Hinduphobia, Secularism & other Vices that afflict India

One should clearly know the history of Forty-second amendment act 1976 that made some series of changes to the constitution of India, to understand how an alien concept (Secular) has been systematically used to perpetuate Hinduphobia. Modern day politicians, at least since independence used this word without explaining to the masses the necessity to have it. 

The political liberty which we have got after enduring the slavery of 1200 years from alien occupiers is indeed a different paradigm that we should have approached with a practical outlook, instead Congress tried to straight jacket things through a regressive ideology called Socialism/Communism. Pt.Nehru in the AICC (All India Congress Committee) session that held in Avadi (Chennai, TamilNadu) in 1955 declared that Socialistic Pattern of society was the goal of Congress, hence the goal of India. 

Few years ago in an interview , Sadhguru Vasudev said that people who didn't have the courage to call themselves Communists defined themselves as Socialists. He also said that Karl Marx may have known much about Economics, but he knew nothing about Human being. Banditry became a philosophy in the name of communism. Probably one reason why socialists would not call themselves as Communists is because of the mindless violence that is normally associated with Communism. Millions of innocents perished due to Communism. In Russia alone more than 25 million people died, more than the combined death toll of World War II. Image from this link

Even if we have to disagree with Pt. Nehru on Socialism, he should be given credit for the wisdom he had; else the AICC session should have declared that “Socialist”, “Secular” is our goal. Because Pt.Nehru knew that Hindus who belonged to this ancient civilization are inherently secular and they never needed an alien import which is irrelevant to the Indian society. 

In the modern parlance, if a law has to be passed first its necessity has to be ascertained. It cannot be passed to further the agenda of a single political party or a leader. To the least, adherence to Constitutional morality is essential. The requirement shall arise as a demand from society or from a legitimate source. For eg: - ban on Cow Slaughter is a direction that constitution gives to the State, hence such laws may be passed and would stand the judicial scrutiny.

The question one has as to why Indira Gandhi when she had no Legitimate Political Authority would pass a Constitutional Amendment in a hurried manner? What was she trying to prove? If we have to take Congress party’s democratic credentials at its face value, then we shall go by what it has always preached to others i.e., democracy is incomplete if there is no opposition. Then the question is how a constitutional amendment be called a legitimate exercise of authority when the whole opposition was locked up in Jail during Emergency? Readers are encouraged to read - Tom Christiano's "Authority", from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to understand what is authority and its legitimacy. Image from Google.

Just like Article 25 of Indian Constitution is used aggressively by Abrahamic faiths for conversion activities through questionable means, the variety of Indian Secularism in its current form, is used to perpetuate Hinduphobia or bluntly Hindu hatred successfully. All groups that are engaged in this task have their individual goals to be met, but there is a consensus on the method that has to be applied, i.e., institutionalizing and legitimizing Hindu Hatred or Hinduphobia.

Hence in the popular political culture terms such as Secular Muslim vote, Secular Christian vote are accepted as correct. And any reference to Hindu vote is communal. There can never be a term called “Secular Hindu Vote”, it has to be “Communal Hindu Vote. Such ideas assisted some political parties to perpetuate their rule. The victim is indeed a poor Hindu.

One should know the actors that are systematically engaged in spreading Hinduphobia.

1.    Missionaries

2.    Islamists

3.    Communists

4.    Media

5.    Leaders of Dalit Politics

If you closely analyse the relationship between these actors in isolation, they are staunch opponents to each other; importantly the protagonists (Missionaries, Islamists and Communists) of the story, the rest just follow them mostly because of their ignorance or they are compromised.

Some Important Questions:

1.    How successful are the actors in spreading Hinduphobia, what are the gains so far?

2.    Did Hindus themselves take part in furthering Hinduphobia because of their rational ignorance?

3.    Is Hinduphobia affecting social cohesion?

4.    Are the self-proclaimed liberals and secularists winning the argument?

5.  Is it correct to assume that the compulsions of electoral politics forcing the mainstream political parties to turn a blind eye to the destabilizing effects of Hinduphobia?

If answer to each question listed above is a resounding yes, then we are definitely in for a serious trouble. It is incumbent up on every Hindu to work relentlessly and turn the situation around.

Explaining the objectives:

For Missionaries conversion is their main focus, through hook or crook. Their target group is Hindus. Their regular tricks would not work with Muslims as a social group, for the reaction will be too much for the missionary agents to bear. When it comes to Islamists their target is to increase the numbers mainly through unrestricted child bearing. Hence any talk on family planning shall be instantly termed as something against Secularism. No Democratic Country in the world has a separate civil code based on religion, if some one talks about Common Civil Code, then it is anti-Minority/anti-Secular even though Directive Principles of State Policy states it. The most dangerous of all the other actors are Communists; the technique employed by them is to build narratives of Hindu Hatred under the garb of discussing reason and rationalism through derogatory interpretations of Hindu Philosophy. 

As if aboriginal ideologue Karl Marx advised Communists that “Hinduism is Opium of Masses” not “Religion is Opium of all Masses”, Communists perform the ritual of spreading venom against Hindus at regular intervals. They do it by wearing a gloves of rationalists but wouldn't raise their finger against superstition in Christianity and Islam, because it is against their goal of spreading Hinduphobia.

The Christian Missionary Psyche is best explained by a letter Francis Xavier wrote to Jesus Society, Rome in 1543. Here is what he says about Hindus.

