Catholic Church must apologise for falsely accusing NDA government of hate crimes – Jaideep Mazumdar

Cardinals Baselios Cleemis & Oswald Gracias

Jaideep MazumdarThe Nadia incident is not the first one in which the Church has been caught crying wolf. As this article proves, the spate of ‘attacks’ on churches in Delhi in late 2014 and early 2015 that created such a furore were simply acts of burglary or vandalism. But Christian missionaries made a huge hue and cry over it and even made it an issue at global fora, thus defaming the country. – Jaideep Mazumdar

The rape of a 72-year-old Catholic nun at Gangnapur in Ranaghat sub-division of Nadia district [WB] in mid-March, 2015, sparked outrage across the country. The immediate verdict by the Church, opposition political parties, commentators and the so-called Left-liberal cabal was that the alleged rape, and the looting and desecration of the Convent of Jesus and Mary at Gangnapur was a hate crime and yet another attack on minorities after the Narendra Modi government came to power.

The alleged rape and loot at the Catholic establishment was preceded by a series of alleged attacks on churches in some parts of the country. Thus, when the Nadia incident occurred, large sections of the media, the opposition parties and others were already conducting a high-decibel campaign against the new National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, accusing it of orchestrating and supporting attacks on minorities and minority institutions. The allegations—mostly fake, as they later turned out to be—were even given credence by minority organisations like the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI).

In the Nadia nun rape case, too, the CBCI alleged it was a hate crime. Dripping sarcasm, CBCI president Cardinal Baselios Cleemis told the media before visiting the nun and the convent in Bengal that “not only cows, but human beings too need to be protected”. The cardinal was alluding to the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) proposed cow protection measures. He went on to indirectly blame Prime Minister Modi and the BJP-led NDA government for the alleged attacks on minorities. His colleague, Cardinal Oswald Gracias, one of the eight cardinals from across the world appointed by Pope Francis on his advisory board to help him govern the Catholic Church, repeated the false allegation of “frequent attacks on Christians in the country” and said he was worried about “the future of the country”!

Articles like this appeared in many publications severely criticising and condemning not only Modi, but also the BJP, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh and their leaders.

Less than two weeks after the incident at Nadia, the Bengal police arrested one of the accused from Mumbai. Far from being a Hindutva foot soldier, as the CBCI, the media, commentators and the opposition had alleged, the man was a Muslim and, that too, a Bangladeshi! His interrogation by the police in Bengal (ruled by the vehemently anti-BJP Mamata Banerjee) revealed that the perpetrators of the crime were all Bangladeshis and the motive was dacoity.

On Tuesday [Nov. 6], a Kolkata court held only the prime accused, Nazrul Islam (a Bangladeshi national), guilty of rape. Four other members of the gang—all of them Bangladeshis, three of them are Muslims—have been held guilty of only committing a dacoity. Hence, the gang-rape theory was discredited by the trial court, which held the four other accused guilty of dacoity and criminal conspiracy.

Thus, the court verdict is a resounding slap on the faces of those who gave a communal colour to what was a case of dacoity. Moreover, the nun was not gang-raped, as was alleged. And also, contrary to the false accusations of the CBCI, there was no deliberate desecration of the chapel inside the convent. The gang of dacoits had gone to the convent to get hold of valuables and, when the nun resisted their attempts, she was reportedly raped. What, incidentally, remains unanswered is how the small convent had Rs 12 lakh (the amount allegedly taken away by the gang) in its cash box. But that is another matter altogether.

Given this, the two cardinals—Baselios Cleemis and Oswald Gracias—should now apologise for communalising the Nadia incident and levelling false allegations against the BJP and the NDA government. It is only fair that they publicly retract their earlier statements about the Nadia incident being another in a series of attacks on minorities in India. They should apologise to Prime Minister Modi for criticising him.

Apologies and retractions are also due from those in the media, who created and publicised the false narrative about attacks on minorities increasing after the NDA came to power in mid-2014, the commentators and the opposition parties.

But the Nadia incident is not the first one in which the Church has been caught crying wolf. As this article proves, the spate of ‘attacks’ on churches in Delhi in late 2014 and early 2015 that created such a furore were simply acts of burglary or vandalism. But Christian missionaries made a huge hue and cry over it and even made it an issue at global fora, thus defaming the country.

