Intolerance through the eyes of a Hindu nationalist – Radha Rajan

Bolywood Khans

Radha Rajan“This article is a frontal attack against important Muslims in public life of this country and an unsparing attack against the media which fans the flame of Muslim intolerance and then stands by to watch the fun as Hindus burn in the fire of shame, humiliation and impotence because they cannot end their political powerlessness.” – Radha Rajan

The very real danger to India and Hindus is Islam and Christianity and because the country’s polity is weighed down by Gandhi hadith, Hindus have no state protection from both. If knowing the enemy is a prerequisite in any war, it is not enough to know just the history of expansion of the Abrahamic cults and the methods they employed, we must also know how Gandhi continues to drive the government’s weak-kneed and wholly effete response to jihad and proselytisation.

Muslims wage war against kafirs: Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan and A. R. Rahman do it in their own way from where they are located while Baghdadi, Owaisi, Bin Laden and Kasab have their own methods for the same. Christians wage war against you, your family and your nation. As the Chief Secretary of Kerala had no qualms admitting at a Church function in the presence of the Governor of Kerala, who was also the former Chief Justice of India, “It is a Biblical imperative to bring others to Christ. Today, the biggest mission of the Church is to spread the gospel.” Three ways to do this, Thomson said, are personal evangelism, church evangelism and mass evangelism (reference).

Jiji Thomson, Chief Secretary of Kerala is the second serving IAS officer after C. Umashankar to undertake proselytisation which is high-funda Christian jargon for religious conversion. Umashankar describes himself not as evangelist but as Jesus’ disciple who sells Jesus to people much like he once sold Linux, while Thomson describes himself as “proud son of the Malankara Church” which sounds eerily like “proud beef-eating Indian.” ‘Proud’ is the self-description of Indians who insult Hindu religious sensibilities (reference).

Tribals from various states of India hold placards during a protest against Christian missionaries in New Delhi yesterday. The demonstrators appealed to authorities to protect the culture of indigenous people, claiming that evangelical Christian missionaries are forcing them to convert to Christianity.Photo: AFP September 7, 2011Personal evangelism is the Christian boy or girl next door with whom your children grew up or studied in the same school or college. Next thing you know your son or daughter comes home with this creature driven by personal evangelism, and says they are in love and want to marry. Your home, your family and your society has been invaded by the Christian cancer and the illness is terminal. Church evangelism is foreign Churches in America and Europe funding Indian Churches and padris for religious conversion missions, funding Christian NGOs to do charity, providing the financial wherewithal to penetrate residential localities and converting one house or apartment to prayer house, and planting churches near every Hindu temple, small and big. Mass evangelism is Europe genociding Native Americans, native peoples of Australia and New Zealand, the Moros of Philippines, invading and occupying Africa, colonialism, Atlantic slave trade, America and NATO destroying the Soviet Union, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and now Syria. While jihad is Islam’s favoured weapon, the Generic Church prefers Eugenics. Evangelism, genetically modified seeds and crops and the American Dream are among the several target-specific weapons manufactured in the Eugenics factory.

Intolerance, as seen with Hindu eyes, is jihad and evangelism. Intolerance is Aamir Khan throwing stones at the three pillars or jamarat in Mina, a religious ritual for Muslims performing the Haj. The sharia mandates stoning to death as punishment for some crimes. It will be interesting to know how Aamir Khan understands the ritual of jamarat or stoning the pillars. Award-wapsi intellectuals will agree that throwing stones at pillars or street dogs or stoning a person to death is not an act of tolerance, kindness or respect.

Aamir Khan, one of the better known Khans currently crawling all over Bollywood, while speaking at the eighth Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism award function said that in the last six or seven months he could feel the growing fear and insecurity in some sections of society. Probably fearing the opprobrium and ridicule his observation was sure to attract, Aamir Khan like the coward that he was, fired his intolerant weapon hiding behind a woman and child. Aamir Khan fronted his second Hindu wife Kiran Rao in absentia before obliging cameras and gave voice to what she allegedly told him:

“Kiran and I have lived all our lives in India. For the first time she said, should we move out of India? That is a disastrous and big statement for Kiran to make to me. She fears for her child. She fears about what the atmosphere around us will be. She feels scared to open the newspaper every day. That does indicate that there is a growing sense of disquiet”.

Hindus gathered from this astounding claim that:

  • Kiran Rao began reading newspapers only six months ago

  • Because Aamir Khan said “her child” and not “our child”, the child is not his, is probably Hindu. So is Kiran Rao really afraid for her Hindu child or simply playing the obedient wife to support her Muslim husband’s intolerance drama or is Aamir Khan lying about what his wife said; and

  • In Aamir Khan’s intolerant head, Hindus in Modi’s India eat Muslim (and Hindu, if Kiran Rao’s child is Hindu) children for breakfast and lunch saving their little fingers dipped in chocolate for after-dinner dessert (I am sure Aamir and other Khans and media “I am a proud beef-eating Indian” presstitutes will agree that this too like beef biryani is freedom of choice).

First Shah Rukh Khan, then Salim Khan (father of Salman Khan who said his son was being targeted for his name!) and now Aamir Khan, all forget that the Khans, Alis, Rahmans, Jaffreys and Siddiquis, even Pakistani Fawads in Bollywood are living off their Hindu audience, feeding off Hindu tolerance and magnanimity, and acquiring their monumental riches, fame and influence in their chosen area of work only because this is a Hindu majority country. Conversely, such undreamed of wealth and everything that comes with it from the world of Indian films would be impossible in any Muslim country and with Asiya Andrabi founder-president of the all-women jihadi outfit Dukhtaran-e-Millat around, it wouldn’t be possible even in jihadi Kashmir.