“… the great majority of their idols are as black as black can be, and moreover are generally so rubbed over with oil as to smell detestably, and seem to be as dirty as they are ugly and horrible to look at …  “ 

In Abrahamic faiths there is a Doctrinal sanction to abuse other faiths and ways of life.

In a lecture I have recently attended, the speaker quoting Professor Rummel said that more than one Billion people are killed mercilessly because of arguments such as “Your God is not better than mine” , “Your god is no god”, “There is only one god, that is my God”, “ Only those who believe in my God will go to heaven, others are packed to hell” , “believers are good, non-believers are bad” etc.,

But look at the fundamental philosophy of Hindu which says "Your God is good for your and my God is good for mine and we shall co-exist peacefully". Now who is bombarded with lectures on secularism? Who gets to lecture whom?

Since time immemorial, long before the west re-discovered Democracy, state apparatus and other things which they call modern, in India there was a perfect harmony between State and Religion. Both did not trample on each other’s foot. The sphere was clearly defined. Contrast this with the clash between Christianity and State power. Or for that matter how Islam is used a political tool to control and gag people since its origin. 

People could not bear the atrocities of Roman Catholic Church in the name of religion; hence they revolted against it to fight for their basic Human dignity and liberty. Often the ill-informed who is getting converted in India because of some allurements or indoctrination has no clue about the bloody history of the Abrahamic faiths. 

The very fact that the time frame in which people risen up against the organized church and won is called as “Age of Reason” is proof enough that Christianity had no reason then and no reason now.

After the ordeals a common man had to endure through two centuries of struggle between him and the church, there was compromise that from now on Church will mind its own business and it will not impose its writ on individuals and shall not interfere in their private affairs, either on its own or through state. Such a phenomenon understandably is called Secularism, separation of state and religion.

Such a demarcation was there in India since ages with the exception of King Ashoka the Great who embraced Buddhism as a state religion in addition to some minor skirmishes in South between Vaishnavas & Shaivaites. But Ashoka never killed a man because some one did not agree with Buddhism.

An individual always had the basic freedom to decide about his life subject to some community ethics. For example one can be an Atheist and still can call himself as Hindu. Such a liberty is not available in Abrahamic faiths. If you don’t believe Allah or Christ, you are either Kuffar or Pagan (simply heathens, a derogatory reference used to describe people who did not believe these gods of Middle East).

Such is the bloody history behind the origin of concept called Secularism in Europe. Hence, it was purely an alien and is definitely not necessary in India. All injustices are committed to an average Hindu in the name of this alien import called secularism. Swami Dayananda Saraswati would always say that Secularism means “State should stay aloof from all religions”. On the contrary it is used to appease certain religious sections because they represent a particular vote bank. 

Additionally in the name of Secularism Hinduphobia is legitimized to facilitate Missionaries of alien cultures to meet their sectarian goals. Hence sending Muslims on Hajj pilgrimage using the tax money paid by Hindu is Secularism and if a Hindu asks others to respect his cultural sensitivities and stop the cow slaughter is termed anti-Secularism and Communal. Hence Yoga becomes Communal because of its Hindu Origins and terrorism inspired by Islam should not be called as Islamic Terrorism.

The successful propagation of Hinduphobia in a land where Hindus live in majority defies logic. Can we imagine Islamophobia in a Muslim majority country? Impossible. But how Hinduphobia in a Hindu majority country is working? It is here the systematic coalition between Missionaries, Islamists & Communists works. The communists have successfully worked on Dalit fault lines to further divide the Hindu society. This is simply to prohibit a political mobilization of Hindus.

Be it current day Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan or some extreme north - western parts of China, significant amount of territory of Hindu civilization has been lost to alien cultures and ideologies because of the lack of social & political mobilization of Hindus.

To save what is left out is only possible through a two pronged approach one is legal and the other is social, the latter is more important. If Hindus become socially and politically vigilant and throw their artificial barriers/differences like caste, creed, language, regionalism etc., in the Indian Ocean that separate them at the moment and proclaim to the world that “I am Hindu, I belong to Bharathvarsha (i.e., India) “, that alone will solve 90% of the problems.

At the earliest the government should initiate a process to remove statutory and legal obfuscation that is used to legitimize Hinduphobia. Start with removing the word “Secular” from the preamble of the constitution. It was inserted without giving any regard to constitutional or legal morality, removing it only means restoring the respect to constitution. We should know that all that is western is not modern.

Interview with Prof. Harsh Pant on Afghanistan

Interview with Professor Harsh Pant, King’s College, London. Responded by him on Aug 3, 2015.

Question: How do you compare the situation that existed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent taking over of interim administration with that the one that exists now ie., after taking over of Ashraf Ghani as President of Afghanistan, especially in the context of India's engagement in Afghanistan and her (India) other dilemmas?

Prof. Pant: The immediate aftermath of 9/11 was very favorable to India, that's why India’s engagement reached new levels. Today, the situation is very different. The western forces are withdrawing and Pakistan and its proxies want to get back in control. India is being freezed out.

Question: After the aggregate investment of 2 Billion US dollars, why do you think India has not gone ahead with any big bang aid to Afghanistan ever since ?

Prof. Pant: Because the situation has been deteriorating to India's disadvantage. There is no point investing if India is unlikely to get any returns.

Question: Considering the fact that US is going to stay for some time to come in Afghanistan, is there any possibility that India would put boots on the ground in Afghanistan to secure its interests? Apparently with a tacit approval of US even if it is going to be at the displeasure of Pakistan?