The false attacks even became an issue in the Delhi elections in 2015 and after the victory of the Aam Aadmi Party, Delhi archbishop Anil Joseph Thomas Couto told the media that the verdict was a vote for change. This was his highly political statement: “The people of Delhi voted against the BJP and its attempt to polarize the voters in the name of religion. The result of these elections is a message to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi: he should think seriously about his behaviour”. So much for the Christian clergy keeping away from politics!

The point here is that the CBCI and its cardinals and archbishops should publicly apologise and retract their intemperate and hurried statements about attacks on minorities in the country. So should all the media persons, commentators and the political parties. Because such statements feed a false narrative about India having become unsafe for minorities post-May 2014. And that only serves to defame the country. The Catholic church, least of all, has no business defaming India. – Swarajya, 8 November 2017

» Jaideep Mazumdar is a senior journalist who has reported for The Times Of India, Open, The Outlook, The Hindustan Times, The Pioneer and other news organisations. He lives in Kolkata and writes on politics, society and other subjects from North, East and North East India as well as Nepal and Bangladesh.

Bangladesh Dacoits

Advertisements

Ramachandra Guha: Hollow cry of the dispossessed elite – Sandhya Jain

Ramachandra Guha

Sandhya Jain is the editor of Vijayvaani.Ramachandra Guha’s blaming the Sangh Parivar for Gauri Lankesh’s murder suggests that the run-up to the 2019 elections is going to be vicious, perhaps even bloody. – Sandhya Jain

Blessed with an inflated sense of impunity, the all-India Lutyens brigade’s oracular intellectual, Ramachandra Guha, pompously declared after Kannada journalist Gauri Lankesh was shot that, “It is very likely that her murderers came from the same Sangh Parivar from which the murderers of Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi came”. Guha imparted this deep wisdom in an interview to the website, Scroll.in, on 6 September 2017, the day after Lankesh’s death.

The statement is clearly defamatory. Guha’s contention is that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates (Sangh Parivar) indulge in serial killings of persons who differ with their nationalist ideology, and that the Parivar is behind the premeditated murder of Gauri Lankesh, Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and M.M. Kalburgi.

All these persons shot to national fame only after they were murdered by unknown assailants for unknown reasons. It is said that they were “rationalists” (whatever that means) who virulently opposed the RSS. If so, the grassroots impact of their ideological affiliation seems to have been negligible on the growth of the RSS and its associated Bharatiya Janata Party; there seems no reason for the Parivar to connive to eliminate them. Murders generally have more personal motives.

What is notable is that their ideological fellow travellers have tried to derive political mileage from the tragedies. Guha’s blaming the Sangh Parivar suggests that the run-up to the 2019 elections is going to be vicious, perhaps even bloody.

Karunakar Khasale, secretary of the BJP Yuva Morcha, Karnataka, has rightly sent Guha a legal notice asking him to apologise or face defamation proceedings. As the deadline for the apology expired without response, Guha has obviously decided to take his chances in court. But he runs the danger of meeting the same fate as ideological comrade Gauri Lankesh, who could not substantiate the allegations she made against BJP MLA, Prahlad Joshi, and was sentenced to six months imprisonment. She was out on bail at the time of her murder.

Yet it is impressive that following the murder, the Left-dominated Lutyens elite, displaced and dispossessed after the verdict of May 2014, instantly composed a narrative of hate and used its media dominance to blame its ideological opponents for the crime. That too, when the police had barely processed the crime scene or examined the footage from the CCTV cameras at Lankesh’s residence. To neutral observers, this smacks of a classic red herring.

Undeterred by such niceties, Guha continued to develop his plot (The Hindustan Times, Sept. 9, 2017) and observed that Gauri Lankesh was unhappy that her home town, Bengaluru, was losing “its progressive and emancipatory ethos”, as women could no longer move freely in “public spaces without fear of lecherous goons, fundamentalist fanatics and brainless men in power.…” Surely she knew that Congress was ruling the State since 2013?

Guha argued that Lankesh was murdered six months after writing these views, because “fundamentalist fanatics had long targeted her for her fearless criticisms of the hateful and divisive politics that were threatening to tear her state and her country apart”.

He applauded Lankesh for writing fearlessly in Kannada, but did not mention the minuscule circulation of her weekly tabloid, nor the fact that she seemed to be having serious financial difficulties in running it. He said “right-wing politicians brought an array of cases against her in the lower courts”, but conspicuously failed to mention that she lost the defamation suit filed against her (mentioned earlier). Instead, he posed the rhetorical question, “So she had to be killed?”, and linked her death with the murders of independent-minded writers “detested by right-wing Hindu fundamentalists”.

Guha lambasted Union Minister Nitin Gadkari for denying any BJP-Parivar link with Lankesh’s murder, “How, so soon after the event, can he be so sure?” Surely the question applies equally to Guha who explicitly accused the Sangh of not one, but four, murders. In fact, he went further, “Even if the BJP or the RSS is not directly involved in this and similar murders, there is little question that the ruling dispensation has enabled a climate of hate and suspicion that makes such targeted killings of writers and scholars possible”.

The same day, senior advocate Soli J. Sorabjee (Indian Express, Sept. 9) deplored Lankesh’s murder, “apparently not for any personal enmity or monetary gain”. However, Karnataka police are reportedly investigating her provocative articles (not just against the RSS-BJP), personal issues, property and sibling issues (including division of father P. Lankesh’s estate and magazine), and Naxalite and right-wing angles.

Sorabjee asserted that dissenters must be free to express their views vigorously, without any lurking fear of incarceration, provided only that there is “no incitement to violence”. This is odd coming from a former Attorney General of India (Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime), as Gauri Lankesh was sentenced to six months imprisonment by a court of law, for willful defamation of an elected representative. As for her views, social media has highlighted some of her tweets, which are crude and uncultured, to say the least. Significantly, one of her last tweets bemoaned the infighting amongst fellow travellers.

Like Guha, Sorabjee vented his bias that the fact that the killers of Lankesh, Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi were unknown, “points to a war between fundamentalism and rationalism, with the former showing its virulence”. The question may legitimately be asked, how in the absence of any corroborative evidence, did the legal luminary come to this conclusion? Why did he point fingers in one direction only?

Sorabjee concluded with the homily, “Let politics not be injected into the matter”. It’s too late for that. The morning after Lankesh’s murder (Sept. 6), journalists who gathered for a condolence meet at the capital’s Press Club of India, were shocked to find the dais occupied by Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary, Sitaram Yechury; D Raja of the Communist Party of India; CPI poster boy Kanhaiya Kumar, all of whom addressed the gathering even as many senior journalists could not speak. Fledgling leader Umar Khalid was firmly dissuaded from speaking as tempers rose.

The highlight of the event was Shehla Rashid of Jawaharlal Nehru University berating a journalist from a television channel and not allowing him to enter the Press Club premises to cover the event. This leftist hijack exposed the politicisation of the event. The media fraternity was outraged, but a card-holding comrade applauded Rashid, which proves that the lamentations were part of a carefully choreographed political narrative. Truth and facts are for bourgeois fixations. – Vijayvaani, 19 September 2017

» Sandhya Jain is an author, independent researcher, and writer of political and contemporary affairs. She writes a fortnightly column for The Pioneer, New Delhi, and edits an online opinions forum, www.vijayvaani.com.

The body of senior journalist Gauri Lankesh, who was shot dead by unidentified men at her residence, Rajarajeshwari Nagar in Bengaluru on Sept 5, 2017. (Photo: IANS)

Why secularism in India lost its meaning – David Frawley

Congress Secularism

Vamadeva Shastri / David FrawleyIndia’s secularism became a form of communalism in disguise. … India’s secularism became synonymous with the idea that everything Hindu is bad and everything anti-Hindu is secular and good, extending even to Christian missionaries or Islamic jihad. India’s secularism can accommodate the Shari’ah or the Vatican, but not the Vedas or the Gita. – Dr David Frawley

The era during which the Nehruvian idea of secularism dominated India’s political discourse and dictated the country’s national narrative is definitely over. This opens the floodgates to real insight, vision and exploration about what India truly is, its great civilisation since ancient times, and its possible leading role in the knowledge-oriented world today.

Belief

The idea of secularism in India was not necessarily entirely bad to begin with. That a country of such religious and cultural diversity should not be driven by an exclusive theistic belief—such as motivated European secularists to counter Christian theocracy—did not at face value seem wrong, particularly to educated minds in India who aspired perhaps more than anything to be progressive.

The problem begins with the fact that such an idea of secularism is out of context in India, in which the dominant culture has been pluralistic and never theocratic, hegemonic or conquest-oriented. Theocratic-driven and supported armies invaded India but never represented its indigenous culture or dominant civilisation. They were the basis of colonialism and foreign rule that came to an end with the Independence of the country.

India’s adoption of secularism began with this dissonant note of a secular agenda from Europe that only created confusion in the Indian discourse. India needed a full national awakening from foreign rule, freeing both the land and the minds of its people, and casting off the centuries long denigration of its civilisation that attempted to destroy its heritage.

Unfortunately, this new idea of secularism in India worked to continue the oppression of the Indic mind and heart that had spread from such foreign rulers as Mahmud of Ghazni to Queen Victoria. Secularism, as it developed in India, represented another form of Eurocentric thinking that perpetrated the Western cultural assault on India.

In India, secularism became opposed to an opposite idea of communalism, identified with everything bad, with secularism as the highest good. Again, the idea of rejecting communalism does not at surface value sound bad. It suggests standing against divisive forces driven by theocratic-based compulsions of conversion and conquest. But such a threat of communalism as in Europe and West Asia was not relevant to India’s dharmic civilisation either, with its syncretic trends and unbroken continuity of culture.

Also, unfortunately, Europe’s new secular states, like Britain, were happy to support conversion agendas as a matter of foreign policy as much as they might question religious authority in their own countries, a policy that has continued even from the US. Conversion was justified in promoting the “civilising” forces of the West.

Communalism

The result was that India’s secularism became a form of communalism in disguise. It continued colonial agendas of keeping Hindu, Buddhist and dharmic traditions divided, discredited and suppressed. India’s secularism became synonymous with the idea that everything Hindu is bad and everything anti-Hindu is secular and good, extending even to Christian missionaries or Islamic jihad. India’s secularism can accommodate the Shari’ah or the Vatican, but not the Vedas or the Gita.

India’s secularism was further recast in a Leftist format that had also its origins and more appropriate place in Europe, invented for countering imperialism of which India was a victim, not a representative. India’s secularism quickly became a subterfuge for a larger Leftist agenda, allied with communism, the erstwhile Soviet Union and Communist China as role models for proper secular nations.

Secular views of India’s history became a mask for far-Left distortions and an attempt to cut Indians off from their own greater civilisational ethos, to which was added the new defamation of India’s culture as being anti-secular, on top of the old charges of heathen, kafir, idolatrous and superstitious.

In India, it became a sin not to be secular, an idea that journalists and academics were particularly infected with. And being secular could also provide forgiveness for all other sins and shortcomings, something that corrupt politicians could use to redeem themselves and justify their scams.

Nehruvian

This means that a post-secular India is the same as India in the post-Marxist, post-Nehruvian era. Post-secular India is India in the time during which the hegemony of the Congress in the country is over.

How do we define this post-secular era? It is not a new communal era, but the end of the secular promotion of communal divisions as electoral vote-banks. It is India completing its Independence movement by reaffirming its own civilisational identity. Post-secular India is the era of a New India, which is a renewed India or awakened Bharat. Such an India is beyond the right-left, secular-communal dualities of Western politics and reaffirms its own dharmic values and yogic culture.

Certainly there was a great effort to create such an awakened India during the Independence era itself by such inspired thinkers as Vivekananda and Aurobindo, but it fell short and became obscured by the Nehruvian secular socialist agenda that aimed to shut it down as an electoral threat to the new Congress dynastic rule.

As the darkness of this contrived and manipulative view of secularism gets removed, there is now space for India to emerge once more as a nation, culture, and civilisation in its own right, not a shadow of the very foreign ideologies and theocracies that have long been trying to subvert it. This is not only of tremendous value to the country but of inestimable value to the world that needs a different model of country, religion, and civilisation than current conflicting forms. The wisdom of India’s rishis and yogis remains relevant for India and for all humanity. – Daily-O, 8 September 2017

Secularism of Congress

 

Anarchists stoking campus unrest – K. G. Suresh

AISA at JNU

K. G. SureshPseudo intellectuals who have made a fortune through the liberal largesse of successive governments in the past, are finding themselves cornered today with the new regime strictly implementing academic discipline and norms. – K. G. Suresh

A planned, deliberate exercise is being undertaken by sections of frustrated, desperate and ideologically isolated faculty and students to denigrate and destabilise prestigious educational institutions, including universities, across the country. That these anarchist elements, who have enjoyed the fruits of power over the last several decades at the cost of academic discipline, accountability and standards, are becoming unnerved by the loss of their empire, is evident from the artificial protests and propaganda being unleashed from time to time ever since a new dispensation has taken over the reins at the Raisina Hill.

From Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in the north and Film and Television Institute of India in the west, to Hyderabad University in the south and Jadavpur University in the east, these elements have been trying to foment trouble and orchestrate campaigns over flimsy issues to project the government and its appointees as anti-Dalit, anti-women and anti-minorities, in connivance with fellow travellers in the media.

The pattern is the same. The foot soldiers of an ideology, which carried out the inhuman purge in Russia, the ruthless cultural revolution in China, the ethnic cleansing in Tibet, the gross human rights violations in Siberia and Xinjiang, the suppression of democracy by crushing students under military tanks in Tiananmen Square, have become ironically the self-proclaimed champions of democracy and human rights in India.

From Gajendra Chauhan to Pahlaj Nihalani and B. B. Kumar, among others, all appointees of the present regime are portrayed as ‘mediocre’, agents of the RSS and accused of saffronisation. The spit-and-run tactics of these foreign-funded activists in the garb of academics and students include making wild, sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations the moment any effort is made to make them accountable or disciplined.

They are trying to build a new narrative—that students should be consulted before the appointment of any head of the institution, and administration should not take any decision without taking faculty into confidence, even on non-academic matters. Any effort to make them accountable, including insistence on biometric attendance, is outrightly rejected. Any attempt to get vacated their long-held positions or ineligible occupation of hostels are construed as undemocratic acts, and licence to abuse is touted as freedom of speech and expression.

These pseudo intellectuals, who have made a fortune through the liberal largesse of successive governments in the past, are finding themselves cornered today with the new regime strictly implementing academic discipline and norms.

Over the years, they had penetrated every institution thanks to undeserving patronage extended to them by their godfathers. In the process, they also ensured that those who disagreed with their world view were denied their due. Being a nationalist became the albatross around the neck of many deserving academics. Nobody talked about their freedom of thought and expression—their academic freedom. They were at the receiving end in academic appointments and promotions. The nation’s academia was dominated by a mafia, which determined their fate and pushed them into the netherworld with contempt and ruthlessness.

The current protests and propaganda are only acts of desperation by these so-called scholars who have realised that their time is over, their game is up and the golden days of their dominance over national institutions are no more. The crusade undertaken by institutions such as JNU to remove the scourge of political untouchability, discrimination and apartheid that have been pursued over the last several decades, must be appreciated by all right-thinking people and supported by the government. Only then can Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s dream of a New India be fully realised. – The New Indian Express, 16 July 2017

» K. G. Suresh is the Director General of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication in New Delhi.

AISA anti-national protest at JNU

Leftist intellectuals pave the way for jihad – Ravi Shanker Kapoor

Sadiq Khan Ravi Shanker KapoorThe system doesn’t want to offend religious minorities, and a realistic analysis of Islam’s precepts and practices is ruled out. – Ravi Shanker Kapoor

Can London fight terror? One has to be extremely optimistic to answer in the affirmative. A city that elects an Islamist Mayor, Sadiq Khan, despite his sympathies with the jihadists being well known, can scarcely hope to live peacefully.

So, there was a third major attack in Britain in the past three months, with three jihadists mowing down and knifing indiscriminately in busy areas, killing seven and wounding 48. BBC reported that one of the attackers, Khuram Shazad Butt, was a 27-year-old British citizen. Born in Pakistan, he “became known to the police and MI5 in the summer of 2015 and an investigation was opened into his behavior after concerns reached counter-terrorism officers.” Yet, little was done to neutralize him.

“One man called the anti-terrorism hotline, while a woman went to the local police station because she was scared Butt was trying to radicalize her children,” BBC report says. “However, the Met said there was no intelligence to suggest that this attack was being planned, meaning the investigation had been prioritized accordingly.’”

Further, a man, “who did not want to be named, said one of the attackers had become more extreme over the past two years. He said he had contacted authorities but no action was taken.”

Now, the police in the UK and other Western countries are not like their Indian counterparts; when some wrong-doing is reported, they act, and act fast, unbothered about phone calls from their higher-ups and politicians. So, what happened to the efficiency of the British cops? The answer was provided by US President Donald Trump’s tweet: political correctness (PC). Encyclopaedia Britannica describes PC as a “term used to refer to language that seems intended to give the least amount of offense, especially when describing groups identified by external markers such as race, gender, culture, or sexual orientation.”

What began as a nasty war against language—eliminating what Left-liberals thought was offensive to non-whites, women, Orientals and Africans, religious minorities, the LGBT community—acquired a life of its own and transmogrified into a full-fledged ideology. A fascistic, intolerant ideology that brooks no dissent; anybody challenging it is a ‘racist’ and, when the subject is Islam, ‘Islamophobic.’

Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad; and the civilization that they want to destroy they first corrupt its thought leaders. By gods or otherwise, it is indubitable that those who lord over public discourse, set various agendas, and mould public opinion in the West, as also elsewhere, have been badly corrupted by the PC plague. So, we find academics, media pundits, authors, and other opinion makers peddling PC 24×7.

This has translated into security paralysis; since the system doesn’t want to offend religious minorities, and a realistic analysis of Islam’s precepts and practices is ruled out, law-enforcement agencies have been handicapped. Any preventive measure is slammed as racist, Islamophobic, etc. And among those leading the brigade of the politically correct is Sadiq Khan.

In the wake of July 7, 2005, bombings in London, he blamed Britain’s foreign policy rather than Muslim terrorists. Further, as a lawyer, he defended Zacarias Moussaoui, a 9/11 terrorist who admitted to being a member of Al Qaeda. Another Islamist he defended was Azzam Tamimi who threatened violence if the Prophet Muhammed was defamed. The London Mayor has shared a platform with Suliman Gani, a South London imam who favors an Islamic state. Daily Mail reported on April 17, 2016, at a funeral, “he stopped to shake [hands with] convicted terrorist Babar Ahmad, a man who has been blamed for inspiring a generation of extremists, including the gang behind the London bombings of July 7, 2005. The pair exchanged brief pleasantries before Khan moved on.”

In his book, Sadiq Khan advised that the police should be charged with “racism” if a certain community was targeted. Evidently, such ideas are not just being spread by sundry intellectuals but also followed in the UK capital, indeed in the entire country.

Frequent attacks in London are the denouement. In a revealing article in www.frontpagemag.com, Daniel Greenfield, a writer focusing on the radical Left and radical Islam, has listed the march of Islamist forces that led to the ghastly attack in Manchester (http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266793/manchesters-islamist-appeasing-police-and-daniel-greenfield).

“While Salman Abedi [the Manchester attacker] … stalked the streets wailing, ‘There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah,’ Manchester police were busy with more important things … Mayor [Andy] Burnham and Chief Constable [Ian] Hopkins pandered to Islamists, prioritised Islamophobia and dutifully opposed the government’s fight against Islamic terror.”

The Greater Manchester Police, writes Greenfield, are one of only two police forces to list Islamophobia as a hate crime category. Earlier this year, Hopkins honoured Tell MAMA for fighting Islamophobia. “Shahid Malik, the chair of Tell MAMA, had been photographed with the leader of Hamas. Appearing at the Global Peace and Unity conference, where plenty of terrorism supporters have promenaded, he boasted, ‘In 2005 we had four Muslim MPs. In 2009 or 2010 we’ll have eight or ten Muslim MPs. In 2014 we’ll have 16 Muslim MPs. At this rate, the whole parliament will be Muslim.’”

This is the quintessential Islamist vision: creeping acquisition of power, not much different from the creeping acquisition in the corporate sector.

Intellectuals seem to have a penchant for evil. During the Cold War, they had a soft corner for communism, the violent ideology that killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. Now, they are sympathetic to radical Islam, thus acting as the sappers and miners for the jihadist takeover. Not just in London but in entire Europe. – PGurus, 6 June 2017

» Ravi Shanker Kapoor is a journalist and author. He upholds freedom of expression, individual liberty, free market, and open society. He has published three books till date. His website is http://www.thehinduchronicle.com/.

Jihadi

Rahul Gandhi is reading Upanishads and Gita in order to take on RSS, BJP – David Frawley

Rahul Gandhi

Vamadeva Shastri (David Frawley)Congress seems to have lost its connections to Indian culture and simply become just another far-Left anti-Hindu party. Its recent alliances with the CPM, SP and RJD show this, as does its support for major Leftist causes from Kashmir separatists to sympathising with terrorists and most notably for joining Leftist beef fests. – Dr David Frawley

Rahul Gandhi’s recent statement, “I am reading Upanishads, Gita to take on RSS, BJP”, sounds incredulous and invites ridicule, as have a number of his previous pronouncements. Yet, as someone who is still being promoted as future prime minister material, we cannot simply shrug it off as immature or thoughtless, but must make him accountable for what he says.

As a person in his late forties, long aspiring to be prime minister of India, his statement implies he has not yet studied the Upanishads and the Gita, the foundational books of India’s venerable traditions of philosophy, yoga and spirituality.

What else about the country, its great civilisation and culture has he failed to learn?

Is this his first step in discovering India?

Yet most strikingly, Rahul clearly announces that he will study these spiritual teachings in order to gain political advantage over his opponents, not for any higher purpose.

The Upanishads teach serious introspection and self-examination, including asking the fundamental question, “Who am I?” Rahul can certainly benefit from studying these profound teachings, as we all can, but for self-knowledge, not as a smart new political strategy.

Congress needs to introspect

A true leader must always be willing to introspect. Congress has been promising a new introspection after every single one of a string of electoral defeats, but this does not ever happen, largely because the heir apparent of the dynasty cannot be seriously questioned, much less challenged.

The Bhagavad Gita promotes selfless service in the defense of dharma, including the use of force if necessary to counter adharma. Mahatma Gandhi, Lokmanya Tilak and other leaders of the Independence movement promoted the Gita as an inspiration to the country to stand up against the British both ethically and politically, regardless of personal consequences.

Is Rahul thinking that he can arrogate this great book for the political advantage of his dynasty and political party, as perhaps some property of previous Congress leaders?

There is in his statement no true humility that real learning can arise from. We should all study the Gita for its deep wisdom, not for any personal advantage that we can derive from it. That is not Karma Yoga as the Gita teaches.

Rahul and Congress have long criticised BJP for mixing religion, namely Hinduism, and politics.

Now Rahul is openly stating his intention to use the Hindu religion for his own political advantage. He does not mind mixing religion and politics when it suits him.

In fact, Congress has always mixed politics and religion but has preferred minority religions. Now it realises that it also needs votes from the majority religion in order to win the polls.

Rahul blames BJP for being narrow-minded and only recognising one culture and one idea of India.

Yet, the Congress still tries to reduce India to one family and one dynasty.

Hindu dharma does not need Congress or Rahul to save it from becoming narrow or regressive, or losing its universal perspective.

Hindu dharma is pluralistic, unlike today’s Congress party.

Has Congress moved too far to the Left?

Congress began as the Indian National Congress of the Independence movement. After Independence was achieved, it changed into the Nehru dynasty, of which Rahul is the current representative. Now the Congress seems to have lost its connections to Indian culture and simply become just another far-Left anti-Hindu party. Its recent alliances with the CPM, SP and RJD show this, as does its support for major Leftist causes from Kashmir separatists to sympathising with terrorists and most notably for joining Leftist beef fests.

Rahul’s statement suggests that the Congress has realised this terrible mistake and wants to return to a more central position in India’s politics and culture by recalling India’s Independence movement and its honouring of liberal Hindu thought, much like the BJP has.

Yet this turn to the centre is likely to be too late, insincere and misguided. – Daily-O, 6 June 2017

» Dr. David Frawley (Pandit  Vamadeva Shastri) D. Litt., is a teacher in the Vedic tradition. He includes in his unusual wide scope of studies Ayurveda, Yoga, Vedanta and Vedic astrology, as well as the ancient Vedic teachings going back to the Rigveda.

Rahul Gandhi

Confessions of a ‘Hindu Nationalist’ – Balbir Punj

Hindu Nationalism

Balbir Punj‘Hindu Nationalists’ are victims of demonisation, a standard strategy the Left-Liberals resort to eliminate their ideological opponents, nay enemies. They have attained expertise at vilification, perfected by decades of global experience. Economical with the truth, they use white lies and half-truths to squash class enemies. – Balbir Punj

My detractors often call me and several others of my ilk a ‘Hindu Nationalist’. The ‘Left-Liberal’ pack uses this term to run down those who do not share its narrative and have an alternate view on history, economics, contemporary developments or various other issues. Of late, the phrase has increasingly assumed pejorative connotations in select intellectual circles.

But who are these ‘Left-Liberals’ to label the likes of me? To begin with, these two words—Left and Liberal—are not synonyms. The term Left-Liberal is an oxymoron. The Left ideology has no liberal content, either in theory or practice.

The communist regimes, wherever they have been in power, at home (Kerala and West Bengal) or abroad (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.) have left behind a bloody trail. Dissidents and suspects in Left regimes either disappear without a trace or land up in concentration camps.

The ‘Hindu Nationalists’ are victims of demonisation, a standard strategy the Left-Liberals resort to eliminate their ideological opponents, nay enemies. They have attained expertise at vilification, perfected by decades of global experience. Economical with the truth, they use white lies and half-truths to squash class enemies.

Who claims to be the biggest flag-bearer of ‘secularism’ in India? Undoubtedly the Left-Liberal pack. Its ingenuity in twisting facts, distorting history and its perfidy on the unsuspecting society is unmatched. The Left had conspired with the departing British and the virulently communal Muslim League to vivisect India and create a theocratic Pakistan.

The new country has been wedded to a rabid religious dispensation under which non-Muslims continue to be second-class citizens. No wonder, the share of Hindus and Sikhs in present day Pakistan is less than one per cent, a huge drop from 24 per cent at the time of Partition. The bulk of non-Muslims have either been forced to convert to Islam or have fled the Islamic Republic to save their lives and honour.

Clearly, the hands of the Left are tainted with the blood of millions of innocents, the unsuspecting victims of the bloody Partition. Terror modules funded and trained by Pakistan continue to claim numerous Indian lives.

The Left is not even apologetic about it. Instead, after dividing the country on religious lines, it has the gall to pontificate on secular values and certify who is ‘secular’ and ‘communal’ in the Indian context. This obvious contradiction leads to bizarre situations every second day.

Seeking an end to triple talaq to ensure gender equality is ‘communal’ and so is the demand for reconstruction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. But when a section of Kashmiri Muslims wave Pakistani/ISIS flags, scream slogans demanding azaadi and pelt the Indian Army with stones while it is combating terrorists, they (Kashmiri Muslims) are said to be exercising their ‘democratic right to protest’.

The demolition of scores of temples (some of them hundreds of years old) in the Valley during 1985–90 hardly gets a line in print. Numerous killings of Kashmiri Pandits at the hands of terrorists motivated by Islamic frenzy was just a statistic. Not even one terrorist has been brought to book on this account till date. Forced eviction of the entire community and decimation of their timeless culture is a non-event in the Left-Liberal narrative. Raising such issues invites derision and derogatory labels at the hands of the Left-Liberal pack. – The New Indian Express, 27 May 2017

» Balbir Punj is a former Rajya Sabha member and Delhi-based commentator on social and political issues. Email: punjbalbir@gmail.com

Communist Party

Communist Holocaust