Bollywood Muslims particularly the Khan triumvirate are making money in a profession which Islam considers haram—acting, singing, dancing composing, producing, directing and even singing irreligious and often bawdy songs, floating in rivers of wine and alcohol, gyrating with belly dancers, playing hero to scantily attired belles, not only no head to toe burqa, not even a demure head scarf and sometimes very little dress-cover anywhere else. Remember Aamir Khan’s heroine Katrina Kaif in Dhoom 3? Aamir Madari sitting on a chair watched her grimly as she performed circus tricks to music; wonder what ISIS will say to that because the very idea of Katrina Kaif dancing to Dhoom Dhoom or Kareena Kapoor dancing to Fevicol Se attired in top to toe burqa where even the eyes are veiled is mind-boggling. These true Muslims, horror of horrors sometimes have to apply tilak on their foreheads, answer to Hindu names, go to temples, offer worship to Hindu gods—all in the line of work which is giving them super-rich money, fame, Muslim children through Hindu wives and tremendous social influence; dunce-cap Hindus invite rich and famous Muslims like Aamir Khan to social functions so that they can use the readily available platform to abuse Hindus and defame the country; let me emphasise: the Bollywood khanate didn’t squeak or whimper when Sonia Gandhi ruled Idea of India.

Just how intolerant Hindus are is best proven by the fact that Shah Rukh Khan is married to a Hindu, Saif Ali Khan is married to a Hindu, Amjad Ali Khan the sitarist is married to a Hindu, Salim Khan married a Hindu and Aamir Khan is twice married and both wives are Hindu. We must hand it to the Khans—these fear-stricken, terrified arty Khans under the dagger of Hindu intolerance have one thing in common with anti-Hindu Dravidians—they want to marry only that thing which their religion (ideology) most abhors and which they allegedly fear.

Bollywood and other Muslims, who are now without qualms and conscience defaming Hindus and the Hindu nation, and Aamir Khan in particular need lessons in history; in fact they must be made to answer pointed questions about their religion and co-religionists and about what important Muslim men in public life have said about Hindus, Hindu temples, and living in Hindu India. A. R. Rahman who converted to Islam (his sisters are still Hindu) citing identity-crisis, dislike for the Hindu name that he was given at birth, and poverty as excuse for this betrayal (poverty unlike hunger is relative and means different things to different people depending on how high is their expectation and entitlement bar) threw Gandhi on the country’s face and made common cause with Aamir Khan. A. R. Rahman said he thought award wapsi was “poetic”. Naturally the music that they are now facing on social media may be termed “poetic” too; poetic justice.

Predictably Rahman and other Muslims and anti-Hindu secularists brought Gandhi out of the box at the first sign that the Hindu worm was stirring; therein the purpose of this article.

M.K. Gandhi in 1929What Gandhi and other Muslims said

I will begin with Gandhi who first pinned the dunce cap on the Hindu nation and then leapfrog to the present. This article is a frontal attack against important Muslims in public life of this country and an unsparing attack against the media which fans the flame of Muslim intolerance and then stands by to watch the fun as Hindus burn in the fire of shame, humiliation and impotence because they cannot end their political powerlessness. Farooq Abdullah, still living in the 1950s decade declared PoK must be left with Pakistan because the Indian government and the Indian army are incapable of taking back PoK. Let us not forget—in the confrontation between Farooq’s jihadi father Sheikh Abdullah and the Hindu king of J&K, Gandhi and Nehru stood with the jihadi and threw Jammu, Kashmir and Laddakh into the jaws of Islam.

I have carried out a painstaking study of all the volumes in The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi and will not waste time citing the page or volume. Interested readers may either do their own study of the collected works of the man or read my Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and his Freedom Struggle which provides the source.

  1. They are brave and god-fearing people who were fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner which they consider as religion. — Gandhi about Moplahs after the Moplah jihadi massacre.

  2. I have called Abdul Rashid a brother and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami’s (Shraddhanand) murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another. — Gandhi speaking at Guwahati Congress in 1926. Rashid shot and killed Swami Shraddhanand of the Arya Samaj for his immensely successful ghar wapsi of Muslims who were forcibly converted.

  3. However pure Mr Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he be without character. — Maulana Mohammed Ali, one of the two Ali brothers and Gandhi’s Muslim inspiration.

  4. A year later, the Maulana ‘improved’ upon that statement by saying “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr Gandhi” (History of the Freedom Movement by R. C. Majumdar).

  5. I am seeking the friendship of good Mussalmans … to understand the Mussalman through contact with their purest and most patriotic representatives. — Gandhi about why he chose to follow, and compelled the INC to follow behind him, the Ali brothers who organized the Khilafat agitation.

  6. The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. — Will & Ariel Durant (reference).

  7. Let not Hindus make the mistake of thinking Indian Muslims are different or distinct from Pakistani Muslims. If India were to dare to attack Pakistan, then the 25 crore strong Muslim population in India will join the ranks of the Pakistani army and wage war against India. — Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament, MIM, Hyderabad.

