“The Congress and its pseudo-secular allies have a dangerous agenda. They want to protect their vote banks by diluting the fight against jihad and evangelisation. “Hindu terror” and “saffron terror” are nothing but aspects of a conspiracy to emasculate and destroy the idea of India.” – B.R. Haran
Since the formation of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in 2004 there has been a marked rise in the number of sleeper modules of jihadi organisations across India. The high priority accorded by UPA-1 to the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, had a significant bearing on the career of Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).
This terrorist group, which acted on direct orders of the Lashkar- e-Tayyeba (LeT) found the latitude accorded by a pseudo-secular regime in Delhi to reinvent itself as “Indian Mujahideen”, “Deccan Mujahideen” and “Popular Front of India.”
Between 2004 and 2008 terrorist strikes either in the form of bomb blasts or sudden attacks by armed jihadis, became almost a monthly affair. The incompetence of the UPA government in fighting terror was exposed.
The Maharashtra ATS led by Hemant Karkare conducted political investigations into the Malegon blasts and exposed itself through select arrests and selective leakages of investigations to the media. In order to add weight to its claims, the ATS opined that the same accused were also involved in the Ajmer, Hyderabad Mecca Masjid and Samjhauta Express blasts. The credibility of the investigations vanished when its bluff on “Sadhvi’s motorcycle” “Colonel Purohit’s RDX” failed to impress the nation, despite the support of a conniving mainstream media. The credibility hit rock bottom when the ATS came out with the story that the Malegon accused had also conspired to kill RSS leaders.
Even while the 26/11 attack was raging, a ‘Hindu-Zionist’ conspiracy theory was concocted and spread through the Internet. Suspicion was engendered that the fall of ATS chief Karkare to a hail of terrorist bullets was actually a “Hindu-Zionist” job, carried out to get even with him for carrying out the Maelgon probe. Abdul Rehman Antulay, the then Minority Affairs Minister, became the first official personality to spread this canard. Congress bigwig leaders like Digvijay Singh and Shakeel Ahmed came out openly in support of Antulay. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the party’s high-profile spokesman, said: “BJP has advantages and will gain from the terror attack.” The then Home Minister of Maharashtra, RR Patil, opined that Karkare had met him on the fateful evening and complained bitterly about the RSS for focusing on its ‘role’ in the Malegon blast. The same lie was sought to be spread by Digvijay Singh.
The HRD Minister, Kapil Sibal, said after Karkare’s death: “The terrorists knew exactly whom they were targeting.” The then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Vilasrao Deshmukh, hurt the sentiments of the people by commenting that only 200 deaths had resulted in 26/11 which was insignificant compared to Mumbai’s population of more than 1.5 crore. But Congess leader Narayan Rane hit out at his colleague’s irresponsible statements and revealed that some of them had indeed financed terrorists and provided terrorists safe haven in the country. He accepted full responsibility for this statement and added that he would provide all the details with proof at the “appropriate time.”
Statements such as this by Congress and UPA leaders in various media might have sounded like Freudian slips, but they have assumed special importance over time, perhaps in direct proportion to the revelations of corruption perpetrated by the Congress leaders. Corruption is a way of life in India’s grand old party. With so many scams being blown in recent months by a media elite which has suddenly rediscovered its conscience, the Congress has been left with no alternative but add fuel to the fire under the old communal pot.
During the DGP’s Conference in August 2010, Home Minister P Chidambaram audaciously warned about a “new phenomenon” called “saffron terror”. This was around the time when the Commonwealth Games scam was being blown in the national media and the global image of the nation taking a hit. The Congress could think of no other diversionary tactic but raise the “Hindu terror” specter because that was the only way it could remind its ‘reliable’ voters that at the end of the day only one thing mattered in India — the perceived “safety” of Islam. When Chidambaram faced criticism for mouthing such objectionable lies, he refused to yield. Rather, he had the audacity to say that his remark had brought the message home and that its “purpose” had been served. It was no secret to anybody what that “purpose” was. The demonification of Hindutva forces.
