** Islamists use Secularism

How Islamists Use Secularism against Democracy

Ishaan Mohan Bagga


Criticizing Islam is not politically correct – The term is ‘Islamophobia’. You better keep your doubts about Islam to yourself else you’ll be quickly tagged as one with an anti-Islamic agenda. A Hindu right winger. An RSS agent. A Kafir. A Non-Believer.

Freedom of religion is one of the basic principle of democracy. It tells you to not discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. This is the basic premise of religious liberalism – and believe it or not – it’s a noble sentiment. This sentiment of religious equality has brought much needed peace to our world. It just not smart to bleed each other dry over religious differences – our forefathers have done enough of it.

Islam’s Natural Immunity To Change

Religion, by nature, is flawed – the new western educated breed gets that. Now it’s considered alright not to take religion too seriously. As the idea of ‘optional religion’ grows in society, the stronghold of organised religion is gradually becoming weak. Most religions of the world are ok with it. The idea of letting individuals control the involvement of religion in their lives is acceptable now. Those times are gone when millions were collected by governments to wage war in the name of God. This is the natural evolution of religion.

Though, Islam has managed to stay completely immune to these changes. The rules of Islam make it impervious to any modern ideas. As a result, the present version of Islam has lasted way past it’s expiration date. While more tame versions like Sufism and Ahmadism have largely been discarded as pseudo-Islam.

This is the result of the extreme emphasis in Koran to preserve Islam in it’s original form. The original form of Islam – is a dogma with a single goal of world domination. If it’s goal was limited to spread the message of Allah then it would have been similar to the other organised religions of the world. Other religions don’t hard-sell their God, not at least at the gun-point like Islamic fundamentalists. At worst they lure you with freebies – but Islamic fundamentalism fully sponsors the killing of non-believers. This is similar to ‘the lord’ of the Old Testament of Bible, except that ancient barbarism is thriving under Islam today, in 21st century. The Kingdom of Allah, in a fundamentalist view, is a barbaric place and it hates change, progression or evolution – of any kind.

islam will dominate the world

Based on your religious affiliation you must have already formed an opinion about my religious agenda in writing this. You could be a Muslim who has already formed a wall of denial – I understand, nobody likes to hear negative things about ideas which you’ve been taught to pay utmost respect, right from your childhood. I have no wish to corner one religion when the corruption in religion is a universal phenomena. But Islam is different – and not always in a good way – which I’m just going to explain how. Before that …

Full Disclosure: I’m not an atheist. But I do have my doubts about the existence of God. Am I a spiritualist? Sure, may be. My father is a Hindu. I don’t care about religion that much. I bow my head when I pass a temple, mosque or a church because my father taught me to, when I was a child. I have watched my share of mythological TV shows – because everybody watched them in the family. They were comically entertaining. I have had close friends from all religions – thanks to India’s diversity.

Though, I rarely visit places of worship – I find them boring. I find Hindu temples unnecessary wet (just my opinion)! I have visited Gurudwaras and  I find the musical prayers very comfortable and soothing. Haridwar’s evening prayers and the sound of morning-namaz are my second favorite on this list, peacefulness-wise. I find Zen-Buddhism‘s teaching most close to taking you anywhere near a spiritual-awakening. I also find the principles of Jainism’s universal ahimsa highly commendable, if not follow-able.

I’m your everyday liberal and I do not have extreme thoughts (good or bad) about any religion, including the one I was born into. Religion doesn’t figure into my list of everyday priorities at all. If you’re nodding your head by now, I’m You.

It is common practice to use religion to manipulate it’s followers for personal gain by it’s controllers. It is happening everywhere to varying degrees. More simple-minded people fall for this farce, while people who’re more spiritual, scientific or wise can see through it. Despite this rampant degeneration of holy-men today, followers take comfort in the fact that at least their prophets (Jesus, Buddha, Mahavir, Nanak etc) were pure souls – their teachings guide them in dealing with the world and after. Good thing is that none of these prophets personally created any of their respective religions. It’s after their demise, their followers compiled their teachings and communions formed, which later took the shape of larger organised religions.

Prophet Mohammad – A Marketing Genius?

Mohammad (may peace be upon him) died at the age of 61, after conquering the whole of Arabia and uniting it under the code of Islam. This ‘conquering’ wasn’t spiritual or peaceful; it was a bloody and barbaric affair – like the imperialist royalty of the medieval world.

Jesus was crucified, Buddha took samadhi, Mahavira took the oath of complete non-violence, but Mohammad lived by the sword. Is it a surprise that he taught his followers that it’s ok to slain the non-believers? Islam starts brain-washing a child from his formative years that how kafir is the enemy. Is this the message of Allah? Jihad involves the spread of Islam through violence – and it is one of the key duties of every Muslim. Most people in our world are born into a religion. Choosing your own religion is still a very radical idea in most parts of the world. According to Islam, every non-Muslim is born into sin. You don’t get a choice – either convert, or die. This is not a religion, this is a battle-plan. 

Nirmal BabaImagine if the notoriously sham holy-man of India – Nirmal Baba – with a huge following becomes a religion in 200 years and has millions of followers. Does that mean his message is genuine? Telling people what they want to hear – serves as a good strategy for him to make simpletons believe into his ‘divinity’. This is 21st century. There’re many scam artists like him across the world. If in today’s age of science – such con-men can accumulate large crowds – imagine what a cake-walk it would be for the tricksters of 570 AD.

Mohammad was a very intelligent man. He didn’t control people by acquiring power through political means – he became their warrior prophet instead. He knew religion will create a much bigger army for him. He told his followers what they wanted to hear. He recognized Moses / Jesus and added his name to the list of prophets. He told them that Allah speaks through him. He was charismatic – people believed him. His audience were barbaric tribal men – so he gave them rules which appealed to them. And what do men want? More wives, more sex, easy divorce. He gave them that. He told them it’s ok to hit your wives to discipline them. He also told them that temporary marriage is ok because Allah allows it. Women were never his audience, which kind of explains the condition of women in Islamic countries.

One man could take as many wives – so powerful rich men acquired as many ladies as they could. They were thankful to Mohammad for providing them with large army of followers, more women than ever, easy pro-men laws, treating women like property, legalizing perversions like incest, pedophilia etc. Now, there were many poor men left who couldn’t get any ladies – so Mohammad very cunningly used this artificially created deficiency of women and gave these sexually-frustrated men the dream of 72 beautiful virgins in heaven. That was the gift of Allah to his soldiers. This marketing strategy is still working for Islam.