  8. Hindus do not have the right to vote in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or in any one of the 56 Islamic Nations. I challenge the Hindus of India—do you have the resolve or the strength to similarly disenfranchise Muslims and prevent us from voting in any election. — Maulana Badruddin Ajmal, Member of Parliament, AIUDF, Assam.

  9. In Hyderabad the Muslim population has now grown over 50% and now we are the majority population. Therefore I demand that the government impose restrictions and ban celebration of Hindu festivals like Ramnavami, Hanuman Jayanti etc. We have already demonstrated our majoritarian strength by stopping the ringing of the bells in the Bhagyalakshmi Temple near Char Minar. We will surely also raze the temple to the ground. — Akbaruddin Owaisi, Sansad, Majlis-e-Ittehadul-Musalmeen, (AIMIM), Hyderabad, India.

  10. I regret the continuing of massacre of Hindus and Buddhists in Bangladesh, but Bangladesh is an Islamic nation and not secular. Muslims are the majority populace here. Under the circumstances, if Hindus and Buddhists want to live safely, they should either convert to Islam or go to India. — Begum Khaleda Zia, President, Bangla National Party.

  11. Hindu (political) leaders may wear a Muslim cap any number of times (in a show of Muslim appeasement or as proof of their tolerance), but Muslim leaders will never apply tilak on our foreheads in a reciprocal tolerant gesture. Hindus may make public expressions of their respect for Muslim namaaz, but we Muslims will always reject accepting or singing “Vande Matram”, because secularism and patriotism are HARAAM and antithetic to Islam and therefore antithetic to being a good and true Muslim. — Azam Khan, Leader, Samajwadi Party, U.P.

  12. Muslims have ruled India for 1100 years, we beheaded hundreds of thousands of Hindus, several crores of Hindus were converted to Islam at the point of the Islamic sword. We vivisected India, and made two Islamic countries Pakistan and Bangladesh, we demolished over 2000 temples and built mosques on their ruins. It is out of this mortal fear that Hindus even today chant: “Hindu Muslim Bhai Bhai”. This is the strength of Islam. — Maulana Zakir Naik, Mumbai

  13. It matters little to Muslims that Hindus worship the cow. Muslims will slaughter the cow because it is our religious right. Allah demands sacrifice. Muslims do not wage war orally or verbally, we wage real wars and act with all our might. We do not fear any government, any power because the Muslims have achieved critical mass in sheer numbers and no matter who tries to stop us we Muslims will slaughter the cow. — Nuroor Rahman Barkati, Shahi Imam, Tipu Sultan Masjid, Kolkata, India.

  14. It speaks volumes for the power Muslims wield in this country and in the world that Hindus cannot build the Ram temple in Ayodhya, in their own country. Do Hindus have similar power to stop the building of one mosque in Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan or in any one of the 56 Islamic countries? – Maulana Sayyad Ahmad Bukhari, Shahi Imam, Jama Masjid, Delhi.

Muslim psyche as revealed in their own words

1. Hindus and Muslims, India and Pakistan equal-equal

Gandhi, for the first time in recent history injected the equal-equal poison in public discourse and in the Hindu psyche; Hindu psyche, not the Muslim psyche. When Hindus make the equal-equal analogy they mean it with all their tolerant dunce-cap hearts; however when Gandhi, Pakistan or Indian Muslims make the equal-equal analogy it is to show that Pakistanis and Indian Muslims are as good as Hindus or Hindus are as bad as Muslims. Musharraf’s “Pakistan is as much a victim of terrorism as India” and Sonia Gandhi’s “Hindu terror” came out of this equal-equal pot.

2. Gandhi’s Hindu-Muslim equal-equal claim to India and the nation’s territory

“Hindu-Muslim unity can come only by selfless service of Muslims untainted by political motives. They (Muslims) are just like us and we must be friends with them.” Gandhi could have been talking to seven-year olds. (Speech to Congress workers, Rampurhat, December 20, 1945, Amrita Bazar Patrika, 21-12-1945)

“Hindustan belongs to all those who are born and bred here and who have no other country to look to. Therefore it belongs to Parsis, Beni-Israels, to Indian Christians, Muslims, and other non-Hindus as much as to Hindus. Free India will be no Hindu raj, it will be Indian raj based not on the majority of any religious sect or community but on the representatives of the whole people without distinction of religion. I can conceive a mixed majority putting the Hindus in a minority. Religion is a personal matter which should have no place in politics.”

Gandhi was talking politics. Here he is making no distinction between Rajya and Rashtra and speaking of both in the same breath. Gandhi declared Hindustan belonged to non-Hindus as much as to Hindus—to those non-Hindus “who are born and bred here and who have no other country to look to.” Gandhi’s multiple political claims in this one small paragraph decided the fate of the Hindu nation and therefore must be de-constructed to the last phrase. What exactly did Gandhi mean by the phrase “Hindustan belongs”? Does it mean all Indians will enjoy the same rights under the Indian Constitution in independent India? If that were simply so, Gandhi should have used different words which meant precisely that. Instead he knowingly uses the word “belongs” which connotes entitlement, possession and ownership.

(a) Gandhi made this astounding statement in 1946 in one of his interviews to correspondents when the Cabinet Mission was in India. By 1946 it was already clear that the Muslim League would settle for nothing less than vivisection. So when Gandhi said Hindustan belongs as much to Muslims as Hindus did he legitimise the Muslim League’s right to do with the nation’s territory as it deemed right and was Gandhi saying the right to ownership or possession comes with the right to sell, tear, destroy, cut, or even simply throw away that possession, even if it meant dispossessing the right of others who have equal claim over the same; in this case the territory of the Hindu nation?