In early December, when the people of India were shaken of confidence in their nation by the magnitude of the UPA’s scams, the Congress organised a plenary session to celebrate the 150th year of the founding of the Indian National Congress — an organisation with which it has no organic or inorganic linkage. At that event, Sonia Gandhi made sure not to mention the corruption and nepotism with which her family enterprise had come to be identified. Instead, she chose to hit out at the RSS; linking it with “Hindu terror”. Pranab Mukherjee contributed his mite to the foul atmosphere. Rahul Gandhi, who was partying at the wedding of his friend’s son while Mumbai was under attack by jihadi terrorists, equated the RSS with SIMI. When the entire nation protested in one voice against his position, Rahul neither repented nor withdrew his words. Later, Wikileaks revealed that he was indeed damaging India in the international arena by serving the cooked-up story of Hindu terror. He had talked about a “bigger” threat to jihadism emanating from “radicalised Hindu groups”. United States Ambassador Timothy Roemer made a note of this which Wikileaks revealed.
One should not make the mistake of assuming that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is aloof from all this. In fact, he was the first to talk about Hindu terror. While on board a special aircraft to Havana in the immediate aftermath of the September 2006 Malegon blasts, he had said: “Involvement of Hindu fundamentalist outfits cannot be ruled out”. From that point on, it was a consistent Congress policy to pin the blame for blasts in Muslim-dominated neighbourhoods on Hindus. It is based on the assumption that jihadi groups, being peopled by Muslims, do not target fellow Muslims. This attacks the universal, politically correct axiom that terrorists are religion neutral. The double face of the Congress was exposed at this point itself.
The National Investigation Agency, to please its political masters, foolishly opposed the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the US Department of Treasury which have identified LeT with Samjhauta and other terror attacks in India. American investigators have also established the involvement of LeT and HUJI (Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami) behind the Mecca Masjid blasts. Moreover, many journalists have vouched for the character of Swami Aseemananda. Now, the NIA’s job has become more complicated, for it has to prove UNSC, the US Treasury Department and other credible agencies wrong and also explain the earlier confession made by Islamic terrorist Nagori.
The Congress and its pseudo-secular allies have a dangerous agenda. They want to protect their vote banks by diluting the fight against jihad and evangelisation. “Hindu terror” and “saffron terror” are nothing but aspects of a conspiracy to emasculate and destroy the idea of India. – The Pioneer, 22 January 2011
» B.R. Haran is a political commentator based in Chennai.
See also
Filed under: india | Tagged: ethnic cleansing, hindu, hindu terror, india, indian politics, jihad, sushilkumar shinde, terrorism, values |
BHARATA BHARATI 
The article by Gurumurthy “Samjhauta Blast Case: Counter Investigation To NIA Investigation” is recommended reading for those who have the time for the details.
Given the machinations of the NIA / other Indian authorities, it is no wonder that the FBI will not release David Headley to India for questioning!
LikeLike
http://newindianexpress.com/nation/article1432735.ece
another one by Gurumurthy.
LikeLike
http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/315047/the-last-word-indian-medias-response-to-soldiers-killing-jingoistic.html
Vinod Mehta says well for first time. “Is there any report in the Pakistani Media”. Barkha Dutt to whom the Pakistani journalist has referred, referred to Nepalese report. So this Pak journalist says it is true. What a load of rubbish.
LikeLike
BR Haran’s analysis is the most accurate of all. In order to secure their vote bank the Congress is going to any lengths. In doing so they are abandoning India’s fight against jihadism.
The other point is : many of the dubious characters in Congress are fifth columnists. As for the eminence grise, she is Roman Catholic and would have no compunctions about seeing Hindu India go down the tube. And you have publications like The Hindu and the Communist parties sitting on the fence at best and at worst joining in the attack against Hindu India.
There is Praveen Swami making a statement that Indian soldiers beheaded a Pakistani one in 2008 in retaliation for their own soldiers being beheaded. He did add that The Hindu did not have any independent verification for this. So why did he repeat this story ? A couple of days ago you have AG Noorani blatantly repeating the story by saying that Praveen Swami had done an expose ! See his article in The Hindu (Manmohan Singh’s Abject Surrender, Jan. 24, 2013). Surprisingly none of the 32 comments bothered to check the Swami article.
I took Swami to task for citing uncorroborated evidence in my article ‘Praveen Swami an unreliable reporter?’ in Haindava Keralam.
The RSS is right in distancing itself from any terrorism. Shri Gurumurthy’s article in New Indian Express (Nailing Shinde’s Lies) is excellent.