Prof. Pant: None! There is no political appetite for it in Delhi. The Modi govt, on its own, would be willing to consider it but its political opponents would make it very difficult to support that. Unlike in other nations, in India even national security crises are used to scope petty political points.

Question: How do you think in your opinion, India's relations with Central Asian states and Iran has an effect (negative or positive) on India - Afghanistan relations?

Prof. Pant: Positive....the greater presence India has in Iran and central Asia, the greater its leverage will be in Afghanistan.....

Question: Is it correct to assume that India & Afghanistan in their mutual relations are making a considerable progress in de-hyphenating Pakistan, thereby making their bi-lateral relations truly independent of Pakistan in particular?

Prof. Pant: TO a certain extent, this is true....but Ghani is giving priority to sorting out internal turmoil and he seems to think that negotiating with the Taliban is the only way out....for that he needs Pakistani support....so Pakistan once again has an upper hand.....

Question: To how far this notion is true that the current Afghanistan administration is pro-Pakistan and Karzai administration was pro-India?

Prof. Pant: The current administration is not really pro-Pakistan but its assessment is that Pakistan is key to resolving the internal turmoil and so negotiations with Taliban can only proceed with Pakistani help.....Karzai administration too at times had a similar position but it was let down by Pakistan time and again and it used its ties with India as a leverage.....

Question: If Ghani administration is indeed pro-Pakistan in practice, should India worry ?

Prof. Pant: India should worry only if the Taliban get a predominant position in the political set up in Afghanistan.....with the death of mullah Omar and fracturing Taliban, it seems unlikely in the near term....

Congress Party & It's Impotent Leadership

The debate of what method must an affected party (Politically Speaking) should approach is as old as Indian National Freedom movement. While majority of congress party insisted on the method of petitioning and pleading to the oppressor (British) for a better deal without even realizing as to why British has colonized India in the first place, there was a significant section of Indian intelligentsia that contended with the top leadership of Congress that what they are doing is not only illogical but meaningless and argued for a support to some form of armed resistance. Such voices were not only sidelined but maligned as extremists or terrorists. That is why you have had Nehru writing to British Govt. referring to Netaji. Subash Chandra Bose as “Your War Criminal “.  And congress leadership i.e., Nehru & family hid their mediocrity under the garb of Moderates. This debate of Moderates v/s Extremists is very old in that sense. But what is more appalling is that congress as a political entity even after independence continued the same approach of petitioning and pleading with sworn enemies. This Political mendicancy is a symbol of impotent leadership which Congress party espouses. Hence, the non-action of congress government after 2008 terrorist attack was not a surprise to many, because pleading & petitioning is central to its obscurantist political thinking which it uses to cover up its impotent governance. 1971 Bangladesh liberation is indeed an exception.

It is only in this aspect the current day Modi govt. is different from Congress, for it does not believe in pleading & petitioning, that too when you are in a position of strength. Every political action warrants an equal amount of political reaction; at times such an action may be proactive. Hence, after a militant attack on Army in Manipur, the way Indian Army reacted and political will displayed by Modi as a head of Indian State is a departure from impotent leadership style of Congress.

It is fine if our armchair media commentators don’t want to give credit to Modi, as such an act of appreciating Modi would amount to moving away from their ideological position which they are not ready to do, even if it is considered as intellectual dishonesty. The impassioned argument of political parties, especially Congress is that the credit for this Hot Pursuit in Myanmar goes to Indian Army and not to Modi Govt. is certainly laughable. Are they ready to say that Indira Gandhi had no role in 1971 Bangladesh liberation, and the whole credit goes “ONLY” to Indian Army?

Dalit Leaders and their Hindu hatred.

Recently I have attended a seminar on late C. Iyothee Thass a Dalit Leader from Tamil Nadu, which was conducted by Dept. of Philosophy, University of Madras.  Iyothee Thass fought against caste oppression and was a leading light for Dalits. This event was attended by Dalit elites including Thirumavalavan, leader of a political party Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Party - VCK. The whole event was practically less about Iyothee Thass and more about Hindu bashing, more precisely bashing Brahmins. Their whole construct is that there is nobody else apart from caste Brahmins in Hindu society. And at a political level BJP & other Hindutva forces represent them. This is the premise of their hatred towards Hindu society.

Such hatred is certainly uncalled for in a society or a country where constitutionally speaking Scheduled Castes are given a great deal of reservation, and I am in no way claiming that reservation has helped them completely. I have personally said it many times; Hindu society has alienated few members (Dalits) of their own family in the name of imaginary birth based caste system. Caste Brahmins have twisted this system to their benefit. There are no two ways about it. Anyone who says that it is birth based should only listen to Sri DharmaPravartaka Acharya (or Dr. Frank Morales) for a detailed explanation.

It is painful to see the Dalit Leadership spewing venom in a non-stop manner against Hindus among Dalits. Next time when Dalit leaders open their mouth to abuse Hindus, they should know that some of the great voices against Caste system came from within Hindu society, for example: - Ramanujacharya and Dayananda Saraswati, both are great social reformers of their time who fought against caste system in Hindu society. The Dalit leaders conveniently ignore these truths. For they are worried that if these facts are brought to the fore, there will be little following for them which will be antithetical to their political fortunes.

It is important to know how anyone would get legitimacy among Dalit leadership. Unless if someone is ready to abuse Hindus, he/she is not considered as an authentic Voice speaking for Dalits. The only groups that would benefit from such hatred against Hindus are Islamists, Christian Missionaries and Communists. Their motives and political goals are well known. So to abuse Hindus is the only qualification to get recognized as an authentic Dalit voice.