The answer to that is, yes Gandhi did. Gandhi’s unchallenged position during the last phase of the freedom struggle was that he and he alone spoke for the INC, for Hindus in the INC and for Hindus outside the INC. Gandhi spoke for Aurobindo, for the RSS, for my grandmother, my 15-year-old mother and for the hundreds of thousands of Hindus who believed he was serving Hindu interests. Gandhi gave Muslims and Christians, for whom religious conversion is an integral part of their religion, equal claim to the territory of this country. Religious conversion radically alters the character of the people and re-directs their loyalty away from their timeless Hindu inheritance and towards the Abrahamic Allah and Yahweh who do not belong to this nation and are intolerant of Hindu gods.

(b) The second important point that Gandhi made was that Hindustan belonged to all non-Hindus “who had no other country to look to”.

Vinayak Damodar SavarkarSavarkar had the most succinct description for “belongs”. He said the nation and its territory rightfully belong only to those for whom this bhumi is both “pitru bhumi and punya bhumi“. This brilliant definition effectively kept out the Abrahamic cults and their routine right to self-determination which was only separatism-to-secessionism packaged in international gobbledegook. Gandhi was horribly wrong when he said “no other country to look to” because Beni-Israelis look to Israel, Christians look to Jerusalem and Rome, and Muslims look to Mecca, Medina and the entire Muslim jamath for their sense of belonging. True Muslims by definition do not owe allegiance to any country. Their first and permanent loyalty is only to the Koran and the Prophet. As for Christians, Pope John Paul II when he addressed the UN General Assembly made the extremely significant distinction between patriotism and nationalism. The Pope decried nationalism because Christians by definition work only to make the world fit for Jesus’ second coming, which means the world has been converted to one vast Christian kingdom of god on earth obliterating all national borders. Between Islam and Christianity, Hinduism is not religion, Hindu gods are false gods, and Hindus are born and die in sin.

This seamless kingdom is wholly Christian where non-Christians are in a state of subjugation. Christianity accepts slavery as legitimate condition for non-Christians: the Atlantic slave trade and colonialism as corroborative proof of the Mission of the Church. The world was non-Christian before Jesus; so Christianity had no native soil. It invaded, converted, destroyed, genocided, and pillaged non-Christian nations and peoples as it expanded across the world. The Pope therefore decried nationalism. Nationalism essentially means “of the soil”. Nation is thus not the same as country, nationality is not citizenship and nationalism is not patriotism. I have dealt with issues of identity in greater detail in Academia as battleground.

Gandhi knew all this and yet declared in 1946 that India belonged equally to the Abrahamic cults as to Hindus. As for “being born here”, “pitru” in Hindu understanding is not equal to being “descendants of”. The real tragedy of the nation which Aamir Khan so blithely described as intolerant is that ignorant and impotent Hindus allowed Gandhi to speak for the Hindu nation and to do with it as he pleased, which included not just disempowering Hindus politically but also vivisecting the Hindu nation. Not only do the two Abrahamic cults refuse to give Hinduism the status of religion (dunce-cap Hindus promptly declared Hinduism is not a religion, it is a way of life) they openly declare Hindus worship false gods, and are therefore imperfect people, inadequate and simply not equal to them. Just how wrong was Gandhi’s politics and how Islam like its Abrahamic sibling Christianity cannot live in peace with Hindus is proved by—

“However pure Mr Gandhi’s character may be, he must appear to me, from the point of religion, inferior to any Mussalman even though he (the Mussalman) be without character.” — Maulana Mohammed Ali, one of the two Ali brothers and Gandhi’s Muslim inspiration

“A year later, the Maulana ‘improved’ upon that statement by saying “Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Mussalman to be better than Mr Gandhi” (History of the Freedom Movement by R. C. Majumdar).

“… We Muslims will always reject accepting or singing “Vande Matram”, because secularism and patriotism are HARAAM and antithetic to Islam and therefore antithetic to being a good and true Muslim. — Azam Khan, Leader, Samajwadi Party, U.P.

For good Christians and true Muslims India is not a country to be protected, loved and defended as she is—as Hindu majority nation. India is only another regional theatre in the ceaseless war to conquer the entire world for Jesus and Allah. Islam rejects the very idea of secularism like it firmly rejects equality of women with men. Christianity on the other hand invented secularism to demarcate the boundaries of power and authority between Christian Church and Christian State. Secularism in India however is a chimera with head of one creature, nose of another, limbs of a third and tail of a fourth. The secular chimera put together by Gandhi’s Idea of Congress and Nehru’s Idea of India is a monster practising naked politics of Abrahamic minority-ism which feeds upon Hindus.

(c) The third political point that Gandhi made in this one paragraph alone is that Indian raj will not be Hindu raj not even when Hindus constitute the majority populace. This stood all conventional political wisdom on its head because except in those countries where the Abrahamic cults had exterminated or almost exterminated the native peoples who no longer were in a position to resist the invaders, nations have been ruled only by the king or state emerging from among the native populace.

(d) Gandhi then made the most evil political point that if Hindus thought they were the majority populace, he Gandhi could cook up a khichdi coalition of other religions which would place Hindus in the minority.