LikeLike
HINDU TERRORISM
Posted on January 22, 2013 by François Gautier on FRANCOIS GAUTIER
THE OFFICIAL BLOG at http://francoisgautier.wordpress.com/
Is there such a thing as ‘Hindu terrorism’, as Home Minister Shinde is heavily hinting at? Well, I am one of that rare breed of foreign correspondents — a lover of Hindus! A born Frenchman, Catholic-educated and non-Hindu, I do hope I’ll be given some credit for my opinions, which are not the product of my parents’ ideas, my education or my atavism, but garnered from 25 years of reporting in South Asia (for Le Journal de Geneve and Le Figaro).
In the early 1980s, when I started freelancing in south India, doing photo features on Kalaripayattu, the Ayyappa festival, or the Ayyanars, I slowly realised that the genius of this country lies in its Hindu ethos, in the true spirituality behind Hinduism. The average Hindu you meet in a million villages possesses this simple, innate spirituality and accepts your diversity, whether you are Christian or Muslim, Jain or Arab, French or Chinese. It is this Hinduness that makes the Indian Christian different from, say, a French Christian, or the Indian Muslim unlike a Saudi Muslim. I also learnt that Hindus not only believed that the divine could manifest itself at different times, under different names, using different scriptures (not to mention the wonderful avatar concept, the perfect answer to 21st century religious strife) but that they had also given refuge to persecuted minorities from across the world—Syrian Christians, Parsis, Jews, Armenians, and today, Tibetans.
In 3,500 years of existence, Hindus have never militarily invaded another country, never tried to impose their religion on others by force or induced conversions. You cannot find anybody less fundamentalist than a Hindu in the world and it saddens me when I see the Indian and western press equating terrorist groups like SIMI, which blow up innocent civilians, with ordinary, angry Hindus who burn churches without killing anybody. We know also that most of these communal incidents often involve persons from the same groups—often Dalits and tribals—some of who have converted to Christianity and others not. However reprehensible the destruction of Babri Masjid, no Muslim was killed in the process; compare this to the ‘vengeance’ bombings of 1993 in Bombay, which wiped out hundreds of innocents, mostly Hindus. Yet the Babri Masjid destruction is often described by journalists as the more horrible act of the two. We also remember how Sharad Pawar, when he was chief minister of Maharashtra in 1993, lied about a bomb that was supposed to have gone off in a Muslim locality of Bombay.
I have never been politically correct, but have always written what I have discovered while reporting. Let me then be straightforward about this so-called Hindu terror. Hindus, since the first Arab invasions, have been at the receiving end of terrorism, whether it was by Timur, who killed 1,00,000 Hindus in a single day in 1399, or by the Portuguese Inquisition which crucified Brahmins in Goa. Today, Hindus are still being targeted: there were one million Hindus in the Kashmir valley in 1900; only a few hundred remain, the rest having fled in terror. Blasts after blasts have killed hundreds of innocent Hindus all over India in the last four years. Hindus, the overwhelming majority community of this country, are being made fun of, are despised, are deprived of the most basic facilities for one of their most sacred pilgrimages in Amarnath while their government heavily sponsors the Haj. They see their brothers and sisters converted to Christianity through inducements and financial traps, see a harmless 84-year-old swami and a sadhvi brutally murdered. Their gods are blasphemed. So sometimes, enough is enough.
At some point, after years or even centuries of submitting like sheep to slaughter, Hindus—whom the Mahatma once gently called cowards—erupt in uncontrolled fury. And it hurts badly. It happened in Gujarat. It happened in Jammu, then in Kandhamal, Mangalore, Malegaon, or Ajmer. It may happen again elsewhere. What should be understood is that this is a spontaneous revolution on the ground, by ordinary Hindus, without any planning from the political leadership.
Therefore, the BJP, instead of fighting over each other as to whom should be the next party president, or who will be their PM candidate for the 2014 elections, should do well to put its house together. For it’s evident that the Congress has decided on this absurd strategy of the absurd, the untrue, the unjust, the treacherous, only to target Mr Narendra Modi, their enemy number One.
It should also fight the Untrue with Truth: there are about a billion Hindus, one in every six persons on this planet. They form one of the most successful, law-abiding and integrated communities in the world today. Can you call them terrorists? Let the BJP compile a statistics of how many Hindus were killed by Muslims since 1947 and how many Muslims by Hindus. These statistics will speak by themselves
LikeLike
HINDU TERRORISM: HOW TO PREVENT IT
Posted on January 24, 2013 by Koenraad Elst on KOENRAAD ELST BLOG at http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/hindu-terrorism-how-to-prevent-it.html
The UPA Home Minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde, is but the umpteenth to repeat in public the notion of “Hindu terrorism” and to apply it to the RSS and BJP. Predictably, the RSS and BJP react furiously. They say they have nothing to do with Hindu terrorism, and that the lone Hindu terrorist Nathuram Godse, the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi and hanged 63 years ago, was not a member.
Nathuram Godse
To start with the last point: ideologically, Nathuram Godse had remained an RSS man, singing an RSS hymn to Mother India on his way to the gallows. His brother Gopal Godse testified in several interviews, including to myself, that Nathuram had emphasized his quitting the non-political RSS (for the political party Hindu Mahasabha) in order to provide the RSS some breathing distance to his own inevitably demonized person. His non-membership was an organizational technicality, but ideologically, he had remained with the RSS. That way, at least, Gopal liked to pull the leg of the “soft” RSS and its even softer political party, the BJP. However, I think Nathuram’s non-membership was essential in the one respect that is crucial here: if he had been a full RSS man, his superiors would have told him not to commit the assassination.
No matter what its ideological position, the RSS was first and foremost an organization. It had a purpose, and considered itself important to the realization of that purpose. So, it wanted to safeguard itself. Now, the crackdown on the RSS and other Hindu organizations after the Gandhi assassination in 1948 was perfectly foreseeable. On the other hand, Gandhi was discredited by his non-resistance against the Partition and its attendant calamities. The Hindu movement had been proven right and had the wind in the sails. The assassination changed all that completely: the grip on society by Jawaharlal Nehru and his secularism was enormously strengthened while the Hindu movement was marginalized and thrown back for decades. It is unlikely that the RSS felt suicidal and would want to bring this setback on itself. An RSS member would have thought of the consequences to the organization and the wider Hindu movement. Only a non-member, ideologically on the same wavelength as the Hindu nationalists but organizationally a lone wolf, could commit this murder. In the RSS, the widespread anti-Gandhi sentiment was suppressed by the even higher consideration of the Sangh’s own welfare. But Godse made himself the instrument of this much wider sentiment, shared by many suffering Hindus who had never been near the RSS. That is why leftists who blame the RSS for the murder of Gandhi are wrong.
For the same reason, they are wrong in associating the RSS or the BJP with terrorism. More than any other organizations in India, the RSS and its allies know that if anything happens, they will get the blame. Even they are not stupid enough to smash their own windows by engaging in terrorism. But numerous Hindus are on the same Hindu nationalist wavelength without being members, and some of them may be tempted by hit-and-run alternatives rather than by the characteristic discipline of the RSS. I have already remarked that many Hindu initiatives are seeing the light of day without any RSS affiliation. That counts for those disappointed with the weak-kneed policies of the RSS, or with its anti-intellectual inclination, or with its appeasement of the non-Hindus; but it may also take the form of nuclei of militants who want “direct action”.
Suspicion
Now fast forward to the present. Does it exist at all, Hindu terrorism?
On the scale and the level of organization of Muslim terrorism, it of course does not exist. It is a figment of the secular imagination. Not even of Hinduphobia, because the secularists have no genuine “fear of Hindus”. They fear the Muslims (which makes them, in their own terminology, “Islamophobes”), not the Hindus. Indeed it is because they have a real fear of the Muslims but only pretend to fear the Hindus that they bend over backwards to please the Muslims and not the Hindus. Yes, the Hindus are capable of rioting in the streets, generally when provoked, but willful violence against persons, groups or property by purposely prepared groups is rare, if existent at all. It has so far not been their favourite modus operandi.
Smaller-scale acts of terror, such as arson of Muslim religious buildings (or of the jeep of the Australian missionary Graham Staines, with three people inside) or the targeted assassination of religious leaders, have been alleged. Some famous court cases have led to nothing, but other incidents have been reported that seem genuine cases of “Hindu terrorism”. Thus, in Panjab, the so-called Shiv Sena has been accused of targeting some Khalistani leaders. The Azad Sangathan has been mentioned as targeting Muslims in Haryana, and likewise the Sanatan Sanstha in Maharashtra. Church burnings in Manipur have been blamed on Hindus. The Bengal revolutionary movement against the British, the Abhinava Bharat society, has been refounded. Those who take this trend seriously, fear that though small now, it might signal a wave of the future, when “Hindu terrorism” will be a large and endemic problem. It is therefore important to address it at the root.
There may be reasons not to believe the allegations by the biased media, but when Hindus I know testify from their personal contacts that “Hindu terrorism does exist”, I tend to believe them. It is but the factual tip of a verbal iceberg: the pro-violence messages I receive all the time on the internet, often from Gujarati businessmen raised on a diet of Gandhian non-violence but wizened up by real-life experiences with Islam. Hindus who make the move from this mouse-clicking violence to actual terrorism are very rare, but more than zero.
The one thing that can be said in defence of Hindu terror is that it proves Hindus are not dead yet. Like the Sangh Parivar, where numerous people are dedicating themselves to making a success of projects and policies that may or may not be rightly-inspired, the as yet little-studied Hindu terrorists are sacrificing for the Hindu cause. As it happens, they are mindlessly sacrificing other people’s lives thinking this will further the interests of Hindu society. There are better ways, requiring more intelligence and a more persistent sense of direction, so one hopes that their primitive enthusiasm can be transmuted in a more constructive direction.
Logic behind terrorism
Supposing it exists, what is the logic behind Hindu terrorism? What makes a Hindu conclude that terror is the solution? Several factors combine.
Firstly, Islam is comfortable with violence, has no scruples about it, and uses it on a large scale. This is being confirmed every day, from Nigeria and Mali through Afghanistan and Pakistan to Xinjiang and southern Thailand. Some hot-blooded Hindus conclude very logically that, at any rate, violence is a language Muslims understand.
Secondly, the government is not protecting Hindus. In West Bengal, it sides with the illegal Muslim immigrants against the Hindu Samhati. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, Hindus are permanently exposed to petty acts of terror, from eve-teasing through abduction and forced marriages to Muslim to torture and murder; the Indian government fails to raise its voice, let alone use its influence. Bangladesh owes its very existence to India and is an indigent country dependent on foreign aid; it should be easy to get its government to prevent anti-Hindu terror; yet this is not happening. Hindus are increasingly desperate.
Thirdly, whenever Islam commits acts of terror, the secular elite (in India like in the West) is superficially making “religion” in general guilty, thus allotting guilt to Hinduism when judging crimes committed in the name of Islam, with Hindus as the victims. In reality, there are occasional terrorists in other religions, from Guy Fawkes in Catholicism and Yigal Amir in Judaism to Nathuram Godse in Hinduism, but Islam is violence-prone and terror-minded with an unprecedented systematicity and therefore on a much larger scale. Unlike Hinduism, Islam was founded by and looks up to a man who committed murder, abduction for ransom, rape, slave-taking and slave-trading.
More importantly here, the secular elite implicitly but unmistakably expresses a fascination with violence. When Communism was going strong, numerous intellectuals were Communist or were defending Communist regimes. Politicians were introducing policies inspired by Communism, such as India’s stifling licence-permit raj. As I remember, left-wing “city guerrilla” in Europe in the 70s and 80s was considered an object of fun, perhaps a bit misguided but fundamentally well-inspired. It never delegitimized the use of its language of “class struggle” in mainstream politics. The trendy intellectuals have blood on their tender hands.
When Islam replaced Communism as the most popular justification of violence, intellectuals and politicians started defending Islam. And the more it made headlines with acts of terrorism, the more they defended it. At no time were more mosques visited by politicians than after the attacks of 11 September 2001, in order to ensure Muslim communities that in the eyes of the ruling class, they had no connection with what “a few extremists” had done in their name. In India too, Muslims prove that violence works. Thus, against the departing British colonizers’ and the Hindu majority’s opposition, the Muslim minority managed to force the Partition of India on all others by unleashing violence and making clear that the refusal of their demand would lead to even more violence. Incipient violence and the threat of more violence achieved the Shah Bano law, the banning of The Satanic Verses, and other small but symbolic gains for the Muslim community. More importantly, this creates an atmosphere where a confrontation with Muslim opinion on more consequential issues is avoided. Thus, the secular Congress Party does not dare to implement a Common Civil Code, an eminently secular reform enjoined by the Constitution and by the Supreme Court. Even the BJP, which had all along promised the enactment of a Common Civil Code, refrained from raising the issue when it was in power. The assurance that the BJP regretted the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the assumption of an ideological low profile by the supposed Hindu nationalist party, not to say its “appeasement policies”, are all remote consequences of the fear of Muslim violence.
So, Hindus conclude that violence works. Secularists prove it to them.
Moral objections
I would raise the objection that violence remains morally problematic. First of all, violence overrules the compassion you should feel for its innocent victims. Even victims guilty as hell could be prosecuted in a court of law rather than murdered, that is the way of a society under the rule of law.
Secondly, the Just War Theory, formulated by Catholic philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, but enunciated and practiced much earlier in the Dhanurveda and the Mahabharata, lays down as one of the conditions of a Just War that all non-violent means of achieving your end should be exhausted. India as a democracy offers plenty of possibilities, of which the Hindu majority could make use if well organized. Unfortunately, the party that collects Hindu votes with promises of pro-Hindu policies has never delivered. But what have the terrorists done to change that party, or to come into the legislature through another party, or to apply any other instrument provided for in the Indian system?
Thirdly, another condition for the Just War is that there is a chance of victory. There is no point in shedding blood for nothing. But the people concerned have never to my knowledge devised a strategy and surveyed the field to see where the highest probability of victory lies. It is very unlikely that stray acts of violence will lead to any other result than needless bloodshed of innocents, the perpetrators on the gallows, and Hindu nationalism discredited even more. In my experience, very few Hindus are into Hindu activism for the sake of victory. Most of them do it to vent their emotions or get a kick of self-justification, and to hell with victory.
Strategic objections
Moral problems apart, this pro-violence philosophy suffers from a strategic shortcoming, viz. it evokes very different reactions depending on the elite’s pre-existing ideological bias. Thus, the passive approval of left-wing terrorism was not matched by an equal approval of right-wing acts of terror, e.g. the recent murders of Turkish immigrants in Germany were sternly condemned. The reason is that public opinion has been conditioned to judge left-wing violence in a supposedly commendable cause differently than real or alleged violence from the real or alleged right wing, committed in the service of a disapproved cause. Che Guevara is on posters and T-shirts worldwide in spite of being a torturer and mass-murderer, because he was associated with a cause approved by the intelligentsia; any ideologically disapproved activist in his position would be treated as a proverbial criminal. Similarly, a show of sympathy for Muslim causes does not predict an equal sympathy for Hindu causes, regardless of whether Hindus take to terror or not.
As Herbert Marcuse, the New Left professor at Berkeley whom the leftist terrorists of the German Rote Armee Fraktion invoked, commented on their acts: terror (assuming in his Marxist philosophy that it is justifiable) can only be justified in a revolutionary situation, as a trigger for a general uprising. As an unpremeditated spontaneous act, it can only jeopardize the strategy of the revolutionary forces and play into the hand of the repressive authorities. Such a situation did not exist in the Germany of the 70s, and nor it exist in India today. In the present circumstances, stray acts of violence will not bring Hindu liberation closer.
Conclusion
So, what to do? If Hindu terrorism doesn’t exist or is still marginal, it may become an acute problem. The reason is that Hindus are desperate, the number and aggressiveness of enemies is increasing, the callousness of the government is impressive, the ineffectiveness of the supposed pro-Hindu organizations has left them disappointed. So, by addressing these root causes of Hindu unrest, the threat of Hindu terrorism can be taken away.
Secularists could abandon their buffoonery and suddenly become even-handed. They could work with the Hindu nationalists for the eminently secular Common Civil Code, they could abolish the legal privileges of non-Hindu-majority states, they could apply Karl Marx’s dictum that “all criticism starts with criticism of religion” to Islam or Christianity for once. The Hindu organizations, while not committing Hindu terrorism themselves, are co-guilty of it by failing to provide the Hindu population with successes and hope for the future. They could defuse the threat of Hindu violence by suddenly turning effective and really pro-Hindu.
LikeLike
http://francoisgautier.wordpress.com/
Jan 22nd article by Franois Gautier is a response to Shindes hollow musings
then you have Koenraad Elst
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/hindu-terrorism-how-to-prevent-it.html
takes on Shinde and his suggestions
LikeLike