In the post independent India, the lack of improvement in the conditions of Dalits is also to do with Political parties that were practising vote bank politics, foremost among them is Congress party, because they are already experts in creating Muslim vote bank and minority appeasement. Partition of this country is the result of Minority appeasement. Instead of such negative politics, the energies should be spent to show real empathy towards Dalits without any political motive. Hindu society has to go that extra mile to prove its credentials.

The present day Dalit leadership may be appropriately equated to the Hate Figure Jinnah. Both of them fooled their followers perpetually. While Jinnah divided this country in favor of Political Islam the Dalit leaders are planning to do it under different pretext.

Doing Dalit politics is not about spreading the ghetto mentality among Dalits and say that they are different and Hindus are their enemies. Instead genuine attempts should be made in facilitating their entry to join the mainstream, psychologically speaking.

Even though Ambedkar called Hindus as sick men of India, he still is considered as a genuine Dalit leader but not others who came after him. Look at the article 334 of Indian constitution and let’s ask ourselves as to why this provision had to be extended for every 10 years? This is enough to prove that the intentions of political parties, they are doing vote bank politics and don’t want Dalit emancipation to happen any time sooner. If given a guillotine Dalit leadership may exhort the indoctrinated Dalits to behead Hindus in mass scale, such is the hatred they are spreading.

What inhibits Dalits in joining the mainstream thinking is because Dalit leadership is not willing to assist Dalits in such a progressive transition as they would lose their vote banks. Like we have already discussed, this has come in handy for the anti-national & anti-social groups like Christian missionaries, Islamist groups and Communists. Though their interests diverge in many aspects but when it comes to their hatred towards Hindu society, there is no difference of opinion among them. Hence these groups prey on Dalit communities, while Christian missionaries convert these people at their will through inducements, the others continue with their brainwash. The Missionaries are telling the converted Dalits not to disclose that they have converted to Christianity to make sure there are no issues with the reservation benefits. This is the height of Bigotry that is practised without being noticed.

Under these circumstances the nationalist forces should work among Dalits and other progressive Dalit leaders, for the sake of Dalit Emancipation. That is the only way to isolate the false Dalit leaders and help improve the conditions of Dalits. 

Fake Gandhis

Why do parents name their kids after personalities who they think are great? I have rich experience on this subject. I’ll quote two examples. When I was at my grade 6 there was this guy whose name was Sashi Kumar whose father was a judge, this was in Cuddapah, Andhra Pradesh. Suddenly to my surprise one fine morning in school this guy told all his friends that from now on his name is Nelson Nehru. I asked him what the matter is. He replied that he has no idea, as suddenly his father has changed his name. Though I did not get it at that tender age, I could guess what motivated my friend’s father to suddenly change his name to Nelson Nehru, this could possibly be due to his new found love with Nehru & Nelson Mandela? That is an educated guess. 

Another experience was with a guy called Mohammed, he is from Tondiarpet, Chennai who has four male kids and the names of all end with Castro. One thing I know for sure is that his last son who was newly born I recall Mohammed naming him King’s Castro.  Then I asked him a rhetorical question, will it not lead to confusion? I.e., naming all kids with a similar name. He replied that it shows how much he loves Cuba’s Fidel Castro. This Mohammed was an electrician who was working for a daily wage of Rs.110. It is entirely a different matter whether those who were named after such personalities actually live up to the expectations of their parents.

One would wonder as to what would have forced Jawaharlal Nehru to name his daughter Indira as Indira Gandhi, because from then on Feroz Khan has become Feroz Gandhi and their son Rajiv Gandhi and so on. There could be two reasons. One reason could be Nehru would have wanted his kids to emulate the character of the personality (Gandhi, in this case) on whose name he named his daughter. Second possible reason could be that he wanted to appropriate the legacy of the person on whose credentials the whole congress organization stood and turn it in to a family run enterprise; current day congress is exactly that, family run enterprise.

Mahatma Gandhi was the only original Gandhi that Congress party ever had; everyone else is a fake Gandhi. Raul Vince will not become Mahatma Gandhi just because he goes by his another name called as Rahul Gandhi in public. To think otherwise is a great insult to the intelligence of an ordinary Indian citizen. So all that mellow dramas through orchestrated speeches will not change anything on the ground, you are what you are.

BJP’s Romance with Islamists

Imagine Hamas & Likud party of Israel entering in to a political alliance to govern Palestine. That is unthinkable even for a naive political observer. In a similar vein BJP’s alliance with an Islamist party of Kashmir valley is unsustainable. Who are Islamists anyway?  I would consider the old definition of Associated Press “Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi”, not all Islamists are necessarily extremists.

Islamists are experts in obscuring their intentions by routinely talking about Justice, Human rights and other lofty concepts. In principle they are no different than Islamic Extremists barring the usage of violence to meet their political ends. They often dupe the voters by religion and get themselves elected democratically so that the international community cannot call them undemocratic. Muslim Brotherhood is one such example, though it is a known Islamist organization no one thought that it would be so quick and adamant in implementing Islamist agenda. The point here is once Islamists have legitimate political authority they shall implement Islamist agenda through legal means. Somehow Mohammed Morsi of Egypt was removed as people did not approve his actions.