This was Gandhi’s consistent intolerance towards Hindu political aspirations.

(e) Gandhi concluded his verbal war against the Hindus with the utterly foolish and self-delusory observation that religion belongs in the private domain and has no place in politics. Indeed! Gandhi articulated all these implicit and explicit anti-Hindu political theories after Jinnah and the Muslim League had announced not once but repeatedly that Muslims wanted Jinnah as Prime Minister of the Interim Government (the Prime Minister of the Interim Government would take over as first Prime Minister of independent India), so that India would be ruled by a Muslim League Muslim (as distinct from INC Muslim); failing which Muslim League will reject Hindu rule and wanted vivisection of the Hindu nation. Religion belongs in the private domain indeed!

I can only hope that Narendra Modi, Arun Jaitley, Amit Shah and Smriti Irani who with tolerant Hindu shawl draped around her invoked Gandhi in her speech during the secularism debate in parliament last week, know and understand that it was Gandhi’s political strategy to reduce Hindus to a political minority which Nitish and Lalu adopted in Bihar to keep the BJP out; unless the Gandhi poison has so completely invaded and altered their DNA that the BJP can see neither Gandhi nor contemporary politics for what they are; and Hindus stand to lose everything once again.

3. Not only did Gandhi offer to partition the Hindu nation he also agreed to Muslim rule over Hindus

“But if the hope is frustrated, the Congress cannot forcibly resist the express will of the Muslims of India. Needless to say the Congress can never seek the assistance of British forces to resist the vivisection. It is the Muslims who will impose their will by force singly or with British assistance on an unresisting India. If I can carry the Congress with me, I would not put the Muslims to the trouble of using force. I would be ruled by them for it would still be Indian rule. In other words, the Congress will have only a non-violent approach to every question and difficulty arising.”

Gandhi can choose to be ruled by anybody but Gandhi bhaktas must know that he imposed his political choice on the entire Hindu populace and said Hindus will choose “non-violently” to be ruled by Muslims because Muslim rule is still Indian rule.

“I can never subscribe to the view that because certain members of a particular community have indulged in inhuman acts, therefore the whole community may be condemned outright and put beyond the pale. The Muslim League may call Hindus names and declare India to be Dar-ul-Harb, where the law of jehad operates and all Muslims who co-operate with the Congress are Quislings fit only to be exterminated. But we must not cease to aspire, in spite of this wild talk, to befriend all Mussalmans and hold them fast as prisoners of our love. It would be a present possibility if Hindus in their lakhs offered themselves to be cut to pieces without retaliation or anger in their hearts.”

“Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India.” The only new India that would be ushered in after every Hindu had been killed or converted would not be Hindu raj which Gandhi despised but Dar-ul-Islam. Gandhi could choose to die but how did he arrogate to himself the right to ask every Hindu to die and die with a smile?

“But I would have no hesitation in conceding the demand of Pakistan if I could be convinced of its righteousness or that it is good for Islam. But I am firmly convinced that the Pakistan demand as put forth by the Muslim League is un-Islamic and I have not hesitated to call it sinful. Islam stands for the unity and brotherhood of mankind, not for disrupting the oneness of the human family. Therefore, those who want to divide India into possibly warring groups are enemies alike of India and Islam.”

Bhagat Singh in 1929.Gandhi said one thing to the colonial British government and quite another thing to the INC and the country at large (as in the case of Bhagat Singh’s death sentence); Gandhi said one thing to Muslims and another thing to the INC and the country at large as in the case of Muslim rule over India and vivisection. Gandhi thought he knew the Jains better than the Jains themselves, knew Rajputs better than the Rajputs and knew Bihari Hindus better than Bihari Hindus knew themselves. In similar vein Gandhi thought he knew Islam better than Muslims and dunce-cap Hindus did not openly challenge or question Gandhi when he interpreted Islam to the irreparable detriment of Hindus and Hindu nation. Gandhi said: Islam stands for the unity and brotherhood of mankind, not for disrupting the oneness of the human family. While the whole sentence is replete with fallacies let me take up just one of Gandhi’s falsehoods here. Gandhi claims he is against partition because he thinks it is sinful and because he thinks the Muslim League’s demand for vivisection is un-Islamic because Islam is against disrupting the oneness of the human family. And yet as this letter from M. R. Jayakar shows Gandhi was quite willing to disrupt the oneness of the Indian family.

“Dear Mahatmaji, You will kindly excuse this letter, which is consequent on the eventful news in today’s press that H. H. the Aga Khan is meeting you on the 20th at Poona. This is an astute move, which he foreshadowed during his interview on reaching India a few days ago. Why should he be bothering you with his attention instead of meeting Mr. Jinnah, it is not difficult to understand. You have done your best to meet Mr. Jinnah’s point of view by offering a division of India, though on the basis of a friendly transaction between two brothers. Mr. Jinnah contemptuously spurned it wanting the division as between two separate nations. With this background, the Aga Kahn should be busy in meeting Mr. Jinnah and not you. But he wont do this because he knows that Mr. Jinnah will show him the door, if he tried to interfere. So he turns in your direction. I need not say anything more. I am aware, as you said in one of your replies to me that you will not be wanting in caution, remembering that anything which you think of conceding, it will be difficult for the country later to avoid.” (Letter from M. R. Jayakar, Bombay, February 8, 1946, Gandhi-Jayakar Papers, File No. 826, page 36a, Courtesy: National Archives of India, CWMG, Vol. 89, page 461, Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, page 339)

4. Muslim rule or khudai raj over Hindu India in Gandhi’s Utopia

Gandhi arrogated to himself the authority to give away Hindu territory to his Muslim “brothers” in a “friendly transaction”. While Gandhi declared Indian raj will not be Hindu raj, he did equate Ramrajya with khudai raj or the caliphate. It bears mention that the stated objective of the ISIS is to re-establish the caliphate. All award-wapsi rascals—film actors, writers, long-ago scientists, Arun Shourie’s eminent historians who wilfully ignore the intolerance of Gandhi and Nehru and the in-built intolerance of the Gandhi-Nehru hand-picked Constituent Assembly, and the intolerant by definition of Nehruvian secularist Congress and other governments in Delhi to Hindus, Hindu temples and Hindu religious customs and practices, are just as willfully ignorant about the present. Now let us take a look at how Khudai raj operates in India and in India’s backyard.

  • Hindus do not have the right to vote in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or in any one of the 56 Islamic Nations. I challenge the Hindus of India—do you have the resolve or the strength to similarly disenfranchise Muslims and prevent us from voting in any election. — Maulana Badarrudin Ajmal, Member of Parliament, AIUDF, Assam.

  • In Hyderabad the Muslim population has now grown over 50% and now we are the majority population. Therefore I demand that the government impose restrictions and ban celebration of Hindu festivals like Ramnavami, Hanuman Jayanti etc. We have balready demonstrated our majoritarian strength by stopping the ringing of the bells in the Bhagyalakshmi temple near Char-Minar. We will surely also raze the temple to the ground. — Akbaruddin Owaisi, Sansad, Majlis-e-Ittehadul-Musalmeen, (AIMIM), Hyderabad, India.

  • I regret the continuing of massacre of Hindus & Buddhists in Bangladesh, but Bangladesh is an Islamic Nation and not Secular. Muslims are the majority populace here. Under the circumstances, if Hindus & Buddhists want to live safely, they should either convert to Islam or go to India. — Begum Khalida Zia, President, Bangla National Party.

  • Hindu (political) leaders may wear a Muslim cap any number of times (in a show of Muslim appeasement or as proof of their tolerance), but Muslim leaders will never apply tilak on our foreheads in a reciprocal tolerant gesture. Hindus may make public expressions of their respect for Muslim namaaz, but we Muslims will always reject accepting or singing “Vande Matram”, because secularism & patriotism are HARAAM and antithetic to Islam and therefore antithetic to being a good and true Muslim. — Azam Khan, Leader, Samajwadi Party, U.P.

For more khudai raj  go here.

5. For Gandhi cow is equal to Khilafat

Gandhi, writing in Young India justified making the Khilafat agitation a part of the INC’s freedom struggle with the specious argument that he was doing it to protect the cow from Muslim cow slaughter; and then he turns around and tells the Hindus of the INC not to link cow protection with support for the Khilafat agitation; he then says Hindus are as guilty as Muslims for cruelty against the cow. What Gandhi said and wrote:

“Mr. Gandhi repudiated the suggestion of the Modern Review and regarded it as “cruelest cut”. Dealing with the criticism of the Modern Review in his article in Young India for 20th October 1921, Mr. Gandhi said, “I claim that with us both, the Khilafat is the central fact; with Maulana Mahomed Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the Musalman knife.”

And then a typical Gandhi u-turn: “I submit that the Hindus may not open the Goraksha (cow protection) question here. The test of friendship is assistance in adversity and that too, unconditional assistance. Co-operation that needs consideration is a commercial contract and not friendship…. It is the duty of the Hindus if they see justice of the Mahomedan cause, to render co-operation…. I do not want to make the stopping of cow killing a condition precedent to co-operation.”

Hindus as guilty as Muslims: “When the Hindus became insistent, the killing of cows increased. In my opinion, cow protection societies may be considered cow-killing societies. It is a disgrace to us that we should need such societies. When we forgot how to protect cows, I suppose we needed such societies…. Who protects the cow from destruction by Hindus when they cruelly ill-treat her? Whoever reasons with the Hindus when they mercilessly belabour the progeny of the cow with their sticks? But this has not prevented us from remaining one nation.”

6. Indian Hindus and Pakistani Muslims Equal-Equal Bollywood style

In the mushy Salman Khan starrer Bhajrangi Bhaijan, directed by Kabir Khan, notwithstanding generous doses of Jai Sriram which lulled dunce-cap Hindus to sleepy-eyed comfort, the film uses Narendra Modi and Rajnath Singh’s explicit exhortation to Hindus and the world at large to de-link jihadi, Muslim terror and terrorists from Islam the religion, and embraces the people of Pakistan in a tearful hug. We are all the same only, is the seen and heard message of the film, an emotional tear jerker in which Samlan Khan a Hanuman bhakt travels illegally to Pakistan to reunite a Pakistani Muslim girl child with her parents in PoK. Just as there are no bad Christian priests ever in Indian films (all Christian priests and nuns ooze gooey love and address all Hindus, young and old as “my child” or “my son”) recent films churned out by the Bollywood Khanate present us all with the Muslim version of benign Christian padri: all imams, mullahs and maulanas are benign with universal love for all. The imam in Bhajrangi Bhaijan played by Om Puri and the imam in Dharam Sankat Mein are such wonders of the world. The Pakistani imam in Bhajrangi Bhaijan takes leave of Salman Khan with “Jai Sriram” (wonder what our own jihadis in the list above will have to say to that) and the imam in Dharam Sankat Mein is depicted as a good and true religious Muslim driven only by his concern for human well-being.

Naseeruddin Shah, in unmistakable Bollywood Khanate style plays the role of Swami Neelananda in the film Dharam Sankat Mein. This Hindu religious leader unlike Christian padris and Muslim imams in Hindi films is dressed in resplendent silk robes, is cunning, surrounded by white-skinned ladies, and has a wolfish smile; clever acting this by Naseeruddin Shah and typical of the pervasive anti-Hindu trend of Hindi films in the last five years. Towards the end of the film, Paresh Rawal hurls a big stone at the poster of Swami Neelananda.

The fine print of Bhajrangi Bhaijan which escapes the average tolerant Hindu eye is politics and only politics. It is Muslim politics, to be precise. The implicit political theme of the film is: only governments are evil. With this one stroke Kabir Khan and Salman Khan make the India-Pakistan equal-equal political point: Indian government is as evil as Pakistani government, only governments keep Hindus and Muslims apart, divide Indian Muslims from Pakistani Muslims. Director Kabir Khan responding to objections raised by some Hindus to the use of Hanuman’s name “Bajrangi” said with supreme arrogance that he cannot allow Hindus to have sole claim to Hanuman. This should be translated as meaning, if this equal-equal thing can be made to work in politics to Muslim benefit and Hindu detriment, then the Bollywood Khanate will sell the Allah-Hanuman same-same, Hindu-Muslim same-same and India-Pakistan same-same lemon to tolerant dunce-cap Hindu audience who will then make them super-rich.

This is exactly how a true Muslim contradicted both Gandhi and Salman Khan:

Let not Hindus make the mistake of thinking Indian Muslims are different or distinct from Pakistani Muslims. If India were to dare to attack Pakistan, then 25 crore Muslims in India will join the ranks of the Pakistani army and wage war against India. — Asaduddin Owaisi, Member of Parliament (MIM), Hyderabad.

Asaduddin Owaisi declared that even if Gandhi said Hindustan belongs equally to Muslims, he does not believe Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims are same or equal. If anything he says Indian Muslims will make common cause with Pakistani Muslims to defeat India.

7. Gandhi and Gandhi’s INC said Hindus more to blame for Moplah jihad

This is what Babasaheb Ambedkar said: “The blood-curdling atrocities committed by the Moplas in Malabar against the Hindus were indescribable. All over southern India a wave of horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of every shade of opinion, which was intensified when certain Khilafat leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of “congratulations to the Moplas on the brave fight they were conducting for the sake of religion”. Any person could have said that this was too heavy a price for Hindu-Muslim unity. But Mr. Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Muslim unity that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats who were congratulating them. He spoke of the Moplas as the “brave, God-fearing Moplas who were fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious”.

This is what Gandhi said: “Islam protects even in war women, children and old men from molestation. Islam does not justify jehad except under well-defined conditions. So far as I know the law of Islam, the Moplahs could not, on their own initiative, declare jehad. Maulana Abdul Bari has certainly condemned the Moplah excesses.

“But what though the Mussulmans did not condemn them? Hindu-Muslim friendship is not a bargain. The very word friendship excludes any such idea. If we have acquired the national habit, the Moplah is every whit a countryman as a Hindu. Hindus may not attach greater weight to Moplah fanaticism than to Hindu fanaticism. If instead of the Moplahs, Hindus had violated Hindu homes in Malabar, against whom would the complaint be lodged? Hindus have to find out a remedy against such occurrences, as much as the Mussulmans. When a Hindu or a Mussulman does evil, it is evil done by an Indian to an Indian, and each one of us must personally share the blame and try to remove the evil.

“Hindus must find out the causes of Moplah fanaticism. They will find that they are not without blame. They have hitherto not cared for the Moplah. They have either treated him as a serf or dreaded him. They have not treated him as a friend and neighbour, to be reformed and respected. It is no use now becoming angry with the Moplahs or the Mussulmans in general.”

This is what Gandhi’s Indian National Congress said: “Whilst however condemning violence on the part of the Moplas, the Working Committee desires it to be known that the evidence in its possession shows that provocation beyond endurance was given to the Moplas and that the reports published by and on behalf of the government have given a one-sided and highly exaggerated account of the wrongs done by the Moplas and an understatement of the needless destruction of life resorted to by the government in the name of peace and order.”

8. Muslims are doing their religious duty when they kill; when Hindus kill they are cowards, insane or on drugs

“I have called Abdul Rashid a brother and I repeat it. I do not even regard him as guilty of Swami’s (Shraddhanand) murder. Guilty indeed are those who excited feeling of hatred against one another.” Thus spake Gandhi at the Guwahati Congress in 1926. Rashid shot and killed Swami Shraddhanand of the Arya Samaj for his immensely successful ghar wapsi of Muslims who were forcibly converted.

July 1, 1909, Madanlal Dhingra killed Sir Curzon Wyllie, Private Secretary to Lord Morley. Dr. Cowasji Lalkaka also killed. This is what Gandhi wrote in Indian Opinion:

“Mr. Dhingra’s defence is inadmissible. In my view, he has acted like a coward. All the same, one can only pity the man. He was egged on to do this act by ill-digested reading of worthless writings. His defence of himself, too, appears to have been learnt by rote. It is those who incited him to this that deserve to be punished. In my view, Mr. Dhingra himself is innocent. The murder was committed in a state of intoxication. It is not merely wine or bhang that makes one drunk; a mad idea also can do so.”

“Ill-digested reading of worthless writings” was Gandhi’s contemptuous reference to the fiery writings of Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar because there were no other political writers during that period of the freedom struggle.

And then in typical equal-equal style Gandhi equates British rule with the rule of Indian Princes:

Is it that everyone with an Indian skin is good? If that is so, we can claim no rights in South Africa, nor should there be any angry protest against oppression by Indian princes. India can gain nothing from the rule of murderers—no matter whether they are black or white.

Gandhi’s “rule of murderers” jibe is directed at the faction of the INC led by Tilak and Aurobindo, votaries of effective resistance, including armed resistance against the British to achieve political independence at the earliest. In December 1907, the INC split at the Surat Congress into two distinct ideological groups—Moderates and Nationalists. The Moderate faction of the INC was led by Gopalkrishna Gokhale, Dadabhai Naoroji and Surendranath Banejee.

Udham SinghWhat Gandhi said when Udham Singh killed Michael O’Dwyer: O’Dwyer was the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab at the time of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. He was killed by Udham Singh in London on March 13, 1940 when O’ Dwyer was 75 years old. Udham Singh was convicted and hanged. “Further details that have come through the press of the assassination of Sir Michael O’Dwyer and the attempted assassination of Lord Zetland, Lord Lamington and Sir Louis Dane confirm my opinion that it was a work of insanity. It is none the less reprehensible on that account…. The papers tell us that the accused acted with amused nonchalance when he faced the court and the spectators. This does not command my admiration. It is to me a sure sign of continuing insanity. The accused is intoxicated with the thought of his bravery. I have known drunken men act with a recklessness of which they would be incapable in a sober state. I understand that extra rum is issued to soldiers who are sent to specially hazardous tasks. What am I to praise, the rum or its after-effect? The word assassin owes its origin to the hasheesh that was administered to the would-be assassins in order to deaden their conscience. This continuing insanity of the accused should fill us with pity and grief.”

Closing word

Muslims and Christians, no matter where they are located and what else they may say they do, without exception, always work to further the ultimate objective of Islam and Christianity—to bring the whole world under Allah’s heel or Jesus’ heel; personal evangelism/jihad, church/madarasa evangelism/jihad and mass evangelism/jihad. Hindus made the terrible mistake of allowing Gandhi to decide how Hindus will relate to Muslims and by extension to Christians. The Gandhi discourse has to be ruthlessly de-constructed, dismantled and then destroyed. While Muslim politicians in electoral politics in India almost immediately begin to sharpen their talons in preparation for the kill, electoral politics has the opposite effect on Hindus. Politics did that to Patel and Narendra Modi, Rajendra Prasad and Pranab Mukherjee, Rajaji and Vajpayee.

Persons doing politics and geopolitics are careful with words because every word has a specific meaning. Words like nation, nationhood, nationality, self-determination, secularism, pluralism and multiculturalism cannot be used loosely and cannot be made co-terminus with our own woolly-headed notions of tolerance. Narendra Modi in an upcoming article for a special edition of The Econiomist reportedly observed, “India has several social strengths including pluralism” (reference).

Modi as Prime Minister, doing active politics and geo-politics must know pluralism is not diversity. While diversity is multiple manifestations of one, pluralism is the presence of indigestible elements in our midst—elements which reject assimilation, oneness of purpose and a common binding identity. So long as these elements hold on to their separate/separatist identities pluralism is not a social strength, it is a national threat. As a Hindu nationalist, I reject Gandhi’s politics and his political paradigm for unity in its entirety. If Modi wants my continued support, he should think and act like a Hindu nationalist. If refusing to wear the tolerant dunce cap is intolerant, I am intolerant. In fact, I am a proud intolerant Indian. – Vigil Online, 3 December 2015

» Radha Rajan is an author, political commentator, and animal rights activist in Chennai. She edits the website Vigil Online.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the garden at his official residence in New Delhi, India. May 2, 2015 CREDIT BELOW: Peter Hapak for TIME Mag a caption: AT HOME: The Indian Prime Minister takes a stroll through the gardens at his official residence in New Delhi

5 Responses

  1. Kiran Rao is a closet christian. She is not a Sanatani.

  2. The distinction between diversity and pluralism is the key point to note here.

  3. If it were possible I would give this article 100 stars. Send it in by mail to the khans.

  4. If Hindus didn’t hv tolerance Christian and Islam religion will not be in India. Erstwhile Hindu rulers all facilities for propagating these religion in India, now they became a burden for India and Hindus in particular, we cannot utter a single word against terrorists supported by them

  5. Most of the Hindus are ,not all,cowards.They pretend that these are mere propaganda to incite them,they pretend that fighting for their rights is against their so called “secularism”. They are not even recognizing who are their enemies.They are not even boycotting the anti Hindu media and TV channels!! The minority owned (90%) media is tarnishing non cong govts and Hindu religion. The congress at least from 2000 on wards is anti Hindu and anti national.Nobody can save this country if Hinduism vanishes.

Comments are moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: