24. October 2009 by admin.

Message of Bill Gates

Love him or hate him , he sure hits the nail on the head with this!

Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.

Rule 1 : Life is not fair - get used to it!

Rule 2 : The world doesn’t care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Rule 3 : You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won’t be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.

Rule 4 : If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.

Rule 5 : Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping: they called it opportunity.

Rule 6 : If you mess up, it’s not your parents’ fault , so don’t whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

Rule 7 : Before you were born, your parents weren’t as boring as they are now.. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent’s generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Rule 8 : Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools, they have abolished failing grades and they’ll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn’t bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

Rule 9 : Life is not divided into semesters. You don’t get summers off and very few employers are interested in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.

Rule 10 : Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

Rule 11 : Be nice to nerds. Chances are you’ll end up working for one.

If you agree, pass it on. If you don’t agree stick your head in the sand and take a deep breath

Posted in General | Print | No Comments »

24. October 2009 by admin.

by Ramtanu Maitra 
The growing violence throughout Pakistan since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the Winter of 2001, the November 2008 attack on Mumbai, India, and many other smaller terrorist-directed killings in India, and the gruesome killing of at least 70 top Bangladeshi Army officers in a plot to assassinate Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed last month, were evidence that the terrorists have declared war against the sovereign nation-states in South Asia.
The only bright spot in this context is Sri Lanka, where a powerful terrorist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), better known as the Tamil Tigers, are about to lose their home base. That, however, may not end the LTTE terrorism, particularly since it is headquartered in London, where many South Asian terrorists are maintained in separate cages for future use by British intelligence, with the blessings of Her Majesty’s Service.
Since none of the South Asian countries, where the terrorists are gaining ground, have, so far, shown the
ability to evaluate, and thus, eliminate, the growth of this terrorism, it is necessary to know its genesis, and how it has affected the leaders of the South Asian nations to the detriment of their respective security. What is evident is that the South Asian terrorism has little to do with territorial disputes among nations, but everything to do with the past British colonial rule which poisoned the minds of the locals, so they have become disloyal to their own countries.
In this article, we will deal with the terrorism that continues to prosper in India’s northeast; and the terrorism in Sri Lanka, brought about by the British-induced ethnic animosity among its citizens.
This history is the narration of a tragedy, since those who fought for independence in these South Asian nations, made enormous sacrifices to bring about their independence; many of those heroic figures turned out to be mental slaves of the British Empire, and pursued relentlessly the policies that the British had implemented to run their degenerate Empire.
India’s Northeast
The area had become unstable in the latter part of the 18th Century, following the over-extension of the Burmese-based Ahom kingdom, which reached into Assam. The instability caused by the weakening of the Ahom kingdom prompted the Burmese to move to secure their western flank. But the Burmese action also helped to bring in the British. The British East India Company was lying in wait for the Ahom kingdom to disintegrate.
The Anglo-Burmese War of 1824-26 ended with a British victory. By the terms of the peace treaty signed at Yandaboo on Feb. 24, 1826, the British annexed the whole of lower Assam and parts of upper Assam (now Arunachal Pradesh). The Treaty of Yandaboo provided the British with the foothold they needed to annex Northeast India, launch further campaigns to capture Burma’s vital coastal areas, and gain complete control of the territory from the Andaman Sea to the mouth of the Irrawaddy River.
What were London’s motives in this venture? The British claimed that their occupation of the northeast region was required to protect the plains of Assam from “tribal outrages and depredations and to maintain law and order in the sub-mountainous region.”
The ‘Apartheid Law’
Following annexation of Northeast India, the first strategy of the British East India Company toward the area was to set it up as a separate entity. At the outset, British strategy toward Northeast India was:
• to make sure that the tribal people remained separated from the plains people, and the economic interests of the British in the plains were not disturbed;
• to ensure that all tribal aspirations were ruthlessly curbed, by keeping the bogeyman of the plains people dangling in their faces; and,
• to ensure the tribal feudal order remained intact, with the paraphernalia of tribal chiefs and voodoo doctors kept in place. Part of this plan was carried out through the bribing of tribal chiefs with paltry gifts.
Lord Palmerston’s Zoo 
The British plan to cordon off the northeast tribal areas was part of its policy of setting up a multicultural human zoo, during the 1850s, under the premiership of Henry Temple, the third Viscount Palmerston. Lord Palmerston, as Henry Temple was called, had three “friends”—the British Foreign Office, the Home Office, and Whitehall.
The apartheid program eliminated the Northeast Frontier Agency from the political map of India, and segregated the tribal population from Assam, as the British had done in southern Africa and would later do in Sudan.
By 1875, British intentions became clear, even to those Englishmen who believed that the purpose of Mother England’s intervention in India, and the Northeast in particular, was to improve the conditions of the heathens.
In an 1875 intelligence document, one operative wrote: “At this juncture, we find our local officers frankly declaring that our relations with the Nagas could not possibly be on a worse footing than they were then, and that the non-interference policy, which sounds excellent in theory, had utterly failed in practice.”
Apartheid also helped the British to function freely in this closed environment. Soon enough, the British Crown introduced another feature: It allowed Christian missionaries to proselytize among the tribal population and units of the Frontier Constabulary.
The Land of the Nagas was identified as “virgin soil” for planting Christianity. “Among a people so thoroughly primitive, and so independent of religious profession, we might reasonably expect missionary zeal would be most successful,” stated the 1875 document, as quoted in the “Descriptive Account of Assam,” by William Robinson and Angus Hamilton.
Missionaries were also encouraged to open government-aided schools in the Naga Hills. Between 1891 and 1901, the number of native Christians increased 128%. The chief proselytizers were the Welsh Presbyterians, headquartered in Khasi and the Jaintia Hills. British Baptists were given the franchise of the Mizo (Lushai) and Naga Hills, and the Baptist mission was set up in 1836.
British Mindset Controlled New Delhi
Since India’s Independence in 1947, the Northeast has been split up into smaller and smaller states and autonomous regions. The divisions were made to accommodate the wishes of tribes and ethnic groups which want to assert their sub-national identity, and obtain an area where the diktat of their little coterie is recognized. New Delhi has yet to comprehend that its policy of accepting and institutionalizing the superficial identities of these ethnic, linguistic, and tribal groups has ensured more irrational demands for even smaller states.
Assam has been cut up into many states since Britain’s exit. The autonomous regions of Karbi Anglong, Bodo Autonomous Region, and Meghalaya were all part of pre-independence Assam. Citing the influx of Bengali Muslims since the 1947 formation of East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh in 1971, the locals demand the ouster of these “foreigners” from their soil.
Two terrorist groups in Assam, the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and the National Democratic front of Biodoland (NDFB) (set up originally as the Bodo Security Force), are now practically demanding “ethnic cleansing” in their respective areas.
To fund their movements, both the ULFA and the NDFB have been trafficking heroin and other narcotics, and indulging in killing sprees against other ethnic groups and against Delhi’s law-and-order machinery. Both these groups have also developed close links with other major guerrilla-terrorist groups operating in the area, including the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Muivah) and the People’s Liberation Army in Manipur.
In 1972, Meghalaya was carved out of Assam through a peaceful process. Unfortunately, peace did not last long in this “abode of the clouds.” In 1979, the first violent demonstration against “foreigners” resulted in a number of deaths and arson. The “foreigners” in this case were Bengalis, Marwaris, Biharis, and Nepalis, many of whom had settled in Meghalaya decades ago.
By 1990, firebrand groups such as the Federation of Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo People (FKJGP), and the Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) came to the fore, ostensibly to uphold the rights of the “hill people” from Khasi, Jaintia, and the Garo hills. Violence erupted in 1979, 1987, 1989, and 1990. The last violent terrorist acts were in 1992.
Similar “anti-foreigner” movements have sprouted up across the Northeast, from Arunachal Pradesh in the East and North, to Sikkim in the West, and Mizoram and Tripura in the South. Along the Myanmar border, the states of Nagaland, Manipur, and Mizoram remain unstable and extremely porous.
While New Delhi was busy maintaining the status quo in this area by telling the tribal and ethnic groups that India is not going to take away what the British Raj had given to them, Britain picked the Nagas as the most efficient warriors (also, a large number of them had been converted to Christianity by the Welsh missionaries), and began arming and funding them.
The British connection to the NSCN existed from the early days of the Naga National Council. Angami Zapu Phizo, the mentor of both factions of the NSCN, had led the charge against the Indian government, spearheading well-organized guerrilla warfare. Phizo left Nagaland hiding in a coffin.
He then turned up in 1963 in Britain, holding a Peruvian passport. It is strongly suspected that the British Baptist Church, which is very powerful in Nagaland, is the contact between British intelligence and the NSCN terrorists operating on the ground at the time.
‘Dirty Bertie’ and the Nagas
Once Phizo arrived in Britain, Lord Bertrand (“Dirty Bertie”) Russell, the atheist, courted Phizo, and became his new friend. Russell was deeply impressed with Phizo’s “earnestness” for a peaceful settlement. What, perhaps, impressed Russell the most is that Phizo had control over the militant Nagas, who had launched a movement in the mid-1950s under the Naga National Council (NNC) to secede from the Indian Republic.
In a letter dated Feb. 12, 1963, Sir Bertrand told IndianPrime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, “I find it hard to understand the difficulty of coming to an agreement which would put an end to the very painful occurrences incidental to the present policy of India.”
It is believed in some circles that New Delhi’s 1964 ceasefire with the Nagas might have been influenced by the letter from Russell that was handed to Nehru by Rev. Michael Scott. Scott later went to Nagaland as part of a peace mission, along with two senior Indian political leaders.
While Russell was pushing Nehru to make the Nagas an independent country through peaceful negotiations, British involvement in direct conflict continued. On Jan. 30, 1992, soldiers of the Assam Rifles arrested two British nationals along the Nagaland-Burma border. David Ward and Stephen Hill posed as members of BBC-TV, and were travelling in jeeps with Naga rebels carrying arms.
Subsequent interrogation revealed that both were operatives of Naga Vigil, a U.K.-based group. Both Ward and Hill claimed that they started the organization while in jail, influenced by Phizo’s niece, Rano Soriza. Both have served six-year prison terms for various crimes in Britain. Naga Vigil petitioned for their release in the Guwahti High Court. Phizo’s niece took up the issue with then-Nagaland Chief Minister Vamuzo.
Sri Lanka’s Violent Ethnic Strife
In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tiger terrorist group is in its last throes. Ousted by the Sri Lankan Army from almost all of its “claimed” territories, the militants are now holding on to about 19 square kilometers of land, with about 70,000 Sri Lankan citizens, mostly of Tamil ethnic origin, as their hostages.
It is evident that they will be totally routed by the end of this month. While the U.S. Pacific Command personnel in contact with New Delhi are formulating an evacuation plan for the hostages, London and the European Union are trying to protect the last vestiges of Tiger territory by urging Colombo to work out a cease fire with the terrorists.
The emergence of violent conflict between the Tamil Sri Lankans and the Sinhala Sri Lankans, which gave birth to the London-backed Tamil Tigers, was yet another product of the British colonial legacy. This ethnic conflict, which has engulfed this little island, and unleashed unlimited violence in the region for almost three decades, is, as in the case of Northeast India, due to the British mindset of the Sri Lankan and Indian leaders involved in “resolving “the crisis.
To begin with, Sri Lanka (then, Ceylon) had the misfortune to be colonized by three brutal European colonial powers—the Portuguese, the Dutch, and the British. Nonetheless, it is to the credit of the locals that they withstood these brutes and prevented the break-up of
the country.
After the Dutch ceded Sri Lanka in the 1801 Peace of Amiens, it became Britain’s first crown colony. Immediately, the British colonials started setting up the chess pieces. The ruling Kandyan King, of Tamil ancestry, was ousted with the help of local chieftains of Tamil
and Sinhala origin. The coup set up the British crown as the new King.
As part of the “divide and rule” policy, the British colonials promoted the Buddhist religion, resulting in the 1817 Uva rebellion. The Buddhist religion was given protection by the Crown, and the people were told that Christianity would not be imposed on the unwilling masses as had happened during Portuguese and Dutch rule.
Following the quelling of the rebellion, the British did what they do best: They carried out one of the worst massacres of the 19th Century, wiping out all able-bodied Sinhalese men from the Hill Country, and 80% of the native population of able-bodied, according to one report.
The Kandyan Kingdom was the kingdom of both the Tamils and Sinhalas—both these groups came from India to settle on that island.
One specific impact of the British colonial presence was the emergence of English as the local language, undermining both the Sinhala and Tamil languages.
According to one historian, the two most important effects observed during British rule were: one, by the start of 20th Century, the English language became the passport to getting employment; and those who had an English education became dominant in Britain’s handcrafted Sri Lankan society. Due to input of the Christian missionaries, more minority Tamils could read and write English, as opposed to the southern Sinhalese and Kandyan Sinhalese.
The other observed impact on Sri Lankan society of British colonial rule, was the reconstituting of the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly of 1921 had 12 Sinhalese and 10 non-Sinhalese, at a time when the Sinhalese constituted more than 70% of the population.
Things changed in 1931, when, out of 61 seats, the Sinhalese won 38. This troubled the Tamils, because they had had
special privileges under British, and never wanted to accept the dominance of the Sinhalese majority.
In addition, the British also brought to the island amillion workers of Tamil ethnic background from Tamil Nadu, and made them indentured laborers in the Hill Country. This was in addition to the million Tamils already living in the provinces, and another million Mappilla Muslims, whose mother tongue is Tamil. Thus, the British sowed seeds of ethnic discord. During the colonial rule, the minority Tamils had a disproportionate representation in the bureaucracy.
The Role of British Assets in Independent Sri Lanka
However, when in 1948, the British finally left the island, they left behind their assets, in powerful places, many of whom were educated at Oxford-Cambridge, and some of whom had adopted Christianity, on both sides of the ethnic divide London had so carefully created.
Instead of seizing the opportunity to build the nation and set about undoing the misdeeds they were forced to carry out under British rule, beginning in the 1950s, Sinhalese-dominated governments implemented public policies that would institutionalize the majority community’s dominance.
Sinhala was declared to be the country’s sole official language; Buddhism was favored as the state religion; and the unitary nature of the state ensured Sinhalese political domination. Major Sinhalese-Tamil riots in 1956, 1981, and 1983 further heightened Tamil insecurities.
Meanwhile, the Tamils began to press for autonomy. Political parties, such as the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), utilized conventional means, which included participating in coalition governments. Militant Tamils, the LTTE, sought the creation of an independent Tamil state, referred to as Tamil Eelam, which would comprise the North and East of the country.
Throughout the 1980s, various Tamil rebel groups engaged in attacks against the Colombo government and its security apparatus. However, the situation worsened on that island because of the British mindset of New Delhi, which made a number of attempts to intervene in the violent Sri Lankan situation.
Besides helping the Tamils to get armed training and intelligence, New Delhi, under late-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, deployed around 50,000 Indian peacekeepers (IPKF) in Tamil areas in Sri Lanka to help ensure peace. In return, the Sri Lankan government agreed to devolve power to the North and East through the creation of autonomous provincial councils.
Neither Colombo nor the Tamil militants were sincere about the deal; both were looking at the Indian troops as the barriers against their independent state. The failure of the Indian intervention led to more deaths and the assassination of Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe
Premadasa, and India’s Rajiv Gandhi, among many other high-level Sri Lankan officials, by the terrorist Tamil Tigers.
London: Break Up India into 100 Hong Kongs
But, the British were in the middle of all this. Besides the fact that the LTTE was headquartered in London, and raising most of its illegitimate funds from Britain and its former colonies in Australia, South Africa, and Canada, within ten days of Gandhi’s death, Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa, who would be assassinated by the LTTE in May 1993, forced the hasty departure from Sri Lanka of British High Commissioner David Gladstone. The charge was that Gladstone, a descendant of the Victorian-age Prime Minister William Gladstone, was interfering in local election politics.
But he had also been criticized earlier for allegedly meeting with known drug traffickers in Sri Lanka. Gladstone, who had previously spent years in the Middle East, was a known British intelligence link to the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, which was involved in training both the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the LTTE. Britain’s continuing intent to break up India was also expressed openly in this political context.
On May 26, 1991, only five days after the British-controlled LTTE-led assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, the Times of London, the premier voice for the British Foreign Office, put forward this view in an editorial entitled “Home Truths”:
“There are so many lessons to be learnt from sorrowing India, and most are being muttered too politely. The over-huge federation of almost 900 million people spreads across too many languages, cultures, religions, and castes. It has three times as many often incompatible and thus resentful people as the Soviet Union, which now faces the same bloody strains and ignored solutions as India. . . .”The way forward for India, as for the Soviet Union, will be to say a great prize can go to any States and sub-States that maintain order without murders and riots. They should be allowed to disregard Delhi’s corrupt licensing restrictions, run their own economic policies, and bring in as much foreign investment and as many free-market principles as they like. Maybe India’s richest course from the beginning would have been to split into 100 Hong Kongs.”