But the danger in Kashmir is due to the longing of Muslims to be ruled by Islamists. The victims of such desire are minorities or non-Muslims. What forced BJP which is otherwise ideologically in opposite pole to ally with an Islamist party PDP as a junior partner is not known because of the result of secret diplomacy through which BJP & PDP have reached an understanding in the run up to forming a government in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. We cannot settle with Common Minimum Program.

Releasing Islamist Masarat Alam from jail, Hoisting Pakistan Flag, objecting to the return of Kashmiri Pandit’s return to the valley are actions which prove that PDP is keeping to its schedule of implementing Islamist agenda. Re arrest of Masarat Alam on fresh charges is no relief. To assume that the issue has subsided because the prime time TV shows have stopped talking about it is tantamount to misunderstanding.

Things won’t change unless Muslims of the valley are willing to change. After all when Kashmir Pundits were slaughtered and driven out most of the killers or abettors were neighbors, so we need to appreciate the truth. BJP is in a fix. It is already reaping the results of entering in to an unholy alliance. The Common Minimum Program is no consolation and that will not stop the Islamists from what they want to do.

Though steps like abolishing Art:370 & implementing Uniform  Civil Code could keep Islamists at bay not only in Kashmir but in general, but if we have to think about implementing something immediately it is to initiate the discussion on re-drawing the assembly constituencies in the state of Jammu & Kashmir so that Jammu region is also at par with valley. It is unbecoming of BJP to claim that it has abolished the untouchability that prevailed so far where Nationalist parties like BJP could not rule Jammu & Kashmir. That should not be the motivation. We know there are some great thinking heads in the larger parivar who might have a Plan B. 

Responding to a Misleading Article - " Why Christianity failed in India ? "

My feeling after reading this:  Whoever wrote that piece appears to be under serious pressure of meeting monthly conversion targets.

Few facets of the arguments mentioned were deliberately given a spin to meet some perverted desires of the writer.  It would appear as if Missionaries are doing this job because they are trying to bring heavens on the earth by next month and this is being obstructed by Hindutva Groups.

I am not discussing on this entire article, but only on few segments.

1. Comparison of Hindu population in UK with that of the Christian population in India by %age is an attempt to fool the gullible reader. Are we comparing two countries one being India which has a billion plus population and UK which has a population of 64 Million? 2% of 64 million is not as same 2% of billion. The writer is well advised to take some statistics classes instead of hiding behind percentages.

2. Proselytizing as such is not the issue. But when you do it at an industrial scale by fooling uninformed but good hearted people by giving those crumbs and preaching them to abuse Hindu culture to prove the worthiness of Christianity is an issue. The whole North-East insurgency is directly linked to Christian-Missionary activities. Additionally the writer is well advised to read about the views of Ambedkar & Gandhi on Christian missionary activities.

3. On the question of whether Hinduism was also proselyted or not. It is not in the culture of a Hindus to slit the throats of people belonging to other cultures either because they have not converted or did not agree with Hinduism. The bloody history of Christianity is an open secret and is there for all of us to see. We have had Popes splitting the world in to two giving one part to Portuguese and the other to Spain as if they have inherited it from their grandfathers. Hindus believed in global commons. Long before the world knew who Jesus was we have had a thriving civilization in India which is still on.

4. On Hinduism's spread in South East Asia - People have voluntarily accepted Hinduism. Nobody was slaughtered to accept Hinduism.

5. The emergence of Buddhism only proves the Liberal qualities of Hinduism. For Hindus Buddha is another yogi, another rishi who attained salvation. There are hundreds of such accomplished yogis in Hindu culture. Hinduism is a religion of thousand prophets. Hindus have never felt the need to go around lying and giving money & other allurements to convert a poor guy in to Hinduism for the purposes of political control. Another advise for the writer is to know how Adi Shankara brought India from Buddhism to Hindu fold with out raising a finger, but through debates and arguments.

6. In post-colonial world Christianity is a tool to spread Imperialism. Its only business is Political Power. Hence it assists in the spread of imperialism in a benign way as the papacy believes that it cannot hold inquisitions or slaughter millions just like it did in USA for the purposes of conversion any more.

7. Hindutva is only a reaction to the murderous activities of missionaries, be it Christianity or Islam. It urges Hindus to organize politically so as to save themselves from the cheap tricks of Christian missionaries and Islamists.

Indians: Argumentative versus Opinionated

There are different categories of people in Indian society. These categories I am talking about have got nothing to do with categories or groups that fall under the head - sociological but it is purely psychological. Sociological/Social groups are for example caste groups, religious groups and others. At least arguments or debates with such groups will be blunt and clear as the one who argues with them knows in advance what their stand is on a specific subject, and the possibility of obfuscation is minimal or none.

I shall explain these groups/categories in terms which we can easily understand and relate.

Category 1: Those who say that India is a pathetic country. Every invader who came here for pillage & plunder has helped us improve from being a highly pathetic society to a less pathetic one. Let’s see some clichés which people use who fall under this category.

• Thank god, Greeks invaded and enslaved us. Because of which we have learnt logic. Otherwise we would have been stupid.

• You know, if Mughals did not invade us we would have never learnt how to make Chicken Tikka & Kebab. So I salute Mughals.

• Thanks to Brits, we now have post offices, Railways, bridges & high-rise buildings. Most importantly they taught us English along with morals and a great religion through missionaries. Otherwise we would have been a bunch of idiots worshipping rocks, monkeys and idols. Thanks to Lord, they have given us Jesus. 

Category 2: Those who say that India is a best country in the world, and there is nothing wrong here and they say India is shining. There will be no need for any clichés because for them nothing is wrong with our society. These people will normally will hold their allegiance to a political party. For example, when BJP is in power, if you speak to a hard core BJP supporter he will say that “India is shining” and there is nothing wrong with India because all is well. When Congress is in power if you talk to a hard core congress party supporter, he will say that India has become a super power and all other parties are communal, we are the only secular party in India etc.,

Category 3: Though I am tempted to call this category as neutral, rational and objective, but they are not completely rational. Because Humans will never be completely rational. There is nothing called as rationality, but bounded rationality, says Herbert Simon, Nobel Prize winning Economist. Read his paper here  to understand as to what is Bounded Rationality. So, though in a way people who fall in this category are relatively better than the two categories mentioned above, they are not completely neutral. Because they will have a soft corner to a particular party or ideology, even though they don’t agree with them completely. Let’s take my example I have a soft corner for BJP at the moment when compared to the positions of other parties on subjects like national security etc., I go along with BJP but not on everything, but still have a soft corner. If not on all the occasions most of the times discussions will be driven by facts rather than by unsubstantiated opinions & obscurantism. 

In this occasion I will be my own judge and say that I fall under this category3. Because for most of the opinions I rely on facts. If I say that both LTTE & Sri Lankan establishment are equally responsible for the sufferings of Tamils, I will cite at least few facts to support my argument, instead of making claims out of my hat. If a person who falls under the category1 have to speak on this issue, he will blame either Sri Lanka or LTTE as fully responsible with least regard to facts but not both. LTTE sympathizer might just say that Prabhakaran was a freedom fighter notwithstanding the atrocities for which he was responsible, and a Srilankan supporter would just dismiss him as a terrorist. Truth may be in between? So, I claim that I fall under category3. Jury is out.

In my opinion we’ll be tempted to debate with people who fall under category1, because we fall in to the trap as we feel that they are sane and at first impression appear to be category3, but actually you can reason it out with category2 not with category1.

Let’s me quote few types of people who fall under category1. Most of the people who have secured a good social status through reservation, yes I am talking about a group which was institutionally oppressed i.e., Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe group. For our discussion here I am referring only to those who fall under the definition of category1, not all.

The reason for undertaking this painful exercise to explain the categories is to explain and share my experience of a conversation I have had with a person who falls under category1. Yes, the type who says that we are better off today only because of British. What appalled me was his reluctance to accept facts contrary to his beliefs and passes judgment only based on his experience. I sympathize for the sufferings he might have undergone, but his personal suffering is not enough to pass a judgement on a whole society which is saner, civil and forward looking, at least on a relative basis.

Let me briefly explain the profile of the person with whom I have had such a conversation. He is a Professor and Head of the department in a reputed university and claims to be teaching for the past 30 years or more. He is about to retire say in a year. An SC/ST who reached where he is now partly because of the policy of reservation or quota system. He is bustling with his prejudice towards Caste Brahmins. Of course he claims to be a victim of caste Brahmin bigotry. Normally he does not take pride in anything good about in India, even on our achievements, past & present. Everything that has gone wrong with this country he sees it through the prism of Caste Brahmins oppressing SC/ST groups.

The conversation started with his prejudicial statements that in those days Brahmins would pour melted copper in the ears of Dalits if they dared to study or educate themselves. For a very long time I have tried to find an evidence on this claim as this was not the first time I have heard such a statement, but I could not find any convincing evidence so far. Even if we have to agree with that statement for a moment, is this what India all about?

Without answering that question directly, I brought up the issue regarding the documentary made by BBC on 2012 Delhi gang rape case and the innuendos suggested in that documentary. I told him that, while rapes are bad and it happens in India too but neither all men are rapists or ours is a society of rapists as suggested by that documentary and tried to convince him that his example was also something like that. And apprised him with facts that the incidence of rape is much higher in western countries when compared to India. As per the official figures, every 25 seconds one woman is sexually harassed in US and in every 6 minutes one woman is sexually harassed in UK, by that I don’t mean that we are better off. Even if it is going to be one rape, we are ashamed of it as a society. But that one rape does not define our identity.

I further added that I have completely agreed with him on the question of discrimination of Dalits primarily by caste Brahmins and conversation is sealed as we have no differences on this subject.

But he was not convinced and went on and said that it is only because of British we are here not otherwise. Then came his clichés which I have explained in the introduction about the people who fall under category will normally use, that he is thankful to British for railways and buildings etc.,

I replied that I disagree with him on this and argued that he should read and understand the theories of Brain and Economic drain. The whole budget of England was based on the resources looted from India, such was the amount of limitless resources she had. Not long ago during Vijayanagara Empire Rayala seema (plains of stones) in Andhra Pradesh was called as Rathanala Seema (plains of diamond). Every piece of visible wealth was taken away from here. In 2000 years of recorded history (read Madison project) India was an economic power house for 17 centuries in a straight contributing towards nearly 30 % of global GDP consistently, only as a result of systematic exploitation of British we came down to 1% at the start of 20^th century. Without British we could have been better off. Though the Chinese were colonized by the British the Chinese never say that they are grateful to their colonizers. Why is it in India we have people praise British for what they have done? The answer is we are psychologically still slaves and we need to break these chains of slavery.

By now he is completely lost his posture and shot back that in China there was no caste oppression. I was getting bored by now, as he clearly lacked intellectual depth in his argument and completely handicapped by his casual opinions which is the result of hearsay & anecdotal evidence.

I humbly retorted “Sire, do you know nearly 33 million innocent people were killed in China during the Cultural Revolution! Doesn't that count as oppression to you? He replied, “No that is different”.

I don’t want to elaborate here on every thing we have discussed but only few important ones. Few things he said about Christian missionaries and their assistance to us. He declared that we are stone worshippers and not wise people etc and Christian Missionaries have helped us. I replied that if a religion or ideology has to be evaluated and a judgement needs to be passed we need to consider its history. A woman was not even treated as human being but slave and how the church persecuted scientists is an open secret, some were burnt alive just because they went against church, and you should really have credentials to preach. But in India Science & religion complimented each other, they were never at war with. Ours is an advanced thought process, but we have our own pitfalls and we agree that. Hence we don’t go to Saudi Arabia or Europe and say that Islam & Christianity is non-sense, your gods are false gods, why don’t you accept ours? But every other murderous crook who came here from these countries told us exactly that.

Then came his sexist remark, women in Europe are white and beautiful and that is why they wanted to keep them as slaves and women here may not be that beautiful. That is what he implied. Already it has been two hours since the start of this conversation with him. Only after that sexist remark I have decided that I might be wasting my time and offered him for a full day discussion on another day so that I can prove him wrong. He was not ready for that, as he said that he does not have a full day. He is nearly 55 or 60 years old and a Head of a Department in a university, and his ego is badly hurt. In all these hours I have not heard one single sane argument. In addition to the arguments I have explained in this write-up I have quoted many other examples to prove my points, but not discussed here all of them for the sake of time and space.

I have told him that it is certainly true that caste Brahmins have discriminated Dalits, but that should not become the only reason for him to hate India and I also said that “I disagree with your theory that only because of alien invaders we are better off”.  After that we have said goodbye to each other, as the discussion was reaching nowhere.

In conclusion all I would like to say is, that it is tough to help people who fall under the Category1 to come out of their mental prisons in which they are living right now, but it is not entirely impossible, and we should not stop trying. I have had positive results in the past. Just that this time I was stuck with a rigid old bird. 

Protecting Cow is a Gandhian Ideal

On the other day I have been talking to a journalist on the subject of new law that has been passed in Maharashtra and has received a presidential assent, yes a law that bans cow slaughter. The journalist with whom I was talking to declared that the act to ban cow slaughter was illegal and it is taking away her fundamental rights. But then I pointed out to her that stopping cow slaughter is something that is enshrined in our constitution, i.e., in the section of Directive principles of state policy. For which her response was right to eat anything was her fundamental right that right trumps Directive principles of state policy. Though I have tried to convince her by arguing that there is something called as judicial review and Directive principles trumping fundamental rights is inherently a flawed argument but she dismissed me as a person incapable of having a conversation on this subject. This is because I have questioned her beliefs. The purpose to explain this conversation is to highlight how less informed or partial our so called intelligentsia in their assessment before passing judgements. 

Those who question this act should ask themselves one question. Have I accepted Gandhian principles? If the answer is yes, then there should be no objection to the ban on cow slaughter. Though it is a different matter that by the very word “Ban” people who are inspired by imported ideologies like communism go ballistic and shout over their voices that it is against their dietary habits etc., we shall conveniently ignore such a nuisance as it is completely democratic to ignore them.

Though it is not justiciable in any court for its non-adherence by state but the government in conducting its affairs must consider the Directive Principles as its guidelines based on which it should frame its policies. So any policy decision or act that is borne out of DPSP (Directive Principles of State Policy) is legal and stopping the cow slaughter is part of DPSP additionally it is also a Gandhian ideal, if we condemn this ideal we are essentially condemning Gandhi. In addition to banning cow slaughter there are other ideals that were close to Ganhi’s heart which are added in to DPSP by the constitution makers, creation of village panchayats for example.

During constitutional assembly debates Giani Gurmukh Singh Musafir (Representative – East Punjab) said:

I would like to say with all the emphasis at my command that these Directive Principles should be inserted under the Chapter on Fundamental Rights 

Such was the intention of our leaders on DPSP. Hence the arguments such as ban on cow slaughter taking away some one’s fundamental right are not only illogical but bereft of historical purpose envisaged by the legal luminaries who drafted our constitution

The fact that we have built our constitution by picking up the best available in the world is itself our expression of our power of assimilation, hence the incorporation of DPSP from Irish constitution. This is in line with our Vedic culture “let noble thoughts come to us from every side” – (Rig Veda 1.89.1)

Of course it is possible to see banning of cow slaughter through religious lens, but this debate is not restricted to just that. We shall understand the economics behind it. In his speech on Cow Protection in Bettiah on October 9 1917, Gandhi said:

This is not merely a religious issue. It is an issue on which hinges the economic progress of India. Economists have furnished irrefutable figures to prove that the quality of cattle in India is so poor that the income from their milk is much less than the cost of their maintenance. We can turn our gaushalas into centers for the study of economics and for the solution of this big problem. Gaushalas cost a great deal and at present we have to provide the expenses. The gaushalas of my conception will become self-supporting in future. They will not be located in the midst of cities. We may buy land in the neighborhood of a city to the tune of hundreds of acres and locate these gaushalas there. We can raise on this land crops to serve as fodder for the cows and every variety of grass 

He further stated that :

Cow protection is an article of faith in Hinduism. Apart from its religious sanctity, it is an ennobling creed

Such was the stand of Mahatma Gandhi as far as cow slaughter is concerned, so to call it as a violation of fundamental rights is not only incorrect but tantamount to calling Gandhi a violator of people’s fundamental rights

Individuals & groups with political motivations are bent up on to politicize what is essentially an apolitical issue by whipping up Muslim apprehensions and trying to equate it with Muslim rights or  minority rights, this not only amounts to political immorality but intellectual dishonesty. By and large Muslims are indeed willing to appreciate the religious sensitivities of Hindus with regard to cow slaughter as Hindus have been appreciating Muslim’s reservation about certain animals. Many states in India have laws that ban cow slaughter. It is a great tragedy that Congress led state governments play politics with this issue for the sake of vote banks. Also it is a greatest insult to Muslims as congress thinks that by such silly manoeuvres it can secure Muslim votes.

Ban on Cow slaughter will give a facelift to village economy and its self-sufficiency in addition to assisting the poor to pull themselves out of poverty and hunger, this will also lessen the burden of state in providing employment guarantees etc.,

Cow is rightly considered as mother; after all we drink her milk, even though we might have stopped feeding ourselves through our mother’s milk at an early stage of infancy, but we are fed by another mother - Cow through her milk until our death, also after death. The last thing we should be doing is to slaughter someone who has been feeding all of us like mother throughout our life. It is time to move beyond petty agonies and politics.

Other states in India should take the cue from Maharashtra and introduce state level laws banning cow slaughter or the central government should initiate the discussion for a central law banning cow slaughter.

Also Published in Niticentral Portal - http://www.niticentral.com/2015/03/15/maharashtra-cow-slaughter-ban-directive-principles-state-policy-306887.html

Debate like a Christine Fair

People of Orient in general and Indians in particular love a good argument not based on falsehood but facts, though I should be saying Hindus (instead of Indians) not saying here because Atheists and bleeding heart secular humanists might protest saying that I am taking away Minority (read Muslims) rights, though Muslims are not the only minorities, and I am not sure how my assertion of Hinduness has got anything to do with Minority rights. Well that is what seculars say! Though it is a different matter that few idiots in west think that they are the last batch of brilliant people left in the world. You see that is why they patent turmeric as their invention.

Recently I had a friendly duel with Christine Fair. It started on her post on twitter regarding the recent Missouri shoot out.

She was trying to suggest or generalize this as an isolated man doing a mindless act; this is her assessment even before nobody knows about the motive including Police. Though all incidents of similar pattern in the past, be it Boston marathon bombings, fort hood killings or for that matter Sydney siege recently, all were motivated by Islamists or Islamic Jihad or simply Islamic Terrorism.

I was just replying that atheists like her rescue Islamists unknowingly by such sweeping unimaginative generalizations, though I have told her that this comment is not related to this incident. For which she said that not all Islamists are terrorists. Yes, correct but all terrorists are Islamists, I replied.

Then out of the blue she concluded that I am maligning the Islam religion and she declared that there are also Hindu Terrorists.

 I have been zealously maintaining the dignity of debate, but then she instantly dismissed me as a soapbox. I think this is how normally Atheists behave when they have no argument to make or they just lost one. Here is Tarek Fatah who does exactly that. Though it is a different case with Tarek because he is a self-declared Marxist. We know what they are.

Firstly I have admired her work on Pakistan, her recent book “Fighting to the End: Pakistan army’s way of war” which I have finished reading few weeks ago. The impression I had was that she would be objective with facts when her casual opinions are questioned. I was looking for a virile scholarship in her arguments but what I have got was vile bigotry in response. I am appalled by the behaviour of these PhD’s.

Hence I further questioned her to come up with incidents of Hindu terror, asked her to quote at least 10 and I have also said that she can include the Samjautha case which normally fancies Pakistan and Islamists of India. And I wanted to see what she has got to say on this. I was stunned by her conspicuous silence. Normally this is what PhD’s of west do when they fear of losing an argument.

I knew she had nothing to answer. Though she has blocked me on some flimsy grounds. But later it appears that she has cited LTTE as Hindu Terror and made few simplistic assumptions on Gujurat riots. I pity her ignorance.

I never thought she will bring her idiocy out in the open on subjects she knew nothing about. It is very clear that she is a half-baked crook on this subject when she says Tamil Tigers are Hindu Terrorists. Technically speaking she had nothing to cite on Hindu Terrorism apart from two sundry arguments that borders on lies and falsehood.

When it comes to LTTE, Prabhakaran was a self-declared Marxist/Communist, he being a Hindu or no Hindu makes any difference? People don’t call Islamic Terrorism just because of their whim, they (Islamic Terrorists) do what they do because of their allegiance to an ideology of death cult called Radical Islam which is structured and definitive. That is why it is called as Islamic Terrorism. It is not about being phobic about anybody or any religion. I think she has lost her way on this argument.

If she talks about Swami Assemanand and others then I would say that she is still living in her fools land. It has been argued in courts that Assemand’s confession was extracted through coercion and confessions made out of coercion will not be treated as an evidence or not enough to charge somebody, Section 24 Indian Evidence Act 1872.

After a losing an argument on Hindu Terror she conveniently chose to block me so that her PhD credentials can be saved.

This is the problem with academics whose scholarship is based on events not on some well informed theories; they react to how a specific act occurred not why. Hence their limited imagination and reliance on falsehood when they are cornered on issues on which they had nothing to say.

I do not fall under the category of normally what people think I fall under. I have already made my positions clear.

My advice to PhD’s of west is that if you don’t know about few subjects please admit that you have nothing to say and shut up. Otherwise people are going to know that you are a bunch of idiots.