Mohammad gave the message of Muslim brotherhood, not human brotherhood. He told them that wherever they’re it is their foremost duty to spread Islam. He told them that their allegiance to other Muslims is far superior to their countrymen. He told them all non-believers are Kafirs – who should be converted or killed.

He created Islam like a franchise – wherever it goes – it remains loyal to the ‘message of Allah’ over Everything Else. Now if this message of Allah was that of harmony, then Islam would have actually been a religion of peace, like it claims. Instead their very teachings are the biggest endorser of violence. You could go in denial about this – but text from Holy Koran is being used every day in Islamic countries to suppress freedom, exploit women and against modernization.  You should notice that wherever Islam is in minority, it is the most ardent supporter of secularism – but the moment it becomes a majority – all principles of secularism and religious freedom are lost. An Islamic state has no place for non-believers – and it’s only goal is the spread of Islam. This is real sneaky stuff. That is why there’s nothing like ‘liberal Islam’ or ‘secular Islam’.

Truth about the message of allah

Islamic fundamentalism has no place for logical reasoning or questions. You’re not allowed to question Allah. What do you think – modern Muslims don’t see the very glaring flaws in their beliefs? Off course they do – but there’s no forgiveness in Islam for blasphemy or apostasy. Islam likes to preserve it’s beliefs, no matter how archaic, inside an un-penetrable fort. It resists western modernization to stop new ideas – this is the main bone of contention of Islamic world with the west. Liberal democratic ideas have the potential of creating worst kafirs in Islam.

Like other religions, Islam too could have evolved overtime, if Mohammed hadn’t closed that door forever. He declared himself as the last prophet – and his words were final.He created a religion which is still frozen in time. Islam does everything to resist change. As a matter of fact, it takes pride in being the purest religion in the world. What Muslim world doesn’t realize is that – what doesn’t change, rots. Overtime Islam is proving to be it’s followers’ worst enemy.

Good Muslims / Bad Muslims

I know what you’re thinking – all Muslims are not bad people – or terrorists. I’m happy that this fact occurred to you and I respect you for that. I’m not writing for the people with Hindu or Christian agenda – my goal is to open a discussion which has dead-locked reason below several layers of propriety and political-correctness. The good Muslim people you know – who respect their women and their freedom, who respect other religions, who believe in the ideas of democracy – these people are not ideal Muslims per the standards of fundamental Islam. These are the people who’ve subconsciously realized that goodness lies outside dogma – and their religion shouldn’t be the center of their lives.

Hence, do not judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and do not judge Islam by the Muslims that you know. Muslims and Islam are two completely different entities. Your average Muslim is being played at the hands of fundamentalists for centuries now.

No Muslim should ever be harassed because of his/her religion. Like you and me, they’re too born in their religion – and unlike others it is not easy to leave Islam. Fundamentalists don’t let you go without a fight – and most often you die in that fight. Many free thinkers have lost their lives in that process.

Islam Management

Islam-and-CommunismIslamic fundamentalism is a lot like Communism. Communism has it’s appeal in idealism enforced through control. The idea of communism appeared great on paper – but in practice it became an untamable monster – and made a few people extremely powerful. Islam has the same appeal. Those who convert to Islam – are tired of extreme consumerism of west and Islam seems like a completely opposite option, almost ascetic in it’s teachings. But that is just a cover for recruiting you into Allah’s army, with one and only one goal of spreading Islam, far and wide.

Your average pseudo-intellectual liberals see the world in black and white. The cunning nature of Islamic fundamentalism is beyond their grasp. Islam (mostly the large presence and control of fundamentalism) is a bigger problem today than ever. With the advancement of technology in weapons, who knows how long could we can control the nuclear technology or chemical weapons from falling into one of the Islamic terror organisations. And this danger is not from across the borders anymore – it is home grown. It is from the spreading fundamentalism on our own soil. If you go by the principles of Muslim brotherhood Islam is already bigger than any country in the world. According to statistical predictions by 2030, 26% population of the world will be following Islam. Mohammad has won – but Muslims have lost.

The solution is smarter Islam management. This is the only peacefully enforceable solution to keep this monster of a religion from further engulfing the world. Japan is already pioneering this. We need to start seeing how Islam has been playing secularism against democracy. Democratic countries need to put constraints on the further spread of Islam:

  1. Democratic countries need to communicate to the Islamic nations that they should expect secular treatment for Islam when they open their own countries to secularism.
  2. Muslim law (Sharia) bodies shouldn’t be allowed to run parallel constitution for Muslims.
  3. Women in Islam need immediate emancipation – they’ve suffered long enough – more opportunities need to be created for them.
  4. Madrassas which have been the source of drilling flawed ideas need to be closely watched for their content – no need to stop their traditional education – but Muslim youth needs to be brought under the purview of mainstream open education.
  5. Laws related to monogamy and the number of children need to strongly enforced – this is high priority for local Muslim economy. 
  6. Civil Liberties of followers shall not be allowed to be suppressed in the name of religion. When constitution of a country ensure certain freedoms – no muslim law board should have a right to veto them in the name of sharia.

Conclusively, it needs to be communicated to Islamic fundamentalists in our respective countries that it’s followers can enjoy the fruits of democracy – but on only condition – that any anti-democratic, anti-freedom, anti-equality dogma will not be tolerated in the name of Islam.

Islam is a sensitive subject – and needs to be managed carefully. It is important to make secularism more competent in dealing with rogue religions than leaving the job to other religion’s fundamentalists – who’ve their own respective anti-muslim agenda.

I’d like to emphasize again that I have no intention to hurt anybody’s religious sentiments. Neither do I speak from an arrogant place of an atheist who take pride in putting down people’s faith. There’s no way to have a solution-oriented discussion  about Islamic terrorism – without bringing Islamic fundamentalism in the picture. I believe the onus falls on the new generation Muslims to take over the charge of their respective communities and protect them from getting hijacked by fundamentalists.

But every religion is flawed?

True, some more, some less – not equally. You can’t make a fair judgment by saying that every religion is EQUALLY flawed. In present era, the reality that needs to be acknowledged is that something has gone really wrong with Islam, without falling into the traps of political correctness. One needs to frankly introspect that why Islam is more prone to misuse, so much that it’s own identity is in danger. The meaning of Islam has changed, that is the sign of danger.  Good Muslims need to work towards breaking this self-hypnosis that Islam has fallen into. An open attitude towards self-inquiry and introspection is the only way. Men and women have suffered through a most horrendous history to achieve democracy as a politically stable system. Everybody owes it to our ancestors to not go back into the medieval age – besides blood, there’s nothing there for anybody. Courtesy of (IndianExponent)

Jews of Two Worlds @ http://www.khabar.com/magazine/cover-story/jews_of_two_worlds_indians_in_israel

** Verdict 2014

Verdict 2014: Sonia-Manmohan punished for  decade-long contempt for Hindu majority

by A. Surya Prakash

Although three weeks have gone by since the Congress Party suffered Its biggest drubbing in parliamentary elections, not a single Congress leader is willing to come face to face with the reasons that made the electorate across the country to vote out the party with such decisiveness. The voters’ anger against India’s oldest party in best gauged by the following facts: The Party did not win a single seat in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Delhi, Seemandhra, Jharkhand, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Goa and its vote share in percentage terms crashed to abysmally low levels in states like Uttar Pradesh (7.5), Andhra Pradesh (11.5), West Bengal (9.6), Bihar (8.4), Jharkhand (13.3) and Tamil Nadu (4.3).

Going by the extent of damage inflicted by voters, it can be said that the electorate wanted to severely punish this party for a variety of reasons. But, among all those reasons, this column will focus on the Congress Party’s insolent behavior towards the Hindu majority which, this writer believes, did maximum damage to its prospects in this election.

Mr.Manmohan Singh, a Sikh and the country’s first non-Hindu Prime Minister headed the Union Government from 2004-2014. The remote control however lay with the de facto prime minister – Ms.Sonia Gandhi, of Italian Roman Catholic origin. Many key positions in this government and in the Congress Party were held by persons belonging to religious minorities. With the passage of time, the party began to believe that it can run the country with just the support of the religious minorities. Therefore, one of the first acts of the Sonia-Manmohan Combine was to distort the facts vis-à-vis the Godhra incident that led to the communal conflagration in Gujarat in 2002. The reports that came in on the day of the incident was that a Muslim mob surrounded a train at that station and set fire to a coach which was full of Hindu karsevaks returning from Ayodhya and 59 of these karsevaks were burnt alive. This led to large scale communal violence across Gujarat in which many Muslims and Hindus died. Egged on by pseudo-secularists, the Sonia-Manmohan combine instituted a probe that produced a spurious report saying that the karsevaks had themselves set fire to the train compartment. This piece of fiction was in line with the falsification of history resorted to by leftist and pseudo-secular historians owing allegiance to the Nehru-Gandhis. Another piece of fiction purveyed by the Congress Party and the government was that the post-Godhra riots were not a communal conflagration but a pogrom against Muslims. That is why spokespersons of the Congress Party never acknowledge that hundreds of Hindus died in these riots. This is another, more recent example of the anti-Hindu bias in history writing which has been consistently encouraged by the Nehru-Gandhis in the belief that these distortions will please the Muslims and ensure their perpetual support for the Congress Party.

The Congress Party overplayed this card for 12 years, demonized Narendra Modi and called him a ‘Maut ka Saudaghar” (Merchant of Death). It never had a harsh word for the mob that burnt alive the Hindus in Godhra. This was just one of many initiatives taken by the UPA government to mock at the Hindu majority or to appease the Muslims. It set up the Sachar Committee that went so far as to demand a communal census of the armed forces. This was a shameful attempt to communalise the country’s secular army but many members of the Congress Party, who claimed to be votaries of secularism, argued that there was nothing wrong with the committee’s proposal! Then came the Ranganatha Misra Commission. Thereafter, the party and the government took minority appeasement to crass levels and sympathized with terrorists who happened to be Muslims and raised questions about police impartiality. The UPA’s Home Minister, Mr.Sushil Kumar Shinde declared that police must be careful while arresting members of the minority community for criminal offences. But the clincher was the statement of Mr.Manmohan Singh that Muslims had “the first right” to national resources.

As the UPA government entered the final year, the Sonia-Manmohan combine made their most ambitious bid to stifle the Hindus. They introduced the communal violence bill in parliament which said that in all cases of communal conflict, the police must treat members of the Hindu community as the accused and the religious minorities as the victims. This was really the tipping point. It appeared as if the Sonia-Mnamohan combine were running a government of the minorities and for the minorities. The 800 million Hindus did not figure in their scheme of things anywhere. Both Ms.Gandhi and the prime minister persisted with this foolhardy approach throughout the ten-years they ran the union government. Neither of them had a good word for the Hindu civilization and way of life which had ensured a secular and democratic polity in India after independence. They had just one mantra – minority, minority, minority. This mantra echoed throughout the recent election campaign as well. Sonia, Manmohan and even Rahul Gandhi just took the name of minorities all the time. Ms.Gandhi went so far as to meet the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Delhi and appeal to him that “the secular vote” was not divided, thereby indicating that religious minorities are “secular” and the Hindus are not.

The result of this arrogant and contemptuous behavior of the Sonia-Manmohan combine towards the Hindu majority is now evident in the final outcome of the Lok Sabha election. Although the number of electors rose by over 100 million from 710 million to 814 million between 2009 and 2014, the Congress Party polled 12 million votes less this time. On the other hand the BJP more than doubled its vote share, which jumped from 80 million in 2009 to over 170 million in this election and emerged as a truly national party.

But, is India’s oldest political party in a mood to learn any lessons? There are no signs of it, because not one leader of the party has until now acknowledge the persistent manner in which the Party hurt the Hindu sentiment during its ten-year rule. It is an age-old truth that no political party in any democracy can ever hope to win an election without the support of the majority. But, India’s oldest party appears to be in no mood to acknowledge this fundamental truth. The conduct of its leaders, post-May 16 only indicates that the party still believes that it can mock at the majority and chase the chimera called the Muslim Vote!

1) Nehru Dynasty


** Why West opposes Modi?

Why the West finds Modi’s rise inconvenient

By Sankrant Sanu, NitiCentral

April 14, 2014

Newspapers across the Western world are falling over each other with articles condemning Narendra Modi’s likely rise as India’s Prime Minister.  From The Economistto the Guardian, from Germany’s Nürnberger Nachrichten (calling Modi ‘racist’) to theNew York Times, commentators are wringing their hands over the loss of the ‘soul of India’.  The ostensible reason give is the 2002 post-Godhra riots in which approximately a thousand people were killed — both Muslims and  Hindus, which is routinely referred to as a ‘pogrom’ or even as a ‘genocide’.

The West is of course intimately familiar with genocides and pogroms. Western civilisation has wiped out diverse peoples and cultures including an estimated 100 million Native Americans in the American Holocaust and about 6 millions Jews in the European Holocaust. The witch hunts by the Christian Church in Europe’s Middle Ages killed thousands of medicine women and the two European-initiated World Wars of the 20th century killed another hundred million people between them. Communist ideology imported from Europe into Russia resulted in the deaths of several million more under the hands of Joseph Stalin.

Western concern for India’s Muslims is cited as the main reason for opposition to Modi. It is worth remembering that, more recently than the Gujarat riots, the America-led invasion of Iraq resulted in an estimated hundred thousand to nearly half a millionMuslims being killed. This Bush-Blair war had bipartisan support in US Congress, including 58 per cent of Senate Democrats who supported the Iraq Resolution. The Western Left and Right collaborated in this project. The liberal New York Times helpedmanufacture consent for the Iraq war. These hundreds of thousands of deaths, are not labeled as “the Iraq genocide”, but are merely “collateral damage” from the war. Despite the false pretext for this war, neither Bush nor Blair were tried in their countries for war crimes, unlike Modi who went through multiple rounds of judicial scrutiny in India.

Given this history, the West’s apparent concern for Muslims is too facile a reason for the trenchant opposition to Modi. Riots have happened in independent India under many different governments. The British policy of divide and rule had instigated the division of India on religious lines, leading to large-scale displacement and killing.  After independence, simmering conflict fanned by politicians broke into riots, most often during the rule of the Congress. In Gujarat in 1969, nearly 5000 Muslims were killed under Congress rule, yet the Chief Minister was not ruled satanic. Unlike in Gujarat 2002, where scores of Hindu rioters were killed in police firing to stop rioters, the 1984 anti-Sikh riots under Rajiv Gandhi hardly saw any such preventative action. However, Rajiv Gandhi was never demonised in Western academia and media. What is special about Modi?

In his book ‘Clash of Civilizations’, Harvard professor Samuel P Huntington laid out his thesis that basic differences in civilisations will result in a clash. In his book he identified ‘Western’ and ‘Hindu’ civilisations among the major distinct civilisations of the world. While Huntington’s thesis has been criticised, we must accept Huntington’s view as an important way the West looks at the world. Huntington was deeply embedded in the institutions of American power. He was the White House Coordinator of Security Planning under President Jimmy Carter, a consultant to the US Department of State, founder and editor of Foreign Policy magazine and a professor at Columbia and Harvard.

The rise of Modi bothers the West because the BJP and Modi, unlike the Congress, appear to stand for the Hindu civilisation. This view may not be far off. Unlike the other parties, the BJP’s manifesto, explicitly invokes continuity with Hindu kingdoms of the past. It sees modern India, as not just born today, but as a continuity of an ancient civilisation. This threatens both the Christian Right and the Secular Left of the West, the two prongs of Western civilisational imperialism. The Christian Right sees the rise of a Hindu civilisation as threatening its conversion agenda, the Left sees it as a “religious” threat to the expansion of Western secular universalism.

Fed on Doniger-esque caricatures of Hinduism and partisan account of the Gujarat riots, they are inclined to view the rise of a Hindu party as an extremely distasteful and incomprehensible existential threat. Just as the a handful of British people ruled India with the help of a large number of Indian sepoys, the intellectual Indian sepoy army that has internalised the Western worldview, view this rise with the same distaste and actively write against it in India and abroad.

The Hindu civilisation doesn’t have the proclivity towards genocide that shows up in the history of the West. Nor does it fit into the categories of “Religious Right” and “Secular Left.” Monotheism has an issue with diversity and a record of persecuting religious minorities since it is based on exclusive theologies that view the other as Satanic. The Hindu civilisation naturally respects different traditions and has a record of diversity and pluralism, including providing refuge to small minorities such as the Parsis and the Jews without any persecution. It aims to raise human consciousness through harnessing the tendencies of the mind. It has had no concept of the “heathen” or the “kaffir.” Neither does it subscribe to the clash of civilisation but to “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” or ‘one world one family’.

An India based on Hindu civilisational values is not a threat to its diverse religious groups nor to the West. Indeed it may help civilise, or rather Sankritise it, to make it more refined. This has already been discovered by millions of Westerners practicing mindfulness meditation, Yoga, Vipassana, Sanskrit chanting and other Indian spiritual practices as a way to refine the mind and senses. We can only hope that the mainstream of Western Civilisation will also move away from its tendency towards genocide and towards becoming more Sanskrit. India under Modi is less likely to experience religious violence than it has in the years under Congress regimes since independence because of the humanising effect of Hindu culture. India is finding its soul, not losing it.

1)  In God They Trust

2) Wikileaks on Sonia  

3) Children Jihadis

** Western Interventions

Western Interventions in Dravidian & Dalit Faultlines


Rajiv Malhotra & Aravindan Neelakandan


The fabrication of South Indian history is being carried out on an immense scale with the explicit goal of constructing a Dravidian identity that is distinct from that of the rest of India. From the 1830s onwards, this endeavor’s key milestones have claimed that south India: is linguistically separate from the rest of India; has an un-Indian culture, aesthetics and literature; has a history disconnected from India’s; is racially distinct; is religiously distinct; and, consequently, is a separate nation. Tamil classical literature that predates the 19th century reveals no such identity conflicts especially with “alien” peoples of the north, nor does it reveal any sense of victimhood or any view of Westerners or Christians as “liberators.” This identity engineering was begun by British colonial and missionary scholars, picked up by politically ambitious south Indians with British backing, and subsequently assumed a life of its own. Even then it was largely a secular movement for political power (albeit with a substratum of racist rhetoric). In recent decades, however, a vast network of groups based in the West has co-opted this movement and is attempting to transform Tamil identity into the Dravidian Christianity movement premised on a fabricated racial-religious history. This rewriting of history has necessitated a range of archeological falsities and even epigraphic hoaxes, blatantly contradicting scientific evidence. Similar interventions by some of the same global forces have resulted in genocides and civil wars in Sri Lanka, Rwanda and other places. If unchallenged these movements could produce horrific outcomes in South India.


India has its own share of social injustices that need to be continually addressed and resolved. Caste identities have been used to discriminate against others, but these identities were not always crystallized and ossified as they are today, nor were they against a specific religion per se. Caste identity faultlines became invigorated and politicized through the British Censuses of India, and later intensified in independent India by vote bank politics. A dangerous anti-national grand narrative emerged based on claims of a racial Dalit identity and victimhood. But Dalit communities are not monolithic and have diverse local histories and social dynamics. There are several inconsistencies and errors in these caste classifications: not all Dalit communities are equivalent socially and economically, nor are they static or always subordinate to others. While Dravidian and Dalit identities were constructed separately, there is a strategy at work to link them in order to denigrate and demonize Indian classical traditions (including spiritual texts and the identities based on these) as a common enemy. This in turn, has been mapped on to an Afro-Dalit narrative which claims that Dalits are racially related to Africans and all other Indians are “whites.” Thus, Indian civilization itself is demonized as anti-humanistic and oppressive. This has become the playground of major foreign players, both from the evangelical right and from the academic left. It has opened huge career opportunities for an assortment of middlemen including NGOs, intellectuals and “champions of the oppressed.” While the need for relief and structural change is immense, the shortsighted selfish politics is often empowering the movements’ leaders more than the people in whose name the power is being accumulated. The “solutions” could exacerbate the problems.


An entity remains intact as long as the centripetal forces (those bringing its parts together) are stronger than its centrifugal forces (those pulling it apart). This study of a variety of organizations in USA and Europe demonstrates certain dangerous initiatives that could contribute to the breaking up of Indian civilization’s cohesiveness and unity using various pretexts and programs. The institutions involved include certain Western government agencies, churches, think tanks, academics, and private foundations across the political spectrum. Even the fierce fight between Christians and Leftists within the West, and the clash between Islam and Christianity in various places, have been set aside in order to attack India’s unity. Numerous intellectual paradigms, such as postmodernist critiques of “nation,” originating from the West’s own cultural and historical experiences are universalized, imported and superimposed onto India. These ill-fitting paradigms take center stage in Indian intellectual circles and many guilt-ridden Indian elites have joined this enterprise, seeing it as “progressive” and a respectable path for career opportunities. The book does not predict the outcomes but simply shows that such trends are accelerating and do take considerable national resources to counteract. If ignored, these identity divisions can evolve into violent secessionism.


Global competition among collective identities is intensifying, even as the “flat world” of meritocracy seems to enhance individual mobility based on personal competence. But the opportunities and clout of individuals in a global world relies enormously on the cultural capital and standing of the groups from which they emerge and are anchored to. As goes India and Indian culture (of which Hinduism is a major component), so will go the fate of Indians everywhere. Hence, the role of soft power becomes even more important than ever before. Religions and cultures are a key component of such soft power. Christian and Islamic civilizations are investing heavily in boosting their respective soft power, for both internal cohesiveness and external influence. Moreover, undermining the soft power of rivals is clearly seen as a strategic weapon in the modern kurukshetra.


The book raises the question: Who is a “minority” in the present global context? A community may be numerically small relative to the local population, but globally it may in fact be part of the majority that is powerful, assertive and well-funded. Given that India is experiencing a growing influx of global funding, political lobbying, legal action and flow of ideologies, what criteria should we use to classify a group as a “minority”? Should certain groups, now counted as minorities, be reclassified given their enormous worldwide clout, power and resources? If the “minority” concerned has actually merged into an extra-territorial power through ideology (like Maoists) or theology (like many churches and madrassas), through infrastructure investment (like buying large amounts of land, buildings, setting up training centers, etc.), through digital integration and internal governance, then do they not become a powerful tool of intervention representing a larger global force rather than being simply a “minority” in India. Certainly, one would not consider a local franchise of McDonalds in India to be a minor enterprise just because it may employ only a handful of employees with modest revenues locally. It is its global size, presence and clout that are counted and that determine the rules, restrictions and disclosure requirements to which it must adhere. Similarly, nation-states’ presence in the form of consulates is also regulated. But why are foreign religious MNCs exempted from similar requirements of transparency and supervision? (For example: Bishops are appointed by the Vatican, funded by it, and given management doctrine to implement by the Vatican, and yet are not regulated on par with diplomats in consulates representing foreign sovereign states.) Indian security agencies do monitor Chinese influences and interventions into Buddhist monasteries in the northern mountain belt, because such interventions can compromise Indian sovereignty and soft power while boosting China’s clout. Should the same supervision also apply to Christian groups operating under the direction and control of their western headquarters and Islamic organizations funded and/or ideologically influenced by their respective foreign headquarters? Ultimately, the book raises the most pertinent challenge: What should India do to improve and deliver social justice in order to secure its minorities and wean them away from global nexuses that are often anti-Indian?


The book shows how the discourse on India at various levels is being increasingly controlled by the institutions in the West which in turn serve its geo-political ambitions. So, why has India failed to create its own institutions that are the equivalent of the Ford Foundation, Fulbright Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, etc.? Why are there no Indian university based International Relations programs with deep-rooted links to the External Affairs Ministry, RAW, and various cultural, historical and ideological think tanks? Why are the most prestigious journals, university degrees and conferences on India Studies, in sharp contrast to the way China Studies worldwide is under the control of Chinese dominated discourse, based in the West and mostly under the control of western institutions?

Related Articles:

Recent Situation

Pakistan wants US Intervention

India Rebuffs US Intervention

** Equality vs. Appeasement

Secularism degrades from equal treatment to appeasement

S. Gurumurthy – Organiser

WHILE people whose religions differed from that of the mainstream society were mostly eliminated in other civilisations, the record of ancient and medieval Hindu India was the other way round. It welcomed and protected the racially different Jews, Parsis and early Muslims, who came here as refugees fleeing from violent faiths [1].

Take the case of Jews who were butchered all over Christendom [2] and in Islamic nations [3]. In a book titled Indian Jews in Israel brought out by the Consulate of Israel in India in late 1960s, the Editor of the book says that on the formation of Israel, “while most of the others came to Israel driven by persecution, discrimination, murder and other attempts at total genocide, the Jews of India came because of their desire to participate in the building of the Third Jewish Commonwealth…….. Throughout their long sojourn in India, nowhere at no time were they subjected to intolerance, discrimination or persecution”.[4] This could happen in Hindu India only because, in the Hindu world view, all religions enjoyed nearly absolute freedom so considerable as to find no parallels in the West before recent times, according to Western scholars themselves. [5]

The change for the worse – exclusive Muslim politics and nationalists’ failure. But, in the early part of the 20th century, the situation in India changed dramatically. It ceased to be an issue of Hindu philosophical or social treatment of the ‘minority’ Muslim community. There was no change in the Hindu world view about Muslims or Islam. But with the rise in Islamic population and the Partition of Bengal, the Muslim psyche changed and the community turned combative and challenged the Hindus. This aggressive psyche transformed into Muslim political action unmatched by political response from Hindus as Hindus. This mismatch not only led to the Partition of India, but divided the Partitioned India also on communal lines. Here is that instructive story.

The Muslim League led by MA Jinnah was clear that it was a Muslim outfit and had no pretensions about what it wanted. It wanted a Muslim nation-state despite the fact that after Partition Jinnah spoke of secular Pakistan. The League’s campaign was for a theocratic Pakistan which it eventually became. All talk that Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan is founded on Jinnah’s post-Partition bogus drama. “Had Jinnah campaigned for a liberal, secular Pakistan – and that too in competition with the secular Indian National Congress under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru – he would have certainly lost the leadership of the Pakistan Movement.” [6] This truthful testimony is from Muslim side. While the goal of the Muslim political action was clear and self-evident, the political response of the Congress failed to emphasise the common cultural ancestry that included Muslims. Instead it emphasised the need for Hindu-Muslim unity without countering the League’s ideology that Hindus and Muslims belonged to different cultures. While the League owned the exclusive invaders’ culture and rejected the inclusive and common ancestral culture, the Congress too owned the invaders in a bid to appease the Muslims. In the bargain Congress lost the nationalist ideology and yet could not get Muslims following. The ill-advised strategy of the Khilafat movement against the British by the Congress enabled the League to emphasise on the invaders’ identity as Muslim identity and destroy the sense of common culural ancestry.

Muslim [minority] appeasement – continuation of the pre-Partition psyche
The messy Hindu-Muslim unity discourse as a substitute for the ancestral cultural commonalty put the Congress, repeatedly accused by the League as a Hindu Party, continually on the defensive. It got obsessed with only how to undermine its Hindu character to demonstrate its trans-Hindu character. In the competition with the League to wean away and win the Muslim mind, the Congress ideology implicitly became the mirror reflection of the League’s itself, namely that the Hindus and Muslims were two distinct peoples and cultures, with its only addition of Hindu-Muslim unity. The Congress thus sacrificed the ideology inclusive nationalism and implicitly accepted the League exclusivism. So, repeatedly giving in to the political demands of the Muslim leadership became its only way of convincing the Muslims that the Congress was more interested in Muslims than the Muslim League itself. So it began, and once it began, it had to keep on, appeasing the Muslims ideologically just to demonstrate it was not Hindu in character. The idea was to secure their support to prevent the Partition of India, which, of course, it was destined to fail to and did. Had the Congress not sacrificed the nationalist plank to co-opt the Muslims in pre-Partition time, in the post Partition India at least, it would have instituted nationalist politics. But, the single point agenda of the Congress before freedom being to prove to the Muslims that it stood for Muslims, habit of conceding to the demands of Muslims show that the Congress stand for Muslim interest became integral part of the secular political culture and discourse of all parties even after the Partition. In the process, the historic fact that the Muslims and Hindus belong to common ancestry and culture was lost in the national discourse and even after Partition, the pre-Partition psyche began dominating national politics as secularism.

Pre-Partition psyche constitutionalised as post Partition minority rights
The continuation of pre-Partition mindset eventually got constitutionalised in shaping the exclusive minority rights as integral to secularism and became institutionalised as secular politics in free India. The Supreme Court of India itself admitted this fact in its famous judgement on minority rights in St Xavier’s case. The Supreme Court [ through Justice H.R. Khanna] traced the conceptual origin of the minority rights under Article 30 in the Constitution thus:
“75. Before we deal with the contentions advanced before us and the scope and ambit of Article 30 of the Constitution, it may be pertinent to refer to the historical background. ……… The closing years of British rule were marked by communal riots and dissensions. There was also a feeling of distrust and the demand was made by a section of the Muslims for separate homeland. This ultimately resulted in the Partition of the country. Those who led the fight for Independence of India always laid great stress on communal amity and accord. They wanted the establishment of a secular State wherein people belonging to different religions should have a feeling of equality and non-discrimination. Demand had also been made by a section of people belonging to various minority groups for reservation of seats and separate electorates. In order to bring about integration and fusion among different sections of population, the framers of the Constitution did away with separate electorates and introduced the system of joint electorates, so that every candidate in an election should have to look for the support of all sections of the citizens. Special safeguards were guaranteed for minorities and were made part of the Fundamental Rights with a view to instil a sense of confidence and security in the minorities. Those provisions were a kind of a Charter of rights for the minorities so that none might have the feeling that any section of the population consisted of first class citizens and others of second class citizens. The result was that the minorities gave up their claims for reservation of seats. Sardar Patel, who was the Chairman of the Advisory Committee dealing with the question of minorities, said in the course of his speech delivered on February 27, 1947:
“This Committee forms one of the most vital parts of the Constituent Assembly and one of the most difficult tasks that has to be done by it is the work of this Committee. Often you must have heard in various debates in British Parliament that have been held on this question recently and before when it has been claimed on behalf of the British Government that they have a special responsibility – a special obligation – for protection of the minorities. They claim to have more special interest than we have. It is for us to prove that it is a bogus claim, and that nobody can be more interested than us in India in the protection of our minorities. Our mission is to satisfy every interest and safeguard the interests of all minorities to their satisfaction” (The Framing of the India’s Constitution, B. Shiva Rao, Select Documents, Vol II p.66). It is in this context of that background that we should view the provisions of the Constitution contained in Articles 25 to 30. The object of Articles 25 to 30 was to preserve the rights or religious and linguistic minorities, to place them on a secure pedestal, and withdraw from the vicissitudes of political controversy. ……” [7]

The Supreme Court exposition has made it explicit that the Indian Constitution-making process was under the continued impact of pre-Partition psyche to provide special dispensation for minorities. Sardar Patel’s admission of psychological pressure for grant of special rights in the Constitution is a clear pointer. Result, the Constitution of India itself divided the people of India as majority – read Hindus with ordinary rights, and minorities – read Muslims with special rights which expanded to granting financial largesse also later. This distorted the meaning of secularism from equal and fair treatment to special treatment and appeasement of minorities – read Muslims. This was what Guruji had warned and fought against as we will see in the next part.

[1] Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs: http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/cjc-katz-f05.htm and The Parsis of India: Preservation of identity in Bombay city by Jesse S. Palsetia; Publisher: BRILL [2001]. ISBN:9004121145, 9789004121140 [pages 1-34 introduction]
[2] A calander of Jewish Persecution http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.html
[3] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_%28gen%29.html
[4] Indian Jews in Israel, edited and published by Reuven Dafai, Consul, on behalf of the Consulate of Israel, 50 Pedder Road, Cumballa Hill, Bombay.
[5] Article by Mehdi Hasan in New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/07/india-secularism-state, quoting Max Weber
[6] Jinnah and Secular Pakistan: Setting the Records Straight. By Perves Hoodbhoy. Economic and Political Weekly 11 Aug 2007 p3301 http://www.scribd.com/Jinnah-and-Pakistan-as-an-Islamic-State-by-Pervez-Hoodbhoy/d/7065207
[7] AIR 1974 SC 1389 at 1413
[8] Religious Demography Centre for Policy Studies. Summary available athttp://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Religious-Demography-of-India-2.aspx

** Is Hinduism Casteist?


Is Hinduism Casteist?

Sw. AbhayaNanda

The Vedic society is often criticized by the modern intelligentsia for its apparently discriminating stand against a certain section of the society. The detractors claim that the Vedas directly support racist and feudal dominance by brandishing a certain group of people as ‘shudras’, or low born. India has witnessed social upheavals on this issue, and today caste system has become a sensitive subject with serious ramifications on the national political scene.

However the Vedas present a view contrary to the modern zealots’ interpretation, and is actually egalitarian in outlook, a point totally ignored by the critics.

Birth v/s qualification

Lord Krishna states in the Bhagavad Gita, the most authorized book for the Hindus, that a person’s position in the society is based on his qualifications and work, and not on birth (BG 4.13). Thus a person, although born in an apparently higher caste, has to qualify himself.

Similarly if a person born into a ‘lower’ caste displays qualities of a person of the ‘higher’ order, he shouldn’t be discouraged. We cannot assume that a child of doctor parents automatically qualifies himself/herself to be a doctor on the basis of birth in one such family. Similarly no one can claim to be a brahmana without qualifying himself by the necessary training.

The Chandogya Upanishad illustrates this point with the story of Satyakama, a young boy who approached a spiritual master for enlightenment. The guru enquired about his father and the boy said he was unaware of his father’s identity. He was then told to go and ask his mother. He soon returned and candidly confessed that his mother had known many men, and is herself unsure about his father’s identity. The spiritual master, being pleased with this honesty, declared to the boy, “You are a real brahmana“.

Need for social divisions

However a question arises on the need to have such a system in the first place, because this categorization threatens to alienate certain groups from the mainstream. Moreover a classless society assures freedom from these artificial barriers, and promises equal opportunity to all.

The Vedas declare that this kind of division exists in the society naturally. A balanced and healthy body has the brain, arms, belly and legs working in good condition. Similarly the symptom of a healthy social body is the peaceful coexistence of teachers and intelligentsia, the administrators, the business class and the laborers. The brahmanas in Vedic society refers to the ‘brain’ of society, i.e. they provide the intellectual capital and spiritual and moral direction. The Kshatriyas, or the administrators are compared to the arms and they have a crucial role to protect the citizens. The Vaishyas, or business class are compared to the belly, and the worker class or shudras are the legs which support the other three orders.

This division is natural in any society as different people adopt different occupations based on interest and inclinations.

To say the arms are needed but the legs are unimportant for the body is foolish. Likewise to condemn a certain occupational class within the same society is disastrous. Needless to say all the orders have to work with dignity of labor, mutual respect and in harmony with each other.

Cause of modern problems

The problems in the Vedic society arose primarily due to getting these basics wrong and rampant exploitation taking place on the basis of one’s birth in a particular caste.

In a human body, although all parts are important, the brain is undoubtedly most vital. Without the brain’s working, a physically perfect body is considered unproductive. Similarly for the society to run smoothly, the brahmana class has to be of impeccable character and integrity. With the corruption of this class, influenced by false pride and arrogance, the social order became chaotic.

Sadly today in India there are many smarta- brahmanas, or caste-conscious brahmanas who insist that one cannot be elevated to brahminical status unless he is born in a brahmana family. This brahmana by-birth conception is non-Vedic, and has justifiably agitated the other sections. Little surprise then, that the politicization of this issue and the resultant violence is eroding the social fabric.

The solution- Rising ‘above’ the caste system

Lord Krishna reveals in the Bhagavad Gita, the identity of each person as distinctly different from the body (BG 2.13). Presently the ‘soul’ or the real ‘I’ is covered by this body and identifying with this perishable body, we claim to belong to a particular caste, nationality, race etc.

Although this occupational division helps one to progress gradually by encouraging us to dovetail our propensities, Krishna extols the intelligent to transcend these temporary designations. He declares the highest religion is to render loving devotional service to God, and when we engage in our activities with a desire to serve and please Him, we immediately go beyond these petty classifications. When the society is trained to be God conscious, each member then performs his/her duty in a purified consciousness and considers himself as a servant of all others in the society.

Thus the Srimad Bhagavatam declares:

“O best among the twice-born, it is therefore concluded that the highest perfection one can achieve by discharging the duties prescribed for one’s own occupation according to caste divisions and orders of life is to please the Personality of Godhead.” (SB -1.2.13)

The Vedas thus declare that the perfection of this institutional framework is to cooperate jointly for the satisfaction of the Supreme Lord. Srila Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON writes, “This system exists not for artificial domination of one division over another. When the aim of life, i.e., realization of the Absolute Truth, is missed by too much attachment for sense gratification, this institution is utilized by selfish men to pose an artificial predominance over the weaker section. In the Kali-yuga, or the age of quarrel, this artificial predominance is already current, but the saner section of the people knows it well that the divisions of castes and orders of life are meant for smooth social intercourse and high-thinking self-realization and not for any other purpose.”

A Global revolution since mid 15th century

Five hundred years ago Lord Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, who appeared in Navadwip, West Bengal (1486-1534), preached the dharma of Kali-yuga, namely chanting of the holy names of God. Widely distributing this message, he induced all to take shelter of God, irrespective of caste and religious barriers. Some of his closest associates were not even Hindus, yet by their unflinching faith in chanting the Holy Names of God, they proved to be more glorious than the ritualistic priests and brahmanas.

One of Lord Chaitanya’s closest associate was Haridas Thakur who had taken birth in a Muslim family and was a reject according to the conventional Hindu caste system. However Lord Chaitanya recognized him as the greatest devotee of Lord Krishna of that time (16th century).

Following this tradition, Srila Prabhupada also preached this message of Krishna consciousness in the Western countries. Starting from New York in 1966, he created a revolution by initiating Americans, Europeans and Africans as Vaishnava brahmanas and sannyasis. For all the criticism by the orthodox Hindus, it is these apparently ‘low born’ who have contributed to spreading the Vedic culture all over the world. Ironically the narrow minded champions of Hindu dharma on the other hand have done little to glorify the supreme Lord and His Holy Names.

Of course Srila Prabhupada clarified that this awarding of brahmana and sannyasa to individuals should not be done indiscriminately but rather by careful examination and training in highest standards of purity and God centered principles. Today many other ‘Hindu’ societies like Art of Living, Chinmaya mission, besides many others are demonstrating this principle through their world wide preaching of the real Vedic/Indian spirituality.



** To forget is to forgive

To forget would be to forgive

Kanchan Gupta


Twenty years ago this past week, Hindus were forced to flee Kashmir Valley, their ancestral land, by Islamic fanatics baying for their blood. Not a finger was raised by the state in admonition nor did ‘civil society’ feel outraged. In these 20 years, India has forgotten that outrage, a grotesque assault on our idea of nationhood. So much so, nobody even talks of the Kashmiri Pandits, driven out of their home and hearth, virtually stripped of their identity and reduced to living as refugees in their own country, any more.

Our ‘secular’ media, obsessed as it is with pandering to the baser instincts of Muslim separatists, waxing eloquent about the many sorrows of India’s least of all minorities, arguing the case for rabid mullahs and demanding ‘greater autonomy’ for Jammu & Kashmir so that the Tricolour doesn’t fly there any more, has not thought it fit to take note of the 20th anniversary of the new age Exodus. Our politicians, who salivate for Muslim votes and are willing to go to any extent to appease ‘minority sentiments’ — including approving the automatic though absurd inclusion of Muslims in the list of BPL beneficiaries of the Indian state’s munificence in keeping with the Prime Minister’s ‘Muslims first’ policy — would rather pretend this particular event never happened.

Our judiciary, which endlessly agonises over terrorists and their molls being killed in Gujarat, has not thought it fit to set up a Special Investigation Team to identify the guilty men of 1990 and bring them to justice. It would seem Hindu pride, Hindu dignity and Hindu lives are irrelevant in this wondrous land of ours.

Tragically, Hindus have no sense of history: Those who have come of age in these 20 years, we can be sure, are ignorant of how the Kashmir Valley was cleansed of its Hindu population through a modern day genocide.

To forget, it is often said, is to forgive. But should we forgive those who committed this monstrous act of criminal misdeed? Should we forget that the Government of India has disowned the Hindus of Kashmir Valley? Should we rationalise the remorseless attitude of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir towards the plight of Kashmiri Pandits?


Srinagar, January 4, 1990. Aftab, a local Urdu newspaper, publishes a Press release issued by Hizb-ul Mujahideen, set up by the Jamaat-e-Islami in 1989 to wage jihad for Jammu & Kashmir’s secession from India and accession to Pakistan, asking all Hindus to pack up and leave. Another local paper, Al Safa, repeats this expulsion order.

In the following days, there is near chaos in the Kashmir Valley with Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah and his National Conference Government abdicating all responsibilities. Masked men run amok, waving Kalashnikovs, shooting to kill and shouting anti-India slogans.

Reports of killing of Kashmiri Pandits begin to trickle in; there are explosions; inflammatory speeches are made from the pulpits of mosques, using public address systems meant for calling the faithful to prayers. A terrifying fear psychosis begins to take grip of Kashmiri Pandits.

Walls are plastered with posters and handbills, summarily ordering all Kashmiris to strictly follow the Islamic dress code, prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks and imposing a ban on video parlours and cinemas. The masked men with Kalashnikovs force people to re-set their watches and clocks to Pakistan Standard Time.

Shops, business establishments and homes of Kashmiri Pandits, the original inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley with a recorded cultural and civilisational history dating back 5,000 years, are marked out. Notices are pasted on doors of Pandit houses, peremptorily asking the occupants to leave Kashmir within 24 hours or face death and worse. Some are more lucid: “Be one with us, run, or die!

* * *

Srinagar, January 19, 1990. Mr Jagmohan arrives to take charge as Governor. Mr Farooq Abdullah, whose Government has all but ceased to exist, resigns and goes into a sulk. Curfew is imposed as a first measure to restore some semblance of law and order. But it fails to have a deterrent effect.

Throughout the day, Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front and Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists use public address systems at mosques to exhort people to defy curfew and take to the streets. Masked men, firing from their Kalashnikovs, march up and down, terrorising cowering Pandits who, by then, have locked themselves in their homes.

As evening falls, the exhortations become louder and shriller. Three taped slogans are repeatedly played the whole night from mosques: Kashmir mei agar rehna hai, Allah-o-Akbar kehna hai’ (If you want to stay in Kashmir, you have to say Allah-o-Akbar); ‘Yahan kya chalega, Nizam-e-Mustafa’ (What do we want here? Rule of Sharia’h); ‘Asi gachchi Pakistan, Batao roas te Batanev san’ (We want Pakistan along with Hindu women but without their men).

The Pandits have reason to be fearful. In the preceding months, 300 Hindu men and women, nearly all of them Kashmiri Pandits, had been slaughtered ever since the brutal murder of noted lawyer Pandit Tika Lal Taploo by the JKLF in Srinagar on September 14, 1989.

Soon after that, Justice NK Ganju of the Srinagar High Court was shot dead. Pandit Sarwanand Premi, 80-year-old poet, and his son were kidnapped, tortured, their eyes gouged out, and hanged to death. A Kashmiri Pandit nurse working at the Soura Medical College Hospital in Srinagar was gang-raped and then beaten to death. Another woman was abducted, raped and sliced into pieces at a saw mill.

In villages and towns across the valley, terrorist hit lists have been floating about. All the names are of Pandits. With no Government worth its name, the administration having collapsed, the police nowhere to be seen, despondency sets in. As the night of January 19, 1990, wears itself out, despondency gives way to desperation.

And tens of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits across the valley take a painful decision: To flee their homeland to save their lives. Thus takes place a 20th century Exodus.

* * *

After the Holocaust, Jews reflected on their persecution and resolved, ‘Never again.’ Yad Vashem is not only a moving memorial to the atrocities committed against Jews, it is also an archive that documents specific details, including names, addresses and photographs, so that future generations neither forget nor forgive their tormentors.

Twenty years after the persecution of Hindus began in Kashmir Valley, we don’t even know how many men, women and children were stripped of their rights; how many were raped, slaughtered and maimed; their names; and, what happened to those who survived. Barring those living in refugee camps in Jammu and Delhi, in the hope that some day they will be able to return to Kashmir Valley with their dignity and safety assured. Deep within they know, and the rest of us know, that is never going to happen.

And thereby hangs a tragic tale of callous Hindu indifference.

Related stories Below:

1) Stakeholders of Kashmir @ http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1036

2) Francois Gautier on  Historyhttp://indiaview. wordpress.com/2008/01/25/ forgive-but-never-forget-–- history