terminology is new crediting its origins to some imaginative police officer in Kerala, who filed his affidavit in the High Court following a widespread commotion against an alleged sinister campaign by Kerala Islamists to convert non-Muslim women to Islam through deceptive love and marriage. Such cases have become commonplace in North India and the readers of Organiser are familiar with them, as such cases have been written about in the journal. The problem received wider attention in Kerala because the Christian girls are equal victims of the jehadi Romeos as the Hindus, and the church has taken a serious view.
The Commission for Social Harmony and Vigilance of the Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council, which is actively creating public opinion against the organised menace of Love Jehad, says that women so converted to Islam are being used by male Islamist terrorists for satisfying their carnal needs in their camps in inhospitable areas from where escape is impossible. Reports quoting senior police officials say that they can trace the presence of love jehadis but are unable to lay hands on them because of the political patronage they enjoy.
Reports emanating from various parts of the country confirm that the aim of luring vulnerable women from other religions with the offer of love and marriage is to convert them to Islam before using them as couriers, cooks and sex-slaves. This is no liberation theology, as they claim.
The matter hit headlines in recent months when parents of two missing girls approached the Kerala High Court with habeas corpus petitions. One of them is a Hindu and the other Christian. Soon reports about several such incidents popped in the media and police stations, political parties and community organisations came out with appeals to the public to be on the guard against the evil designs of the Islamic groups engaged in this activity. According to a report in The Pioneer, police officials probing the Love Jehad have estimated that as many as 940 women had gone missing in Kerala in the past five years in dubious circumstances. Love jehadis have converted more than 4,000 women in Kerala alone through love and marriage in the recent past, according to reports appearing in the local media. As a result, a concerned Kerala High Court ordered the State Director General of Police and the Union Home Department last month to file their reports on the matter after a thorough probe. Last week, the Kerala DGP Jacob Punnose filed a reply, which he later termed interim, in which he denied the presence of any organised campaign or outfit named Love Jehad. Experts termed his report politically dictated and funny because of its timing and contradictory observations. The Kerala ruling Left Front, facing three by-elections on November 7, tried to woo the fanatic Muslims by presenting such a reply in the Court. However, it backfired. The reply admitted that Muslim men had been trying to convert women to Islam through love marriages. Such Muslim youth could be getting external financial assistance for expensive clothes, motorbikes and money to attract girls, it said. The DGP’s reply further revealed that these young men could be getting legal assistance for staying out of dangers from police and public. Irked by the contradictions in the reply, the High Court ordered the DGP to file a fresh report.
In July, the Maharashtra assembly had ordered a CID inquiry into organised women conversion by marriage after several MLAs raised the issue. The Kerala incidents have fortunately highlighted a national menace, which the country as a whole has so far tried to brush under the carpet. This is an organised crime and a major threat to peace and harmony in the society. It is also a form of demographic aggression. But for the external financial support, these scoundrel gangs are getting, it is impossible to believe that any woman in her right senses would convert to a religion that denies even basic dignity and human rights to the fair sex. On October 28, a report from Saudi Arabia said, a female journalist was sentenced to 60 lashes for participating in a television show in which a man talked about sex. Another report, from Somalia on October 16 said that country’s Islamic group al Shabaab gave women 50 lashes in public for wearing bras, which according to them violates Islam. They rounded up all women seen with "firm busts and had them publicly whipped by masked men. The women were then asked to remove their bras and shake their breasts", according to a report in The Indian Express. In Pakistan and Afghanistan women are routinely rounded up and publicly beaten for being seen in the company of men other than their parents or husbands. These fanatics burn down schools for admitting girl children. On all this neither the state nor the society comes to the rescue of these besieged women. Because they follow the Islamic jurisprudence. To such a situation no women would willingly convert. It is here that the state has to step in to protect the hapless victims. Hindu religious organisations also have to keep a vigil so that these deceitful jehadis meet their Waterloo
The Commission for Social Harmony and Vigilance of the Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council, which is actively creating public opinion against the organised menace of Love Jehad, says that women so converted to Islam are being used by male Islamist terrorists for satisfying their carnal needs in their camps in inhospitable areas from where escape is impossible. Reports quoting senior police officials say that they can trace the presence of love jehadis but are unable to lay hands on them because of the political patronage they enjoy.
Reports emanating from various parts of the country confirm that the aim of luring vulnerable women from other religions with the offer of love and marriage is to convert them to Islam before using them as couriers, cooks and sex-slaves. This is no liberation theology, as they claim.
The matter hit headlines in recent months when parents of two missing girls approached the Kerala High Court with habeas corpus petitions. One of them is a Hindu and the other Christian. Soon reports about several such incidents popped in the media and police stations, political parties and community organisations came out with appeals to the public to be on the guard against the evil designs of the Islamic groups engaged in this activity. According to a report in The Pioneer, police officials probing the Love Jehad have estimated that as many as 940 women had gone missing in Kerala in the past five years in dubious circumstances. Love jehadis have converted more than 4,000 women in Kerala alone through love and marriage in the recent past, according to reports appearing in the local media. As a result, a concerned Kerala High Court ordered the State Director General of Police and the Union Home Department last month to file their reports on the matter after a thorough probe. Last week, the Kerala DGP Jacob Punnose filed a reply, which he later termed interim, in which he denied the presence of any organised campaign or outfit named Love Jehad. Experts termed his report politically dictated and funny because of its timing and contradictory observations. The Kerala ruling Left Front, facing three by-elections on November 7, tried to woo the fanatic Muslims by presenting such a reply in the Court. However, it backfired. The reply admitted that Muslim men had been trying to convert women to Islam through love marriages. Such Muslim youth could be getting external financial assistance for expensive clothes, motorbikes and money to attract girls, it said. The DGP’s reply further revealed that these young men could be getting legal assistance for staying out of dangers from police and public. Irked by the contradictions in the reply, the High Court ordered the DGP to file a fresh report.
In July, the Maharashtra assembly had ordered a CID inquiry into organised women conversion by marriage after several MLAs raised the issue. The Kerala incidents have fortunately highlighted a national menace, which the country as a whole has so far tried to brush under the carpet. This is an organised crime and a major threat to peace and harmony in the society. It is also a form of demographic aggression. But for the external financial support, these scoundrel gangs are getting, it is impossible to believe that any woman in her right senses would convert to a religion that denies even basic dignity and human rights to the fair sex. On October 28, a report from Saudi Arabia said, a female journalist was sentenced to 60 lashes for participating in a television show in which a man talked about sex. Another report, from Somalia on October 16 said that country’s Islamic group al Shabaab gave women 50 lashes in public for wearing bras, which according to them violates Islam. They rounded up all women seen with "firm busts and had them publicly whipped by masked men. The women were then asked to remove their bras and shake their breasts", according to a report in The Indian Express. In Pakistan and Afghanistan women are routinely rounded up and publicly beaten for being seen in the company of men other than their parents or husbands. These fanatics burn down schools for admitting girl children. On all this neither the state nor the society comes to the rescue of these besieged women. Because they follow the Islamic jurisprudence. To such a situation no women would willingly convert. It is here that the state has to step in to protect the hapless victims. Hindu religious organisations also have to keep a vigil so that these deceitful jehadis meet their Waterloo
Monday, October 26, 2009
India's Leftist intellectuals are promoting Islamic terrorism
By Dr Babu Suseelan
In India, these intellectual mafia’s commitment for Hindu bashing has reached a new pinnacle with the national ascendance of Italian born Sonia as the leader of the Congress Party. The Congress Party’s snobbery and insensitivity to the Hindus has created a pseudo-secular culture whose leaders appear unwilling or unable to communicate with the majority Hindus. They are unable to communicate in the cultural language of the majority.
For centuries, Hindu society has been active in producing intellectuals, philosophers, psychologists, scientists, political theorists, artists, poets, spiritual leaders and life scientists. Islamic invasion, Christian colonialism, destruction of Sanskrit education and Marxist influence had a disastrous influence on the Hindu society. The social and psychological conditioning suffered by Hindus lead frequently to the erosion of cultural identity and the depersonalisation of individuals. It is, therefore, not surprising that the production of intellectuals dwindled. The repercussions of long period of Islamic oppression and colonisation, in the wake of social and cultural disintegration and the trauma suffered by Hindus as a whole, persist even today. Everybody seem to agree that Hindu civilisation is now facing a crisis. Entrenched forces from within and without have joined together to de-structure or destroy our thoughts, beliefs, practices and values.
Hinduism has never been a unified, monolithic movement and there has been a great deal of disagreement among Hindus as to how to protect themselves and their interests. There are several Hindu spiritual organisations, and cultural movements in different parts of India. Unfortunately politically, spiritual movements has not resulted in an over-reaching Hindu strategy in politics, in the media, in academics, and other areas of social-political life.
It is time for Hindus to join together, to discover its causes and to assume the responsibility of formulating a solution. It is time to rally our values, our self-esteem and fight for our moral ideals with full, righteous confidence. The intellectual group is one that manifests a collective capacity for dealing with the wide-ranging needs and problems in national life. Intellectuals of a nation are expected to maintain connections with the country’s past culture, present social, economic, and political groups and concerns itself with renewing and maintaining internal strengths. But this is not what we see today in India.
In India, the anti-Hindu mafia has become the "gatekeepers" of Indian minds. The anti-Hindu intellectual zombies have entrapped the members in a servitude and set in motion a malignant process by creating powerlessness in the majority communities. They join together with our enemies from within and without to demean and discredit the culture, and its perennial philosophy that sustains the social bonds for centuries. Our intellectual zombies are competing with our enemies to make Hindus more powerless and prevent them from acquiring skills and self-esteem to regain lost strength and acclaim. Indeed, the greatest threat to India and Hindus today is the political opportunism of the phony secular intellectuals who are inclined to promote Islamo fascism and dismissing or understating internal and external threats. If we ask our moral relativists, agnostics, secularists, liberals and media pundits-they will come up with sticky puddle of stale syrup of tolerance, love, global programmes, universalism, and co-existence with jihadi terrorists, Marxist murderers and crusaders. India’s intellectual zombies had become apologists for the Islamo fascists, Marxists and underground Maoists. They want to replace Hindu tradition, and its eclectic philosophy with the reductionist dogmas of Islam, Marxism and deconstruction. They have sold our nation for a price and joined with our adversaries and engage in "the socialisation of the anti-social, or acculturation of the anti-cultural, or the legitimisation of the subversive" under the influence of modernism. Intellectual discourse is corrupted by moral relativism, leftist cultural criticism and subversive modernism. By blurring the lines between good and evil, right and wrong, spirituality and fanaticism, these intellectual zombies have rendered our society more vulnerable to evil influences.
One of the tragic errors of India is that too many of its best minds believe as they did in the past-that the solution is to rely on more tolerance, inaction and passivity. They are neither humanist or nationalists. Their goal is to demolish Hindu values and to put barriers on Hindu spirituality and place as many obstacles as possible in the way of Hindutva. Their response against Islamic terrorism goes against the commonest of commonsense and only serve to protect anti-nationalists. They are significantly out of touch with reality. What we need most urgently is to recognise that our tolerant culture cannot exist without a philosophy of confrontation of intolerant ideas.
Our present state of cultural disintegration and political oppression is maintained and prolonged by intellectual zombies, posturing as intellectual leaders. India’s intellectual zombies are living in a fantasy world embracing "all religions are the same", and tolerance of intolerance is a positive virtue. They generally consist of frustrated, alienated and misguided intellectual zombies who serve as catalysts, inciting, and actualising the prevalent sentiment of Hindu hatred. They also endorse extra privileges for Muslims and provide a sort of moral justification for Hindu oppression. These modern intellectual zombies have succeeded in misdirecting the public and have extinguished the flame of protest, and they have no answer to halt the triumphant advance of brute jihadis and Marxist murderers. They have no answer to those voices demanding freedom from oppression, liberty from bogus secularism and reason from political idiosyncrasy.
Fumbled strategy
One of the greatest challenges facing our intellectuals today is objectively examining the roots of the present social-political-pathology and malady afflicting Hindu society and developing a strategy that will lead to a lasting solution of our predicament. The inability to grasp the roots of Islamic terrorism, coercive religious conversion and social disturbances is the result of moral relativism, agnosticism and non-judgmental attitude prominent in India’s liberal thought.
A political ideology directed by bogus secular political leaders whose purpose is to help and empower our enemies is deceptive. In India, these intellectual mafia’s commitment for Hindu bashing has reached a new pinnacle with the national ascendance of Italian born Sonia as the leader of the Congress Party. The Congress Party’s snobbery and insensitivity to the Hindus has created a pseudo-secular culture whose leaders appear unwilling or unable to communicate with the majority Hindus. They are unable to communicate in the cultural language of the majority.
How should Hindus revitalise its strategy? Hindus must better educate and explain the Islamic threat to the general audience. Education at all levels should indicate Hindus in the history, philosophy, mechanics, virtues, responsibilities, and achievements of Hindus. Tolerance and diversity need not mean acceptance of oppression and tyranny. India’s intellectual zombies offer misbegotten solutions, ignore inconvenient facts and hide behind Islamic mafia and promote meaningless universalism. The universal pretensions cannot be used without addressing the proper scale of coercive religious conversion, psychological warfare by foreign agencies, subversive activities of anti-national groups and jihadi terrorism. Instead of putting the blame where it belongs, India’s intellectual zombies, when confronted with social-political problems, invent fantasies to keep the public in darkness. Real problems confronting India and Hindus are too scary for intellectual zombies to comprehend.
Identifying with your adversary without proper reflection is an exaggerated tendency toward grandiosity. It is an expression of narcissism, one of the deepest wellsprings of India’s liberal tendencies towards unreality. The self-defeating belief system, lead to unreality-to the feelings that somehow Muslims will become fair-minded and do justice. India’s intellectual zombies are in self-delusion that virtually gets in the way of reality, clouding their judgments on important matters leading to bad decisions. Unreality, self-delusion, and denial are the hallmarks of their disease and treatment. It is a treatment in that it promotes adjustment to harsh reality of Islamic violence and terrorism. This treatment of escapism, denial, and self-blame are worse than the disease. It is this collective disease of India’s intellectual zombies, the unhealthy side of reality that is badly in need of treatment.
This liberal unreality, denial, escapism, appeasement and irrational tolerance is narcotic. While each dose "cures" the pain of harsh reality or previous abuse, it further strengthen the disease. Escape from reality, and hiding behind a thick wall of denial, may provide India’s intellectual zombies a brief respite from cruel reality of Islamic atrocities and promote a false adjustment to the cruel world of Islamists. But it is not a true or effective cure for Islamic brutality, hostility and demand for extra privileges.
The most human quality we have is our ability to conceptualise, rationalise and act. As a nation, our greatest hope for improving ourselves and becoming better is to use our mind and capacity to think. It takes intellectual capacity to think and makes change for the better. Why, even after physical independence, Indians shape their reality, interpret or appraise events to please their long term oppressors and tormentors? Why intellectuals shape their thought to justify evil deeds of Muslims, Marxists and phony secularists? Why they downplay external threats or turn off unpleasant internal disturbances created by anti-national elements? It is strange that alienated intellectuals, leftist academicians and phony secularists develop an unconscious cravings and urges to feel good, to feel wonderful or to feel exalted delight in front of adversaries and tormentors. They restructure their thoughts and develop self-defeating behaviours to please their oppressors. They have limited intellectual competencies to handle conflicts and social problems created by Islamic fascists, subversive agents, and psychological warfare operatives. It is difficult for them to assertively handle social conflicts or to say "no" to social pressure to participate in self-destructive behaviours. They often lack the skills to question unhealthy and disastrous policies and activities of our enemies.
For any dangerous social or political challenge or problem situation, India’s intellectual zombies come up with automatic anti-Hindu thoughts including blame game. These automatic Hindu blame games that pop up quickly are not rational or evaluative in nature. This self-destructive behaviour of intellectual zombies is reinforced by few bread crumbs thrown at them, and few applauses by jihadis, subversive agents and the bogus secular crowd.
What is to be done?
The intellectual zombies that champions the adversary culture now dominate the cultural establishments-the publishing houses, media, museums, book publications, government public relations, television, theatre, the cinema, the academia, and the national educational institutions. They promote cultural-moral relativism and mindless universalism. This "relativism of truth and values" has corrupted the moral character of India. India’s phony intellectuals and bogus secular politicians are not attuned to the values of freedom, equality, individual rights, spiritual culture, peace, progress and justice. These alienated, self-serving intellectuals are no longer committed to liberty, fairness, equal opportunity, openness and prosperity. They are busy promoting freedom for Islamic tyrants, strengthening conversion gangs and assisting subversive groups. Silencing of the Hindus and the suppression of all inclusive, tolerant, and uplifting Hindu ideas is their pastime.
Hindu organisations should identify Hindu intellectuals and channel resources toward formulating and promoting Hindu vision of public policy. Hindu intellectuals should penetrate community intellectual institutions such as journals, theatre companies, study groups, book publishers, electronic media and music clubs. Vital intellectual institutions should be established to create a culture that thinks critically and discuss ideas and philosophies that shape government policies, education and social policy.
Pseudo secular forces have joined with our enemies to restrict the terms of public debate. Hindu intellectuals should address specific issues and concerns that cut across Hindu communities around the globe. In the public sphere, the culture and values of the pluralistic, all inclusive Hindu values should help fashion public policies and political goals.
Only Hindu philosophy points to theoretical systems that yield needed understanding of human beings and their psycho-social-cultural environments. In order to survive in this world of communication, political realities, information warfare, media manipulation and psychological warfare operations, Hindus need to design an action agenda for turning Hindutva into proactive realities in the public field.
In India, these intellectual mafia’s commitment for Hindu bashing has reached a new pinnacle with the national ascendance of Italian born Sonia as the leader of the Congress Party. The Congress Party’s snobbery and insensitivity to the Hindus has created a pseudo-secular culture whose leaders appear unwilling or unable to communicate with the majority Hindus. They are unable to communicate in the cultural language of the majority.
For centuries, Hindu society has been active in producing intellectuals, philosophers, psychologists, scientists, political theorists, artists, poets, spiritual leaders and life scientists. Islamic invasion, Christian colonialism, destruction of Sanskrit education and Marxist influence had a disastrous influence on the Hindu society. The social and psychological conditioning suffered by Hindus lead frequently to the erosion of cultural identity and the depersonalisation of individuals. It is, therefore, not surprising that the production of intellectuals dwindled. The repercussions of long period of Islamic oppression and colonisation, in the wake of social and cultural disintegration and the trauma suffered by Hindus as a whole, persist even today. Everybody seem to agree that Hindu civilisation is now facing a crisis. Entrenched forces from within and without have joined together to de-structure or destroy our thoughts, beliefs, practices and values.
Hinduism has never been a unified, monolithic movement and there has been a great deal of disagreement among Hindus as to how to protect themselves and their interests. There are several Hindu spiritual organisations, and cultural movements in different parts of India. Unfortunately politically, spiritual movements has not resulted in an over-reaching Hindu strategy in politics, in the media, in academics, and other areas of social-political life.
It is time for Hindus to join together, to discover its causes and to assume the responsibility of formulating a solution. It is time to rally our values, our self-esteem and fight for our moral ideals with full, righteous confidence. The intellectual group is one that manifests a collective capacity for dealing with the wide-ranging needs and problems in national life. Intellectuals of a nation are expected to maintain connections with the country’s past culture, present social, economic, and political groups and concerns itself with renewing and maintaining internal strengths. But this is not what we see today in India.
In India, the anti-Hindu mafia has become the "gatekeepers" of Indian minds. The anti-Hindu intellectual zombies have entrapped the members in a servitude and set in motion a malignant process by creating powerlessness in the majority communities. They join together with our enemies from within and without to demean and discredit the culture, and its perennial philosophy that sustains the social bonds for centuries. Our intellectual zombies are competing with our enemies to make Hindus more powerless and prevent them from acquiring skills and self-esteem to regain lost strength and acclaim. Indeed, the greatest threat to India and Hindus today is the political opportunism of the phony secular intellectuals who are inclined to promote Islamo fascism and dismissing or understating internal and external threats. If we ask our moral relativists, agnostics, secularists, liberals and media pundits-they will come up with sticky puddle of stale syrup of tolerance, love, global programmes, universalism, and co-existence with jihadi terrorists, Marxist murderers and crusaders. India’s intellectual zombies had become apologists for the Islamo fascists, Marxists and underground Maoists. They want to replace Hindu tradition, and its eclectic philosophy with the reductionist dogmas of Islam, Marxism and deconstruction. They have sold our nation for a price and joined with our adversaries and engage in "the socialisation of the anti-social, or acculturation of the anti-cultural, or the legitimisation of the subversive" under the influence of modernism. Intellectual discourse is corrupted by moral relativism, leftist cultural criticism and subversive modernism. By blurring the lines between good and evil, right and wrong, spirituality and fanaticism, these intellectual zombies have rendered our society more vulnerable to evil influences.
One of the tragic errors of India is that too many of its best minds believe as they did in the past-that the solution is to rely on more tolerance, inaction and passivity. They are neither humanist or nationalists. Their goal is to demolish Hindu values and to put barriers on Hindu spirituality and place as many obstacles as possible in the way of Hindutva. Their response against Islamic terrorism goes against the commonest of commonsense and only serve to protect anti-nationalists. They are significantly out of touch with reality. What we need most urgently is to recognise that our tolerant culture cannot exist without a philosophy of confrontation of intolerant ideas.
Our present state of cultural disintegration and political oppression is maintained and prolonged by intellectual zombies, posturing as intellectual leaders. India’s intellectual zombies are living in a fantasy world embracing "all religions are the same", and tolerance of intolerance is a positive virtue. They generally consist of frustrated, alienated and misguided intellectual zombies who serve as catalysts, inciting, and actualising the prevalent sentiment of Hindu hatred. They also endorse extra privileges for Muslims and provide a sort of moral justification for Hindu oppression. These modern intellectual zombies have succeeded in misdirecting the public and have extinguished the flame of protest, and they have no answer to halt the triumphant advance of brute jihadis and Marxist murderers. They have no answer to those voices demanding freedom from oppression, liberty from bogus secularism and reason from political idiosyncrasy.
Fumbled strategy
One of the greatest challenges facing our intellectuals today is objectively examining the roots of the present social-political-pathology and malady afflicting Hindu society and developing a strategy that will lead to a lasting solution of our predicament. The inability to grasp the roots of Islamic terrorism, coercive religious conversion and social disturbances is the result of moral relativism, agnosticism and non-judgmental attitude prominent in India’s liberal thought.
A political ideology directed by bogus secular political leaders whose purpose is to help and empower our enemies is deceptive. In India, these intellectual mafia’s commitment for Hindu bashing has reached a new pinnacle with the national ascendance of Italian born Sonia as the leader of the Congress Party. The Congress Party’s snobbery and insensitivity to the Hindus has created a pseudo-secular culture whose leaders appear unwilling or unable to communicate with the majority Hindus. They are unable to communicate in the cultural language of the majority.
How should Hindus revitalise its strategy? Hindus must better educate and explain the Islamic threat to the general audience. Education at all levels should indicate Hindus in the history, philosophy, mechanics, virtues, responsibilities, and achievements of Hindus. Tolerance and diversity need not mean acceptance of oppression and tyranny. India’s intellectual zombies offer misbegotten solutions, ignore inconvenient facts and hide behind Islamic mafia and promote meaningless universalism. The universal pretensions cannot be used without addressing the proper scale of coercive religious conversion, psychological warfare by foreign agencies, subversive activities of anti-national groups and jihadi terrorism. Instead of putting the blame where it belongs, India’s intellectual zombies, when confronted with social-political problems, invent fantasies to keep the public in darkness. Real problems confronting India and Hindus are too scary for intellectual zombies to comprehend.
Identifying with your adversary without proper reflection is an exaggerated tendency toward grandiosity. It is an expression of narcissism, one of the deepest wellsprings of India’s liberal tendencies towards unreality. The self-defeating belief system, lead to unreality-to the feelings that somehow Muslims will become fair-minded and do justice. India’s intellectual zombies are in self-delusion that virtually gets in the way of reality, clouding their judgments on important matters leading to bad decisions. Unreality, self-delusion, and denial are the hallmarks of their disease and treatment. It is a treatment in that it promotes adjustment to harsh reality of Islamic violence and terrorism. This treatment of escapism, denial, and self-blame are worse than the disease. It is this collective disease of India’s intellectual zombies, the unhealthy side of reality that is badly in need of treatment.
This liberal unreality, denial, escapism, appeasement and irrational tolerance is narcotic. While each dose "cures" the pain of harsh reality or previous abuse, it further strengthen the disease. Escape from reality, and hiding behind a thick wall of denial, may provide India’s intellectual zombies a brief respite from cruel reality of Islamic atrocities and promote a false adjustment to the cruel world of Islamists. But it is not a true or effective cure for Islamic brutality, hostility and demand for extra privileges.
The most human quality we have is our ability to conceptualise, rationalise and act. As a nation, our greatest hope for improving ourselves and becoming better is to use our mind and capacity to think. It takes intellectual capacity to think and makes change for the better. Why, even after physical independence, Indians shape their reality, interpret or appraise events to please their long term oppressors and tormentors? Why intellectuals shape their thought to justify evil deeds of Muslims, Marxists and phony secularists? Why they downplay external threats or turn off unpleasant internal disturbances created by anti-national elements? It is strange that alienated intellectuals, leftist academicians and phony secularists develop an unconscious cravings and urges to feel good, to feel wonderful or to feel exalted delight in front of adversaries and tormentors. They restructure their thoughts and develop self-defeating behaviours to please their oppressors. They have limited intellectual competencies to handle conflicts and social problems created by Islamic fascists, subversive agents, and psychological warfare operatives. It is difficult for them to assertively handle social conflicts or to say "no" to social pressure to participate in self-destructive behaviours. They often lack the skills to question unhealthy and disastrous policies and activities of our enemies.
For any dangerous social or political challenge or problem situation, India’s intellectual zombies come up with automatic anti-Hindu thoughts including blame game. These automatic Hindu blame games that pop up quickly are not rational or evaluative in nature. This self-destructive behaviour of intellectual zombies is reinforced by few bread crumbs thrown at them, and few applauses by jihadis, subversive agents and the bogus secular crowd.
What is to be done?
The intellectual zombies that champions the adversary culture now dominate the cultural establishments-the publishing houses, media, museums, book publications, government public relations, television, theatre, the cinema, the academia, and the national educational institutions. They promote cultural-moral relativism and mindless universalism. This "relativism of truth and values" has corrupted the moral character of India. India’s phony intellectuals and bogus secular politicians are not attuned to the values of freedom, equality, individual rights, spiritual culture, peace, progress and justice. These alienated, self-serving intellectuals are no longer committed to liberty, fairness, equal opportunity, openness and prosperity. They are busy promoting freedom for Islamic tyrants, strengthening conversion gangs and assisting subversive groups. Silencing of the Hindus and the suppression of all inclusive, tolerant, and uplifting Hindu ideas is their pastime.
Hindu organisations should identify Hindu intellectuals and channel resources toward formulating and promoting Hindu vision of public policy. Hindu intellectuals should penetrate community intellectual institutions such as journals, theatre companies, study groups, book publishers, electronic media and music clubs. Vital intellectual institutions should be established to create a culture that thinks critically and discuss ideas and philosophies that shape government policies, education and social policy.
Pseudo secular forces have joined with our enemies to restrict the terms of public debate. Hindu intellectuals should address specific issues and concerns that cut across Hindu communities around the globe. In the public sphere, the culture and values of the pluralistic, all inclusive Hindu values should help fashion public policies and political goals.
Only Hindu philosophy points to theoretical systems that yield needed understanding of human beings and their psycho-social-cultural environments. In order to survive in this world of communication, political realities, information warfare, media manipulation and psychological warfare operations, Hindus need to design an action agenda for turning Hindutva into proactive realities in the public field.
Imperialist China flexing its muscles
By Dr Jay Dubashi
China is now doing or will soon be doing what the western nations did in the sixteenth century when they descended on the East in the name of commerce. Let us have no illusions about China. She may be an eastern country but she is no friend of easterners. She is like any other country in the world and will take the same direction as others did when they acquired power.
Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, known generally as HSBC, and one of the biggest banks operating in the East, has decided to move its chief executive from London to Hong Kong. The move to Hong Kong, where the bank was founded in 1865, is to take account of the "shift in the world’s centre of economic gravity from West to East," according to an announcement.
The Chinese, a shrewd lot, are interpreting this as a signal that they are once again the centre of the world, which they may not be right now but will certainly be twenty or thirty years from now, when it will be China, not America, that will call the shots.
China is already calling the shots. On the Ist of October, it held a grand parade in Beijing to mark it birthday on which day Chairman Mao had declared from Tiananmen Square that China had "stood up". Now China is not only standing tall but marching economically, politically and socially, throwing its weight around as nations are apt to do when they grow powerful and start looking at the world with different eyes.
China is now doing or will soon be doing what the western nations did in the sixteenth century when they descended on the East in the name of commerce. Let us have no illusions about China. She may be an eastern country but she is no friend of easterners. She is like any other country in the world and will take the same direction as others did when they acquired power.
We have to be realistic about China. She will behave in the same fashion as Britain did between 1600 and 1800, when she created an empire out of virtually nothing. China will go the same way because that is what power does to you. Power, which means economic and political power, is like a strong drink: it grows on you. You may talk about democracy and Marx, but that is only talk. The Christians who came to India in the wake of European conquerors also talked about Christ and the Bible. Ultimately, they wound up helping the ruler enslave us, talking of the Bible and Macaulay all the time.
Those who argue that recent so-called cartographic aggression in the Himalayas and visas on plain paper are diplomatic aberrations are talking nonsense. Nobody goes into his neighbour’s house and say that he is there because it is his house. The Chinese have a long history of such acts. They have annexed Tibet, which is no part of theirs, and also Xinjiang, which also does not belong to them. Men like Nehru acquiesced in their annexation of Tibet because they were foolish men. And the Chinese treated them as foolish people are treated everywhere. They will do so again, because, it is in their blood, and also because power does that to you. Remember, China will soon be the most powerful country this side of Suez.
The Chinese are not a tolerant or peaceful people. They have never been so in history. When they were down, as they were when the westerners had them beaten, they kept their heads down. As soon as they "stood up", they reverted to form. Mao was one of the cruellest men in recent history, on par with monsters like Hitler and Stalin. He was responsible for the worst kind of atrocities in the name of the various bogus revolutions which he put through. Their main aim was to instil fear in the masses, for such monsters rule through fear. Hitler and Stalin did the same. Between Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin, they are supposed to have murdered 30 to 40 million people, roughly half and half. Mao’s successors will do it again if they get the opportunity.
You don’t go about killing your own people if you are peaceful and tolerant. And if that’s the way they treat their own people, just imagine how they will treat those they consider their enemies. Mao, Hitler and Stalin are among the biggest killers in history, but real history is yet to come.
The Chinese are scouring the world for industrial commodities, including crude oil, iron ore and other minerals, and, even land. They are purchasing or taking on lease large swathes of land in Africa-millions of acres-where they will have their own men growing crops, which they badly want.
Soon you will find large chunks of Africa swallowed up by the Chinese in the name of commerce, just as the East India Company did in the 17th and 18th centuries. And no African ruler will be able to dislodge them once they are in place, because the real rulers will be the Chinese.
Africa is already in a way a Chinese colony. The African rulers are already eating out of Chinese hands, whether they are Angola, Mozambique or Congo. The Chinese are investing heavily in these countries and will one day take them over, just as the British did. Imperialism knows no colour or nationality only money-and power. Ten, twenty years from now, the US dollar will be replaced by the yuan, which in any case is stronger than the dollar. And when the dollar goes, the United States will go too.
As I said, let us have no illusions about Beijing or, for that matter, about any would-be aggressor. The men who sit in our foreign ministry or the national security department are fools. The Chinese fooled even Nehru-that is not a great achievement. They-that is, the Chinese-will make mincemeat of these pipsqueaks from the South Block, who are so busy with their twitters, they probably won’t recognise a Chinese coming over the Himalayan passes when they see one!
Will the Americans help us, as many people hope? No, they won’t. Barack Obama is just like an Indian. He is a master of pretty phrases but not of action. His entire programme, from fighting terrorism in Afghanistan to setting up an elaborate health scheme, is on the verge of collapse. His own Senators are not helping him and the Republicans are out for his blood. The American people as a whole are not sure about him because they do not know who he is. The poor man is going through a crisis of confidence, the same kind Richard Nixon went through before he was ousted. If Barack Obama fails in Afghanistan, as his predecessor failed in Vietnam, there will be dancing in Beijing.
India is facing nothing short of an existential crisis, and soon, unless we act promptly and wisely, we shall soon have our backs to the wall.
China is now doing or will soon be doing what the western nations did in the sixteenth century when they descended on the East in the name of commerce. Let us have no illusions about China. She may be an eastern country but she is no friend of easterners. She is like any other country in the world and will take the same direction as others did when they acquired power.
Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, known generally as HSBC, and one of the biggest banks operating in the East, has decided to move its chief executive from London to Hong Kong. The move to Hong Kong, where the bank was founded in 1865, is to take account of the "shift in the world’s centre of economic gravity from West to East," according to an announcement.
The Chinese, a shrewd lot, are interpreting this as a signal that they are once again the centre of the world, which they may not be right now but will certainly be twenty or thirty years from now, when it will be China, not America, that will call the shots.
China is already calling the shots. On the Ist of October, it held a grand parade in Beijing to mark it birthday on which day Chairman Mao had declared from Tiananmen Square that China had "stood up". Now China is not only standing tall but marching economically, politically and socially, throwing its weight around as nations are apt to do when they grow powerful and start looking at the world with different eyes.
China is now doing or will soon be doing what the western nations did in the sixteenth century when they descended on the East in the name of commerce. Let us have no illusions about China. She may be an eastern country but she is no friend of easterners. She is like any other country in the world and will take the same direction as others did when they acquired power.
We have to be realistic about China. She will behave in the same fashion as Britain did between 1600 and 1800, when she created an empire out of virtually nothing. China will go the same way because that is what power does to you. Power, which means economic and political power, is like a strong drink: it grows on you. You may talk about democracy and Marx, but that is only talk. The Christians who came to India in the wake of European conquerors also talked about Christ and the Bible. Ultimately, they wound up helping the ruler enslave us, talking of the Bible and Macaulay all the time.
Those who argue that recent so-called cartographic aggression in the Himalayas and visas on plain paper are diplomatic aberrations are talking nonsense. Nobody goes into his neighbour’s house and say that he is there because it is his house. The Chinese have a long history of such acts. They have annexed Tibet, which is no part of theirs, and also Xinjiang, which also does not belong to them. Men like Nehru acquiesced in their annexation of Tibet because they were foolish men. And the Chinese treated them as foolish people are treated everywhere. They will do so again, because, it is in their blood, and also because power does that to you. Remember, China will soon be the most powerful country this side of Suez.
The Chinese are not a tolerant or peaceful people. They have never been so in history. When they were down, as they were when the westerners had them beaten, they kept their heads down. As soon as they "stood up", they reverted to form. Mao was one of the cruellest men in recent history, on par with monsters like Hitler and Stalin. He was responsible for the worst kind of atrocities in the name of the various bogus revolutions which he put through. Their main aim was to instil fear in the masses, for such monsters rule through fear. Hitler and Stalin did the same. Between Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin, they are supposed to have murdered 30 to 40 million people, roughly half and half. Mao’s successors will do it again if they get the opportunity.
You don’t go about killing your own people if you are peaceful and tolerant. And if that’s the way they treat their own people, just imagine how they will treat those they consider their enemies. Mao, Hitler and Stalin are among the biggest killers in history, but real history is yet to come.
The Chinese are scouring the world for industrial commodities, including crude oil, iron ore and other minerals, and, even land. They are purchasing or taking on lease large swathes of land in Africa-millions of acres-where they will have their own men growing crops, which they badly want.
Soon you will find large chunks of Africa swallowed up by the Chinese in the name of commerce, just as the East India Company did in the 17th and 18th centuries. And no African ruler will be able to dislodge them once they are in place, because the real rulers will be the Chinese.
Africa is already in a way a Chinese colony. The African rulers are already eating out of Chinese hands, whether they are Angola, Mozambique or Congo. The Chinese are investing heavily in these countries and will one day take them over, just as the British did. Imperialism knows no colour or nationality only money-and power. Ten, twenty years from now, the US dollar will be replaced by the yuan, which in any case is stronger than the dollar. And when the dollar goes, the United States will go too.
As I said, let us have no illusions about Beijing or, for that matter, about any would-be aggressor. The men who sit in our foreign ministry or the national security department are fools. The Chinese fooled even Nehru-that is not a great achievement. They-that is, the Chinese-will make mincemeat of these pipsqueaks from the South Block, who are so busy with their twitters, they probably won’t recognise a Chinese coming over the Himalayan passes when they see one!
Will the Americans help us, as many people hope? No, they won’t. Barack Obama is just like an Indian. He is a master of pretty phrases but not of action. His entire programme, from fighting terrorism in Afghanistan to setting up an elaborate health scheme, is on the verge of collapse. His own Senators are not helping him and the Republicans are out for his blood. The American people as a whole are not sure about him because they do not know who he is. The poor man is going through a crisis of confidence, the same kind Richard Nixon went through before he was ousted. If Barack Obama fails in Afghanistan, as his predecessor failed in Vietnam, there will be dancing in Beijing.
India is facing nothing short of an existential crisis, and soon, unless we act promptly and wisely, we shall soon have our backs to the wall.
China working on Maoist-SIMI nexus in South India?
From Arun Lakshman in Thiruvananthapuram
Sources in the intelligence agency told this reporter that the Chinese interpreters in the Indian intelligence establishment have already got vital evidences that make it quite apparent that the Chinese have already prepared a blueprint for the operation in South India and would in the immediate future create several human interest think tanks in South India for garnering support from the intellectual community and to take the state’s intelligentsia as a major propaganda machinery for its sinister operations.
The Indian intelligence agencies are on the trail of a sinister plan of Chinese for integrating the operations of the Maoist groups with the banned Islamist organisation SIMI. A top official of the Intelligence Bureau while speaking to this reporter said that a meeting between some middle-level leaders of the two organisations was held in Bengaluru recently at the behest of a foreign intelligence agent and a Kerala-based former Naxalite leader is given the charge of the operation in South India.
The former SIMI chief Safdar Nagori during his interrogation has revealed to the Madhya Pradesh Police that his organisation has floated a 200-member suicide squad of which 40 are from Kerala.
The Chinese intelligence, it is learnt, is bent on creating an Islamist-Maoist nexus in South India, which, according to the experts, could prove to be a major force to destabilise the law and order situation in South India. The intelligence official also informed that the Chinese organisations have not yet come to the forefront but are pulling the strings using certain elements of the Pakistani intelligence as a camouflage. However sources in the agency told this reporter that the Chinese interpreters in the Indian intelligence establishment have already got vital evidences that make it quite apparent that the Chinese have already prepared a blueprint for the operation in South India and would in the immediate future create several human interest think tanks in South India for garnering support from the intellectual community and to take the state’s intelligentsia as a major propaganda machinery for its sinister operations.
It may be recalled that the CPI-M of Kerala, which has been the political party that attracted the left intellectuals, is now in the grip of a fierce factional war and several intellectuals have been shown the door by the official faction of the party because of their solidarity with the Chief Minister Achuthanandan, who is now functioning in the party without proper wings.
These elements, according to the experts in the intelligence agencies, have already been roped in by the Maoist and other dalit movements to set up their base among the intellectual community of the state.
The state police have already cracked the case relating to the brutal killing of a middle-aged person while he was on a morning walk and have found a dalit outfit-Dalit Human Rights Forum-behind the murder. After a close observation, it was established that the organisation formed less than two years ago in Aluva has gained momentum in several dalit hamlets in Kerala and that it is flush with funds. A top official of the Intelligence Bureau, who is in the state in connection with the probe on this organisation, told this reporter that they are ascertaining the role played by the external intelligence agencies in creating such an outfit.
The Intelligence Bureau, in its report presented before the Union Home Minister and the National Security Advisor a few weeks ago, has said that the situation in Kerala has gone out of control and that more and more youth are getting involved in terror operations with unabated support from certain mainstream political parties. The report also pointed out that there is a large presence of terror-trained youths in the coastal districts of Kerala and that the state police is not acting properly to the extent they should have acted. The Intelligence Bureau has made its probe deeper into Kerala following the death of four Islamic terrorists in Kashmir, who were all from Kerala
Sources in the intelligence agency told this reporter that the Chinese interpreters in the Indian intelligence establishment have already got vital evidences that make it quite apparent that the Chinese have already prepared a blueprint for the operation in South India and would in the immediate future create several human interest think tanks in South India for garnering support from the intellectual community and to take the state’s intelligentsia as a major propaganda machinery for its sinister operations.
The Indian intelligence agencies are on the trail of a sinister plan of Chinese for integrating the operations of the Maoist groups with the banned Islamist organisation SIMI. A top official of the Intelligence Bureau while speaking to this reporter said that a meeting between some middle-level leaders of the two organisations was held in Bengaluru recently at the behest of a foreign intelligence agent and a Kerala-based former Naxalite leader is given the charge of the operation in South India.
The former SIMI chief Safdar Nagori during his interrogation has revealed to the Madhya Pradesh Police that his organisation has floated a 200-member suicide squad of which 40 are from Kerala.
The Chinese intelligence, it is learnt, is bent on creating an Islamist-Maoist nexus in South India, which, according to the experts, could prove to be a major force to destabilise the law and order situation in South India. The intelligence official also informed that the Chinese organisations have not yet come to the forefront but are pulling the strings using certain elements of the Pakistani intelligence as a camouflage. However sources in the agency told this reporter that the Chinese interpreters in the Indian intelligence establishment have already got vital evidences that make it quite apparent that the Chinese have already prepared a blueprint for the operation in South India and would in the immediate future create several human interest think tanks in South India for garnering support from the intellectual community and to take the state’s intelligentsia as a major propaganda machinery for its sinister operations.
It may be recalled that the CPI-M of Kerala, which has been the political party that attracted the left intellectuals, is now in the grip of a fierce factional war and several intellectuals have been shown the door by the official faction of the party because of their solidarity with the Chief Minister Achuthanandan, who is now functioning in the party without proper wings.
These elements, according to the experts in the intelligence agencies, have already been roped in by the Maoist and other dalit movements to set up their base among the intellectual community of the state.
The state police have already cracked the case relating to the brutal killing of a middle-aged person while he was on a morning walk and have found a dalit outfit-Dalit Human Rights Forum-behind the murder. After a close observation, it was established that the organisation formed less than two years ago in Aluva has gained momentum in several dalit hamlets in Kerala and that it is flush with funds. A top official of the Intelligence Bureau, who is in the state in connection with the probe on this organisation, told this reporter that they are ascertaining the role played by the external intelligence agencies in creating such an outfit.
The Intelligence Bureau, in its report presented before the Union Home Minister and the National Security Advisor a few weeks ago, has said that the situation in Kerala has gone out of control and that more and more youth are getting involved in terror operations with unabated support from certain mainstream political parties. The report also pointed out that there is a large presence of terror-trained youths in the coastal districts of Kerala and that the state police is not acting properly to the extent they should have acted. The Intelligence Bureau has made its probe deeper into Kerala following the death of four Islamic terrorists in Kashmir, who were all from Kerala
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)