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Politics, History, India | Print | No Comments »

24. October 2009 by admin.

Pro-Islamic and anti-Hindu mindset known as dhimmitude (described more fully later) is prevalent in sections of the American academy. The case in point is the recent book by Dr. Wendy Doniger [1] , The Hindus: An Alternative History, The Penguin Press, 2009. Professor Goel reviews the book which has blatant anti hindu and pro islamic tone.


M. Lal Goel
Professor Emeritus of Political Science, www.uwf.edu/lgoel Doniger’s 779-page tome is laced with personal editorials, folksy turn of the phrase and funky wordplays. She has a large repertoire of Hindu mythological stories. She often narrates the most damning mythical story—Vedic, Puranic, folk, oral, vernacular—to demean, damage and disparage Hinduism. After building a caricature, she laments that fundamentalist Hindus (how many and how powerful are they?) are destroying the pluralistic, tolerant Hindu tradition. Why save such a vile, violent religion, as painted by the eminent professor? There is a contradiction here. This review focuses on Doniger’s discussion of Islamic incursions into India. Islam entered south India in the 7th Century with Arab merchants and traders. This was peaceful Islam. Later, Islam came to India as a predatory and a conquering force. Mohammad bin Qasim ravaged Sindh in 712. Mahmud Ghazni pillaged, looted and destroyed numerous Hindu temples around 1000 AD, but did not stay to rule. The Muslim rule begins with the Delhi Sultanate, approximately 1201 to 1526. The Sultanate gave place to the Mughal Empire, 1526-1707. Doniger makes the following dubious points regarding the Muslim imperial rule in India (1201-1707). Muslims marauders destroyed some Hindu temples, not many. Temple destruction was a long-standing Indian tradition. Hindus destroyed Buddhist and Jain stupas and rival Hindu temples and built upon the destroyed sites. Muslim invaders looted and destroyed Hindu temples because they had the power to do so. If Hindus had the power, they would do the same in reverse. The Jizya—the Muslim tax on non-Muslims—was for Hindu protection and a substitute for military service. Hindu “megalomania” for temple building in the Middle Ages was a positive result of Muslim demolition of some Hindu temples. The Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara Empire double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi who had deputed them to secure the South. Hindus want Muslims and Christians to leave India for Hindustan is only for Hindus. Let us take each point in turn to examine Doniger’s mistaken views. Muslim invaders beginning with Mahmud Ghazni in 1000 CE looted, pillaged and destroyed not few but many Hindu and Buddhist temples. Muslim chroniclers describe the humiliation and utter desolation wrought by the Muslims on the kafirs (unbelievers). Alberuni, the Muslim scholar who accompanied Mahmud to India, describes one such event: “Mathura, the holy city of Krishna, was the next victim. In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted. The Sultan was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included ‘five of red gold, each five yards high,’ with eyes formed of priceless jewels. . . The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground. Thus perished works of art which must have been among the noblest monuments of ancient India.” [2] At the destruction of another temple, Somnath, it is estimated that 50,000 were massacred. The fabulous booty of gold, women and children was divided according to Islamic tradition—the Sultan getting the royal fifth, the cavalry man getting twice as much as the foot soldier. Hundreds of Hindu and Buddhist shrines were destroyed. Dr. Doniger asserts that Hindus too persecuted minority Jain and Buddhist religions and destroyed their shrines. She narrates the now discarded story about the impaling of Jains at the hands of Hindu rulers in the Tamil country. Then she says that “there is no evidence that any of this actually happened, other than the story.” (p 365). Then why narrate the story? Hindu sectarian violence pales in comparison to what happened either in Europe or in the Middle East. The truth is that both Jainism and Buddhism were integrated into Hinduism’s pluralistic tradition. The Buddha is accepted as one of the Hindu Avatars (God in human form). Exquisite Jain temples at Mt Abu at the border of Gujarat and Rajasthan built around 1000 CE survive in the region dominated by Hindu Rajput rulers, falsifying notions of Hindu carnage of Jain temples. Doniger says that Hindus would do the same to Muslims if they had the power to do so. Hindus did come to power after the death of Emperor Aurangzeb in 1707, when the Mughal rule rapidly declined. The Marathas were the strongest power in Western and Southern India in the 18th and 19th centuries, as the Sikhs were in North India. There is no account of large scale demolition and looting of Muslim places of worship either by the Marathas or the Sikhs. If a copy of the Quran fell into the hands of Maharaja Shivaji during a campaign, the same would be passed on to a Muslim rather than being burned. Contrary to what Doniger says, Jizya is a long held Muslim tradition. It was levied to begin with on the defeated Christians and Jews, the People of the Book, as a price for the cessation of Jihad. Hindus, not being one of the People of the Book, did not deserve to live by paying the special tax. If defeated in battle, their only option was Islam or death. This was the position taken by the Islamic clergy. Unlike the clergy, however, the Muslim governors were practical men. If they had killed the Hindus en masse for failing to adopt Islam, who would build their palaces, fill their harems, cut their wood and hue their water? [3] Doniger argues that Hindu ‘megalomania’ for temple building resulted from Muslim destruction of some Hindu temples. In other words, because the Muslims destroyed some of the Hindu temples, the Hindus went on a building spree. If Doniger’s argument is accepted, Hindus should thank Islamic marauders for looting and desecrating their shrines. The truth is that in northern India which experienced 500 years of Islamic rule (1201-1707), few historical temples of any beauty remain. In contrast, temple architecture of some beauty does survive in southern India, the region that escaped long Muslim occupation. That the Hindu founders of the Vijayanagara dynasty in the South double-crossed their Muslim master in Delhi is one among the innumerable editorial negative portrayal of Hindu character. One may ask: why wouldn’t a slave double cross his oppressor? The view that Muslims and Christians should leave India is not one held by most Hindus, only by a small minority on the extreme fringes. Muslim population has increased in India from about 9 percent at the time of Independence to about 13 percent now (1947-2009). In contrast, in Pakistan, Hindu population has declined and now constitutes less than one percent. In Muslim Bangladesh in the same period the Hindu population has declined from 29 percent to less than 10 percent. Muslims hold important positions in government and business in contemporary India, which is 83 pct Hindu. The richest person in India has been a Muslim, Premji; the most popular film stars are Muslim; Christian and Muslim chief ministers and governors head several of the states. The single most important leader in India is an Italian-born woman Sonya Gandhi and the Prime Minister is a Sikh, Dr. Manmohan Singh. The past President APJ Kalam was a Muslim and before that K R Narayanan, a lower caste. In Federal and State civil service, 50 percent of the jobs are reserved for backward classes and Untouchable, in order to compensate for past discrimination. India has moved. Let us look more closely. Doniger describes the invasion of Sindh by Arab soldier of fortune Muhammad bin Qasim as follows: Qasim invaded Sindh in 713. The terms of surrender included a promise of guarantee of the safety of Hindu and Buddhist establishments. “Hindus and Buddhists were allowed to govern themselves in matters of religion and law.” Qasim “kept his promises.” The non-Muslims were not treated as kafirs. Jizya was imposed but only as a substitute for military service for their “protection.” He brought Muslim teachers and mosques into the subcontinent. (paraphrased) From Doniger’s assessment, Qasim should be regarded as a blessing. Contrast Doniger’s description with that written by Andrew Bostom in “The Legacy of Islamic Jihad in India.” [4] The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi (in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E. . . . Baladhuri, for example, records that following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b. Qasim earmarked a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed a mosque, and established four thousand colonists there. The conquest of Debal had been a brutal affair. . . Despite appeals for mercy from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates after the Muslims scaled the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he had no orders (i.e., from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to spare the inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and “700 beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured.” Distinguished historian R. C. Majumdar describes the capture of the royal Fort and its tragic outcome: Muhammad massacred 6,000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu ruler]. We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim forces was followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females threw themselves in fire kindled by themselves), the earliest recorded instance of which is found in the Chachnama. Cited in Bostom. Doniger extensively footnotes Romila Thapar, John Keay, Anne Schimmel and A. K. Ramanujan as her sources for Islamic history, providing an impression of meticulous scholarship. Missing are works of the distinguished historians: Jadunath Sarkar, R. C. Majumdar, A. L. Srivastava, Vincent Smith, and Ram Swarup. Doniger writes at page 458: when Muslim royal women first came to India, they did not rigidly keep to purdah (the veiling and seclusion of women). They picked the more strict form of purdah from contact with the Hindu Rajput women. Doniger finds much to praise in Muslim women during this period: some knew several languages; others wrote poetry; some managed vast estates; others set up “feminist” republics within female quarters (harems); some debated fine points on religion; some even joined in drinking parties (chapters 16, 20). Such descriptions are patently negated by distinguished historians. See The Mughal Harem (1988) by K S Lal, available free on the Internet. If Hinduism is the source of strict purdah among Muslim women, as Doniger contends, how does one explain the strict veiling of women in the Middle East, a region far removed from Hindu influence? Or, the absence of it in southern India, a region that escaped Islamic domination? Doniger writes at page 627, “the Vedic reverence for violence flowered in the slaughters that followed Partition.” And, Gandhi’s nonviolence succeeded against the British. But it failed against the tenaciously held Hindu ideal of violence that had grip on the real emotions of the masses. What is one to make of these weighty pronouncements uttered in all seriousness by the author? These are an expression of the hurt feelings on the part of a scholar. While discussing the Hindu epic Ramayana in London in 2003, Doniger put forth her usual gloss: that Lakshman had the hots for his brother Rama’s wife Sita, and that sexually-charged Sita reciprocated these feelings. An irate Hindu threw an egg at her and conveniently missed it. This incident is her cause célèbre. DHIMMITUDE Doniger’s uncritical review of the Islamic marauding raids in India (712-1200) and later the Islamic empire (1201-1707) suggests dhimmitude. The concepts of dhimmi and dhimmitude were developed by the Egyptian born Jewish woman writer, Bat Ye’or (Daughter of the Nile), who fled Egypt in 1958 in the wake of Jewish persecution following the Suez Canal crisis. Her meticulous research puts to rest the myth of peaceful expansion of Islamic power in the countries of Middle East and Eastern Europe. [5] Dhimmitude is a state of fear and insecurity on the part of infidels who are required to accept a condition of humiliation. It is characterized by the victim’s siding with his oppressors, by the moral justification the victim provides for his oppressors’ hateful behavior. The Dhimmi loses the possibility of revolt because revolt arises from a sense of injustice. He loathes himself in order to praise his oppressors. Dhimmis lived under some 20 disabilities. Dhimmis were prohibited to build new places of worship, to ring church bells or take out processions, to ride horses or camels (they could ride donkeys), to marry a Muslim woman, to wear decorative clothing, to own a Muslim as a slave or to testify against a Muslim in a court of law. Ye’or believes that the dhimmi condition can only be understood in the context of Jihad. Jihad embodies all the Islamic laws and customs applied over a millennium on the vanquished population, Jews and Christians, in the countries conquered by jihad and therefore Islamized. She believes that dhimmitude was once the attribute of defeated Christian and Jewish communities under Islam. Now it is a feature of much of the Western world, Europe and America. Her theory of dhimmitude applies to many Hindus in India. Whereas dhimmitude in previous centuries resulted from real-life powerlessness and humiliation, modern dhimmi syndrome results from some combination of the following. The corrupting power of oil money to influence think tanks, lobbyists and academic institutions. De-Christianizing of Europe. It is now also happening in the U.S. See Pew research reports. Guilt feelings in the West on account of the Crusades to liberate the Holy Land (1095-1291). Multiculturalism: the belief that all cultural practices and ways of life are equally valid. Violence by radical Muslims is on account of being poor and exploited by colonial hegemony. Islam provided the West its basis for advancement in math and science. The rising number of Muslim populations in Europe and America. The rising level of alienation from one’s own culture in the West. Doniger’s inflammatory book on the Hindus makes sense only in the light of a larger global trend—a trend that seeks to re-package Islamic history as a force for tolerance and progress. Doniger is not alone in holding such views. Dhimmi attitudes of subservience have entered the Western academy, and from there into journalism, school textbooks and political discourse. One must not criticize Islam. For, to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today. To do so would endanger chances for peace and rapprochement between civilizations all too ready to clash. See, The field of Middle East Studies in the U.S. is now controlled by pro-Middle East professors, according to Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle Eastern Quarterly. “The crucial turning point occurred in the late 1970s when Middle East studies centers, under /Edward/ Said’s influence, began to show a preference for ideology over empirical fact and, fearing the taint of the ‘orientalist’ bias, began to prefer academic appointments of native-born Middle Easterners over qualified Western-born students,” contends Kramer. The book is summarized at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_119/ai_90989239/.>
In contrast, the field of Hinduism studies is controlled by non-Hindus and anti-Hindus, with some notable exceptions of course. Hindu gods and goddesses are lampooned and denigrated. Hindu saints are described as sexual perverts and India in danger of being run over by Hindu fundamentalists. In these portrayals, Doniger is joined by Martha Nussbaum, Paul Courtright, Jeffrey Kripal, Sarah Caldwell, Stanley Kurtz, to name a few of the leading academicians. For a critique of the American academy, see Rajiv Malhotra at www.sulekha.com, and a 2007 book titled, Invading the Sacred. [6] Doniger is quite harsh on the British record in India (1757-1947). She compares the British argument that they brought trains and drains to India to Hitler’s argument that he built the Autobahn in Germany (p. 583). Censuring Britain and giving a pass to the more draconian Islamic imperialism in India fits with the dhimmi attitude that I have described. Consequently, attitudes of concession and appeasement are on the rise. A reversal of language occurs. Jihad is called ‘struggle within’ or struggle for liberation. Dhimmitude is called tolerance. Jizya is called protection. Tony Blair declares Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists are not real Muslims. Parts of London have been ceded to the control of radical mullahs. Sharia arbitration courts are now part of the British legal system. Melanie Phillips tells that London is becoming Londonistan. [7] Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe. The destruction of life and property caused by Islamic extremists in the last thirty years is simply horrendous. Of course, distinction must be made between moderate Muslims and radicals who wish to bring back the 7th century version of Islam. The British helped abolish the horrible practice of Suttee (widow burning) in India in the 19th century. At its peak in the 19th century, the practice of Suttee claimed the lives of 500 to 600 women a year in India. The honor killing of women, genital mutilation, and the caning of girls for minor sexual impropriety raises only a limited protest in the 21st century. Amid the rising level of alienation, multiculturalism and the feelings of guilt in the West, the moral compass has been lost. politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in History, Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

18. October 2009 by admin.

How many Indians even know today about the Hindu rulers of Afghanistan? How many of them have read about how the Hindu kings fought the Muslim invaders tooth and nail to save Afghanistan? Their battles and conduct recieved high praises even from their Muslim adversaries. We Hindus of India owe a debt to them. The least we can do to repay this debt is to tell our children their story.
 
Most westerners would be ignorant of the fact that Afghanistan was once a Hindu majority country and the most famous ruling dynasty of Afghanistan is called the Hindushahi Dynasty.
 
Here is a list of the famous Hindushahi kings who ruled Afghanistan:
 
Khingala of Kapisa (7th c.)
Patoladeva alias Navasurendradiyta Nandin of Gilgit (6-7th c.)
Srideva alias Surendra Vikrmadiyta Nandin of Gilgit (6-7th c.)
Patoladeva alias Vajraditya Nandin of Gilgit (6-7th c.)
Kallar alias Lalliya (c. 890-895) of Kabul
Kamaluka (895-921)
Bhima (921-964), son of Kamaluka
Ishtthapala (?)
Jayapala (964-1001)
Anandapala (1001-c.1010), son of Jayapala
Trilochanapala (ruled c.1010-1021-22; assassinated by mutinous troops)
Bhímapála (died in 1022-1026)
 
 
Here is a short story about defence of Kabul and Zabul by the Hindu kings, narrated by Sita Ram Goel:
 

HEROIC DEFENCE OF KABUL AND ZABUL
 
The same story was repeated by the Hindu kingdoms of Kabul (Kapisa) and Zabul (Jabal) which lay to the north-west of Sindh, and which the Islamic armies had started attacking soon after they annexed Khorasan in AD 643. It was in AD 650 that the first Islamic army penetrated deep into Zabul by way of Seistan, which at that time was a part of India territorially as well as culturally. The struggle was grim and prolonged. The Islamic army suffered heavy losses. In the final round, the invader was defeated and driven out.
Another attack followed in AD 653. The Arab general, Abdul Rahman, was able to conquer Zabul and levy tribute from Kabul. The king of Kabul, however, proved desultory in paying regularly what the Arabs thought to be their due. Finally, another Arab general, Yazid ibn Ziyad who had been the governor of Seistan for some time, attempted retribution in AD 683. He was killed by the Hindus, and his army was put to flight with great slaughter. The Arabs lost Seistan also, and had to pay 5,00,000 dirhams to get one of their generals, Abu Ubaida, released.
But the Arabs, inspired as they were by an imperialist ideology, did not give up. They recovered Seistan some time before AD 692. Its new governor, Abdullah, invaded Kabul. The Hindus trapped the Arab army in the mountain passes after allowing it to advance unopposed for some distance. Abdullah agreed to cease hostilities, and the king of Kabul agreed to renew payment of an annual tribute. But the treaty was denounced by the Caliph who dismissed Abdullah. The war against Kabul was renewed in AD 695 when Hajjaj became the governor of Iraq. He sent an army under Ubaidullah, the new governor of Seistan. Ubaidullah was defeated and forced to retreat after leaving his three sons as hostages and promising that �he shall not fight as long as he was governor�.15 Once again, the treaty was denounced by the Caliph, and another general, Shuraih, tried to advance upon Kabul. He was killed by the Hindus, and his army suffered huge losses as it retreated through the desert of Bust. Poor Ubaidullah died of grief. That was the third round won by the Hindu kingdom of Kabul.
In the next round, Hajjaj commissioned Abdul Rahman once again. He made some conquests but could not consolidate his hold. Hajjaj threatened to supersede him. Abdul Rahman revolted and entered into a treaty with the Hindu king to �carry arms against his master�.16 The treaty did not work, and Abdul Rahman committed suicide. The Hindu king, however, continued the war. Masudi, the Arab historian, �makes mention of a prince in the valley of the Indus who after having subjugated Eastern Persia, advanced to the bank of the Tigris and Euphrates�.17 Hajjaj had to make peace according to which the Hindu king was entitled to keep his kingdom in exchange for an annual tribute. The Hindu king, however, stopped payment in the reign of Caliph Sulayman (AD 715-717). Some attempts to force him into submission were made in the reign of Caliph Al-Mansur (AD 745-775). But they met with only partial success, and we find the Hindus ruling over Kabul and Zabul in the year AD 867. The Arabs had failed once again to conquer finally another small Hindu principality, in spite of their being the mightiest power on earth. The struggle had lasted for more than two hundred years.
The kingdom of Kabul suffered a temporary eclipse in AD 870 but not on account of the Arabs, nor as a result of a clash of arms. The Turkish adventurer, Yaqub bin Layth, �who started his career as a robber in Seistan and later on founded the Saffarid dynasty of Persia�, sent a message to the king of Kabul that he wanted to come and pay his homage. The king was deceived into welcoming Yaqub and a band of the latter�s armed followers in the court at Kabul. Yaqub �bowed his head as if to do homage but he raised the lance and thrust it into the back of Rusal so that he died on the spot�. A Turkish army then invaded the Hindu kingdoms of both Kabul and Zabul. The king of Zabul was killed in the battle, and the population was converted to Islam by force. That was a permanent loss to India. But the succeeding Hindu king of Kabul who had meanwhile transferred his capital to Udbhandapur on the Indus, recovered Kabul after the Saffarid dynasty declined. Masudi who visited the Indus Valley in AD 915 �designates the prince who ruled at Kabul by the same title as he held when the Arabs penetrated for the first time into this region�.18
The Hindus lost Kabul for good only in the closing decade of the 10th century. In AD 963 Alaptigin, a Turkish slave of the succeeding Samanid dynasty, had been able to establish an independent Muslim principality in Kabul with his seat at Ghazni. It was his general and successor, Subuktigin, who conquered Kabul after a struggle spread over two decades. The Hindus under king Jayapala of Udbhandapur made a bold bid to recapture Kabul in AD 986-987. A confederate Hindu army to which the Rajas of Delhi, Ajmer, Kalinjar and Kanauj has contributed troops and money, advanced into the heartland of the Islamic kingdom of Ghazni. �According to Utbi, the battle lasted several days and the warriors of Subuktigin, including prince Mahmood, were �reduced to despair.� But a snow-storm and rains upset the plans of Jayapala who opened negotiations for peace. He sent the following message to Subuktigin: �You have heard and know the nobleness of Indians – they fear not death or destruction� In affairs of honour and renown we would place ourselves upon the fire like roast meat, and upon the dagger like the sunrays.��19 But the peace thus concluded proved temporary. The Muslims resumed the offensive and the Hindus were defeated and driven out of Kabul. Dr. Mishra concludes with the comment that Jayapala “was perhaps the last Indian ruler to show such spirit of aggression, so sadly lacking in later Rajput kings.”

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Afganistan, History, Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

18. October 2009 by admin.

For once, the leftist-liberal ‘Guardian’ has been kind to the Hindus and published a story about the Hindus of Afghanistan. What are the chances that such an article will ever be allowed by the champagne liberals and brown-sahib editors of Indian newspapers?

Read the article:

Afghanistan’s marginalised Hindus

Despite its long history in the country, Afghanistan’s Hindu minority has been pushed to the fringes of society.

Perhaps Radha wasn’t the most beautiful girl in Afghanistan. But such were this Hindu girl’s looks and kindness that all of Kabul’s bachelors fell in love with her. Her fame was such that the people of Kabul composed a famous song for her. The song says: “We have made Lala promise not to cremate Radha”. Nearly 80 years later, this song is still sung in Afghanistan. Lala, meaning brother, is the term Afghans use to refer to Hindus. In the song, the people ask Lala not to cremate Radha’s beautiful body after her death, as is required by Hindu tradition.

During the reign of King Amanullah Khan (1919-1928) Radha’s father, Ranji Das, was finance minister, a role that had long been filled by the Hindus of Afghanistan. But the growth of religious fundamentalism has now pushed the Hindus out of government offices, forcing them into the bazaars. It is now many years since a Hindu held a government post in the country. But they are still running a major part of the Afghan bazaars, and come second in trading medical products.

Overlooking Kabul is a mountain called Asmayi. The name is apparently a Hindu term, deriving from the godess Asha. Today, the mountain has become the largest pilgrimage centre for Hindu worshippers. According to a Hindu tale, an eternal fire burns at the summit of Asmayi, a fire which has refused to die out for 4000 years. There are two other centres of worship in Kabul, the Harshari Natha temple in Kabul’s Baghban Kucha, and the Shorbazaar Temple. These are Kabul’s oldest temples, where Hindus celebrate divali and naradatar. They are also the meeting places of the Sikh and Hindu religious associations. In addition to these, Kabul today has many other newer and larger temples scattered in different parts of the city.

According to Professor Rajesh Kochhar’s book, The Vedic People, Afghanistan is one of the oldest Hindu centres of the world. Kochhar says that a large part of Rigveda was written in Afghanistan, with Helmand and Arghandab being mentioned as sacred rivers in both the Rigveda and Mahabharata. The Surya temple, dedicated to the god of sun, and the Yogi of Panjshir, which represents a worshipper turned into stone, north of Kabul, are both ancient Hindu sites. And yet, if foreigners were to travel to Afghanistan today, they would encounter so few Hindus that they would assume the Hindus are either from elsewhere or recent immigrants. They would encounter a community that is neither playing its part in politics nor getting involved with the rest of the world.

Hindus are clearly among the oldest inhabitants of Afghanistan. They are the native people, whom Islamic fundamentalism has turned into unprotected strangers. Strangers, who this year found themselves forced to argue for days with Muslims in the centre of Kabul in order to be allowed to cremate their dead in line with their tradition. Strangers who never dare to send their children to school for fear of mockery.

In February 2001, during the Taliban’s reign, Hindus found themselves forced to wear a distinguishing yellow stripe on their arm. Even though the Taliban have been removed, Abdurrab Rasul Sayyaf, presently an MP in Karzai’s administration, has expressed a similar opinion on TV:

“The Sikhs and Hindus of Afghanistan are considered part of the dhimmi in line with sharia law. The government has an obligation to protect them but they are required to pay a poll tax. They can hold civilian occupations, such as doctors, but they cannot be in charge of a governmental body or office. Upon meeting a Muslim, a Hindu is required to greet the Muslim first. If a Muslim is standing and there is a chair, the Hindu is not allowed to sit down on the chair.”

According to MP Anarkali Honaryar, a representative of Sikhs and Hindus in the Afghan parliament, the majority of the country’s 200,000 Sikhs and Hindus are now living abroad, and the number of people leaving Afghanistan for India, Europe and or Pakistan grows by the day.

Friends of Afghanistan’s cultural heritage increasingly fear that these ancient inhabitants of the country might one day meet with the same fate of other peoples of Afghanistan, including Jews and Buddhists, and so vanish from the the country altogether.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/02/afghanistan-hindus

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Afganistan, Politics, Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

17. October 2009 by admin.

How Gandhi and Nehru assassinated the Hindu nation. Both were a creation of the British to do their dirty work for them on the hapless Hindus. I have posted excerpts from  Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and his freedom struggle by Radha Rajan

Excerpts:
 
When Savarkar was exonerated on charges of criminal conspiracy to kill Gandhi, one of the conditions during his release was that he should not be given any public reception nor should there be any public demonstration of rejoicing. This condition was inspired by Gandhi’s exhortation in 1937-38 to the political prisoners of Bengal not to be a party to any celebration, not to hold meetings or make speeches or hold celebratory processions.
The political doctrine, that Hindu nationalists must be neither seen nor heard, was beginning to gain ground. Savarkar was arrested again on 5th April, 1950 in the wake of the extremely foolish Nehru-Liaquat Pact, which like its infamous predecessor, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, gave more than it got in return. According to the Pact, the governments of India and Pakistan agreed that each shall ensure to the minorities throughout its territories, complete equality of citizenship, irrespective of religion; a full sense of security in respect of life, culture, property and personal honour.
It also guaranteed fundamental human rights of the minorities, such as freedom of movement, speech, occupation and worship. The pact also provided for the minorities to participate in the public life of their country, to hold political or other offices and to serve in their country’s civil and armed forces.
Savarkar opposed the Pact vehemently. He prophesized that while the Indian Government would keep its promise, the Pakistani Government would go back on the same; and the life, freedom and dignity of the Hindus in Pakistan would continue to be in jeopardy. Needless to say, Savarkar was proved right about the Muslim psyche not only in Pakistan but also in Jammu and Kashmir.
But Nehru whose determination to incarcerate Savarkar for life had been thwarted in 1948, was determined to either keep him in prison for the rest of life or silence his fiercest political critic forever. Towards this end, when it was driven home to Nehru that Savarkar could not be kept in prison endlessly without reason, his release on 13 July 1950 came with the debilitating condition that he would remain confined to his home and would abjure politics completely. Nehru continued where Gandhi had left off but with greater force because Nehru, like the British government before1947, could back his intent to decimate Hindu nationalists with ruthless use of state power.   Nehru was determined to clear the country’s political arena of Hindu nationalists and he was enabled in his de-Hinduising mission by the Indian Constitution which was drafted and approved by a Constituent Assembly where the Congress was in the majority and Congress members were hand-picked by Gandhi and Nehru. The Indian Constitution, slanting decisively towards religious minorities, owed much to the Motilal Nehru Report. 
The Motilal Nehru report was also the harbinger of the potentially divisive linguistic states as also the western liberal-Christian political tenet that the state shall not have any religion; ominously for the Hindus of the country, not one of these principles, which eventually went on to define the new Indian state after 1947, was challenged successfully in the Constituent Assembly.
The Indian Constitution derived equally from the Government of India Act 1935. Hindus and their interests were thus trampled under the feet of the combined might of a de-Hinduised Constituent Assembly, the Motilal Nehru Report and the GOI Act, 1935. They remain trampled till today. Nehru’s Congress in his lifetime and Nehruvian secular polity after Nehru continued to traverse the path of anti-Hindu politics of minority-ism; its results are there for all to see: Hindus have lost territory to Islam and Christianity in the North, North-East, East and West.
The anti-Hindu polity that prevails today has turned a Nelson’s eye to the rapidly changing religious demography in the country’s border and coastal districts. In stark contrast to how Nehru dealt with Hindu nationalists immediately after independence, the Muslim League, the Jamait-e-ulema-e Hind and its members suffered no persecution. They neither disbanded themselves nor were they banned by Nehru’s government. They lay low until such time that Nehru and Nehruvian secularism had rendered the Hindus completely impotent to reverse vivisection or even its consequences, and have now reared their heads again and this time the Hindus are confronting not just one Khilafat Committee, but innumerable jiahdi outfits with roots across the country and across the country’s borders, and with the same objectives as the Jinnah-led Muslim League before independence. So far, both secular Indian polity and Hindu organizations have proved incapable of handling the threat and they continue their jihad against the Hindus and their bhumi successfully and with little cost to them.  Gandhi and the Indian National Congress did to our revolutionaries and warriors of armed resistance what the British Government did to Aurobindo and Savarkar – laid debilitating conditions for release. Hindus must confront the ugly truth that while the British Government and the Gandhi-Nehru Congress adopted the same methods to disarm and decapitate Hindu nationalists, Hindu nationalists of the 19th and 20 centuries have also lost strength and spirit in the midst of war, leaving the battle-field unchallenged to their tormentors. The kshatriya had indeed been effectively disarmed and banished from public gaze.       Indian polity and the country’s public spaces have been de-Hinduised by state power and Hindus have been politically disempowered also by state power. Hindu interests and minority interests have been made into a zero sum game also by use of state power, as witnessed in the most recent turbulence in Jammu and Kashmir over the issue of land allotment for Hindu pilgrims during the Amarnath Yatra and the unchecked license permitted to Christian missionaries who hide behind the constitutional provision of freedom to practice and propagate one’s religion.
This book is intended to demonstrate to Hindus the origins and path of their disempowerment and to kindle in them a burning desire to capture and put in place self-conscious Hindu state power or Hindu rajya to protect and defend the Hindu rashtra. The Hindu nation must begin by questioning the concepts of freedom of religion, minority-protection and right to self-determination because the Hindu bhumi historically and without an Indian Constitution had made all religions and their adherents welcome to this land. This Hindu trait of not looking upon any faith as being inimical to dharma and the failure by Hindus to take note of the ultimate political objectives of all Abrahamic faiths has cost the Hindus and the Hindu nation very dear.  If the nation has to deal resolutely with forces and ideologies which threaten the territory and people of the rashtra and this includes jihad, the evangelical Church and anti-Hindu communism, then the nation has to assert its nationhood; one aspect of such an assertion will be the nature of the state or rajya which must necessarily be Hindu in ethos. Separatism, demographic imbalance, and increasing attacks against the state by Naxalism and other terrorist outfits owning allegiance to Communism, have to be dealt with not as law and order issues, but only as ideological issues which confront the core question of the basis of nationhood of this bhumi.
Secularism, for obvious reasons has failed to check and neutralize all threats to the nation’s territory and people only because it is in a state of denial, and has therefore failed to put in place structures and laws which will approach the threats rooted in the sense of Hindu nationhood. National security is best ensured only when the sense of nationhood is faultless and the threats to the nation or rashtra are perceived as threats to nation, nationhood and nationalism. Needless to say, the book seeks to demonstrate that there is no other nationalism on this bhumi other than Hindu nationalism.
The superficial convergence of interests between Hindus and Muslims in 1857 interrupted the continuing Hindu civilisational resistance and struggle against Islam, while Gandhi-inspired Nehruvian secularism has rendered all Hindu resistance to both Islam and the Church hors-de-combat. Hindu nationalists understand that the civilisational struggle against Islam and the Church has to be revived in order that it may be resolved decisively.  The destruction that has been wreaked by state power can be corrected without bloodshed only by return of state power to self-conscious Hindus. Only self-conscious Hindu state power can arrange the nation’s affairs to serve dharma and the dharmi. For such a state of affairs we must begin to question political ideas and concepts that originated in the West as a reaction to the predatory Church, to slavery and to colonialism’s invasion and forcible occupation of foreign lands.
Thus the concepts of religious freedom, self-determination, human rights became necessary to protect the disempowered victims of White Christianity – the natives of lands occupied by European colonizers whose numbers have been reduced to negligible numbers, and for victims of slavery. With great foresight European colonialist countries created the United Nations with a charter which, if one were to read the fine print with sound political sense, only serves to deter and punish any idea of revenge or determined correction of the legacy of colonialism in post-colonial independent nations.
However, the truth is that neither the countries forcefully advocating democracy and liberal political values, nor Islam which has never subscribed to contemporary, liberal Christian political ideology, nor the Jewish-majority Israel have been hamstrung by these concepts when they perceived a threat to their national identity and sense of nationhood. Till the present day we still see wars between nations, fought by the full might of state power, which are essentially Jewish Israel versus Islam, Jews versus the evangelical Church, West versus the rest and Islam versus the rest.
It is only in India that a de-Hinduised and virulently anti-Hindu political culture thwarts Hindus from resisting and fighting the predatory intentions of Islam and Christianity because as we pointed out in the Introduction, it is only in India that we have a state which does not derive from the culture and ethos of its majority populace and is therefore not obliged to protect Hindu interests and Hindu sensibilities. This state of affairs must change if the nation has to deal effectively with jihad and with disaffection and separatism arising from the untrammeled license enjoyed by the Church in India.          Concepts of minority-protection, self-determination and religious freedom cannot apply to the adherents of Islam and Christianity on Hindu bhumi under cover of democracy and constitutional rights. These provisions have to be reviewed, given the ultimate goal that these two minority religions have already achieved in Jammu and Kashmir and in the North-east.
That Pakistan and Bangladesh came into being because the Indian National Congress never had a sense of this nation, and because the continuing de-Hinduising trend in Indian polity has resulted in the perverted polity of J&K and growing separatism in the North-east, must goad Hindu nationalists into first reviewing and then correcting the course of anti-Hindu Nehruvian secularism as the guiding spirit of Indian polity. Such a course correction is mandated if there has to be real harmony among communities in this nation and not false peace resting on the artificial and un-natural idea of Nehruvian secularism, which is the Indian derivative of alien political ideas and trends which have little
 
to do with Hindu-civilisational tradition of statecraft and polity. The time has come to set down the coffins of Gandhi and Nehru from the unwilling shoulders of this nation.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Politics, Partition, Nehru, Gandhi, India | Print | No Comments »

17. October 2009 by admin.

I am tired of people who know nothing about any religion state, almost as a self-evident axiom, that “All religions are the same.” No they’re not!
 
Islam is VERY different from Hindu Dharma. Let’s talk statistics for a while, shall we? Can you guys guess what percentage of the verses in the Kuran speak of Kafirs? 63%! In other words, more than half the Kuran is simply hate speech about Kafirs. More than half! There is not one good thing Muhammad had to say about Kafirs. The Sira (his biography and collection of quotes and anecdotes) is more than 85% about his battles with Kafirs.
Islam IS about Kafirs. Get that right - Islam as a religion is about one topic alone - Kafirs. And we are all Kafirs. Yes, that’s right. We are what Islam is about. The only problem is that Islam does not say “Love these guys.” It says “hate them, kill them, behead them, humiliate them, “subdue” them, make them pay taxes, convert them…” Islam is all about “them” - the “them” being us Kafirs.
 
Islam is not a religion that focuses on itself and its people. It focuses on Kafirs. Isn’t that strange - that a religion should focus not on itself but on those who are not in it? Islam is all about “the evil others - the Kafirs.” The Kafirs who allowed Muhammad to do his thing when they could have killed him. But they showed great tolerance and let him mock and abuse them. But when he became powerful, he simply killed them or forcibly converted them to Islam.
 
Read the Upanishads (which form the spiritual core of Hindu Dharma). They don’t even talk about “us” or “them.” They simply discuss how the Atman (roughly translated to ’soul’) is related to the unity underlying all creation (called the ‘brahman’). There is absolutely no sectarian language there. No wonder Hindus, to this day, are unable to fully fathom this hateful ideology called Islam.
 
The Kuran is a manual of hatred and violence which seeks to divide humanity into “muslims” and “kafirs” and recommends permanent warfare between them. No wonder muslims are unable to live peacefully with any other community, anywhere. Because their religion only speaks of cultivating hatred towards others.
 
The world must no longer keep silent about this ideology. We must call it for what it is. Enough of the political correctness. Enough of the deafening silence. Islam declared war on us 1400 years ago. It is time we at least asked “Why?” Why are you killing us? What have we done? Just because an arab man 1400 years ago said you must kill us?
 
Is that reason enough to abandon all humanity, all rationality?

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

17. October 2009 by admin.

By Professor Paul Eidelberg
September 26, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Back in 1985, I wrote an article on Brzezinski for The Intercollegiate Review. Before citing some of the more relevant passages of that article, it should be borne in mind that Brzezinski, a political scientist, served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. One does not have to read Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that Carter is an anti-Semite. Brzezinski has earned the same reputation.

Not only has Brzezinski publicly defended the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure, but he also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction. It behooves us to understand the mentality of Obama’s Middle East adviser.

Long before he became Mr. Carter’s national security adviser, Brzezinski rejected what he and most political scientists term the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet political systems. “This image,” he says, “is held by traditional anti-Communists.” Brzezinski thus affirmed he is not quite an anti-Communist. In fact, he deplores anti-Communism as “a relic of the Cold War, of the age of ideology.”

Not only did Brzezinski reject the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government, he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes! Brzezinski is simply a moral or cultural (or historical) relativist, and relativism has certainly modulated Barack Obama’s mentality.

The influence of political scientists like Brzezinski is wide and deep. His relativism prompts him to negotiate with and appease terrorist regimes. With Brzezinski as his adviser, Obama will be more disposed to appease Iran and betray America’s allies, above all Israel.

Since Brzezinski is a relativist, he denies the existence of objective or trans-historical standards for determining whether the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to that of another. (The members of the UN General Assembly must be pleased to hear this, despite the UN’s notorious record of condemning Israel without having ever condemned an Islamic state.)

Brzezinski’s relativism also makes him a “weather-vane” political scientist. He turns with the winds of power. Working in a pluralistic and egalitarian country like America—a secular society—he conveniently adopts tolerance as his operational principle on the one hand, and equality as his primary value on the other. He is quite at home with the moral equivalency that has shaped US foreign policy toward Israel and Islamic dictatorships.

Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state. Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory. Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism is evident in Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union. Obama is pursuing a very soft line toward Islam.

As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state. His book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that “With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation. The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty. The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity. It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could develop.” Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition.

“That is why Marxism,” he contends, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing and man’s universal vision.” Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.” Embodied in the Soviet Union, however, Communism became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian nationalism.”

Although Brzezinski poses as a humanist, he makes a most inhumane statement by saying that: “although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was … a blessing in disguise.” Brzezinski could as readily say: “Yes, Muslims slaughtered more than 200 million people, but Islam brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Quran”!!!

Brzezinski, a self-professed secularist, is an internationalist whose moral relativism contradicts the moral law or natural rights doctrine of America’s Declaration of Independence. His relativism and internationalism contradict the teachings of the America’s Founding Fathers, who endowed the United States with a national identity and character, the same that animated Abraham Lincoln. To put it more bluntly: Brzezinski’s political mentality — like that of countless other American academics — is anti-American. An Obama-Brzezinski axis has revolutionary significance. It may accelerate the de-Americanization and decline of the United States.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Communism, Obama, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

14. October 2009 by admin.

As someone with naturally curly long hair who frequently uses a blow drier, I’ve tried a gazillion hair care and styling products.  But I no longer buy CHI or BioSilk hair products and haven’t for a while now.  That’s because Farouk Shami owns Farouk Systems, the company that makes those products, is a vehemently anti-Israel Palestinian Muslim. And Mr. Shami said in a speech (video below) that Farouk Systems supports that view. If you buy CHI or BioSillk, that’s where your money is going. His Sheikh Mohammad Shami Foundation gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to build extremist schools and other projects in the so-called West Bank and HAMAS-dominated Gaza (along with your tax-funded USAID money).
 

And now, he’s running for Governor of Texas, as a Democrat (though he has a lot of close Republican friends, including Texas Governor Rick Perry and Texas U.S. Senate candidate/Houston Mayor Bill White, both of whom he recently hosted at his home.  And Shami has been heavily promoted, via several disgustingly gushing softball interviews, on FOX Business Channel  (including by the normally good David Asman).
 

Shami has gotten quite a bit of positive press lately–press of which he’s unworthy.  He announced that he will no longer produce his hair care products and styling tools in China and will, instead, employ Texas residents in Texas to produce his items.  But that’s  not entirely accurate.  Much of the Farouk Chi and BioSilk items are produced in what Shami calls “Palestine.”  And the only reason he left China was because the Chinese were counterfeiting his products and undercutting him (hmm . . . less for his jihad and more for the Chi-Coms, that’s a tough call).  Plus he says it’s not cheaper for him in China.
 
Farouk Shami was an awardee and honoree of the anti-Semitic American Task Force for Palestine (which believes all of Israel is “Palestine”)–the the video below, and he supports illegal alien amnesty.  He wants to employ Mexican aliens at his Texas plants and get them “working papers,” he told Houston’s KHOU / 11 News, last week (Watch the Video). He says we Americans have too much, and it’s “not fair” to the Mexicans.  Though, I guess he thinks it’s fair and not “too much” to live in his 30,000 square foot mansion.  Meet Farouk Al-Hypocrite.  Farouk says he’s against building a wall on our border or keeping illegal aliens out.  “Why can’t Texas have 30 million or 40 million people?” he asks.  Uh, yeah, you wanna pay for it, Farouk?
 
And Shami has been denouncing Israel for some time.  Read this interview he did with the Houston Chronicle, two years ago.
 

 
It’s not that I don’t know where Farouk donates his money. He openly says so.  He’s Muslim, Palestinian, and very anti-Israel, and says that Farouk Systems supports those views.  And he’s for open borders and illegal alien amnesty on our own borders.  I can’t be sure that he’s not donating money to Islamic terrorists in the so-called Palestinian territories, where much of his family still lives.  And I also can’t be sure that he’s not donating to illegal alien advocacy groups.
 
In fact, given his views and given the fact that he was an ATFPalestine honoree, I’d bet that’s where some of his Farouk Systems profits go.
If  you’re against open borders, illegal alien amnesty, and anti-Semitic hatred of Israel, you’ll avoid buying any of Farouk Shami’s products, all of which can be seen on his site.
 
Who knew even haircare would have to be tainted by open borders and anti-Israel extremism?

  And all the relaxer in the world won’t address that kink.  This is one case where “American-Made” isn’t a good buy.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

10. October 2009 by admin.

For an administration whose political party proclaims itself the guardian of civil rights, they hang around a lot of shady characters.
ACORN willing to help folks out setting up a child slavery prostitution ring? Aw, only rightwing conspiracy nuts believe that. Who are you gonna’ believe, the Democrats or your lying eyes?
And hey, how about that Taliban? They’re now our very special friends, pose no threat to America, and will help us fight al Qaeda. What could be more awesomely awesome?

Obama is adopting the preposterous assumption that the Taliban can play a role in running Afghanistan and, if we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone. Of course, Obama doesn’t want the Taliban to totally govern Afghanistan, but, you know, they can help out and stuff. Meanwhile, our troops, who will supposedly only have to keep al Qaeda weak (not destroy them), will be working with our new friends.
While our troops are being slaughtered, Obama will find all sorts of good news, abetted by his media cheerleaders, that will allow him to totally pull out of Afghanistan. This will pacify his extreme left base who, after the 2008 election, have suddenly decided that we really don’t need to fight in Afghanistan after all. Declare victory and run away.
God help us. There will be blood on Obama’s hands.
In case anyone has forgotten how brutal the Taliban are, how they have helped al Qaeda in the past, and how they ignore the most basic of human rights, check out the links in this story from About.com:

The Taliban’s long lists of edicts and decrees took an especially misogynistic view of women. Schools for girls were closed. Women were forbidden to work or leave their homes without verifiable permission. Wearing non-Islamic dress was forbidden. Wearing make-up, sporting western products like purses or shoes, was forbidden. Music, dancing, cinemas, any form of non-religious broadcasting and entertainment were banned. Lawbreakers were beaten, flogged, shot or beheaded.
In 1994, Osama bin Laden moved to Kandahar as a guest of Mullah Omar. On Aug. 23, 1996, bin Laden declared war on the United States and exerted increasing influence on Omar, helping to fund the Taliban’s offensives against other warlords in the north of the country. That lavish financial support made it impossible for Mullah Omar not to protect bin Laden when Saudi Arabia, then the United States, pressured the Taliban to extradite bin Laden. The fates and ideology of al-Qaeda and the Taliban became intertwined.
At the height of their power, in March 2001, the Taliban demolished the two enormous, centuries-old Buddha statues of Bamiyan, an act that showed to the world in ways that the Taliban’s wanton massacres and oppression should have much earlier the ruthless, distorted Puritanism of the Taliban’s interpretation of Islam.

From FOXNews.com:

WASHINGTON — President Obama is inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep Al Qaeda at bay, a senior administration official said.
The official, in an interview with The Associated Press, also added that the president is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan’s political future, reiterating what Obama said in March.
The assessment comes from an official who has been involved in the president’s discussions with his war council about Afghanistan strategy.
Aides say the president’s final decision on Afghanistan strategy and troop levels is still at least two weeks away, but the emerging thinking suggests he would be unlikely to favor a large military ramp-up of the kind being advocated by his top commander in Afghanistan.
McChrystal’s troop request is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to — the general’s strong preference — as many as 40,000.
Obama’s developing strategy on the Taliban will “not tolerate their return to power,” the senior official said. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan’s central government — something it is now far from being capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to Al-Qaeda, the official said.
Recognizing the U.S. can neither win in Afghanistan nor succeed more broadly against Al Qaeda without Pakistan’s cooperation, Obama’s war council is weighing a new role for Pakistan in the 8-year-old struggle in the region.
Obama’s national security team marked the war’s eighth anniversary on Wednesday with a three-hour session in a secure room in the White House basement. The focus on Pakistan, the suspected hiding place of Usama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists as well as Taliban leaders, could provide a hint into the president’s leanings.
Members of the president’s national security team argued that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the U.S., officials told The New York Times. It was unclear if everyone in the war council accepted the premise.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »