THE IMPERIALISTIC GAME OF "MY (OUR) IMAGINARY FRIEND (GOD?) IS BETTER THAN YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND AND WILL PREVAIL"

Multiculturalism is for the Birds – 4

Diversity is not multiculturalism

by

Radha Rajan


The riots with racial overtones engulfing London and other parts of UK in the first week of August 2011 seem to have been timed fortuitously to quickly vindicate Anders Breivik’s act of terror in Norway on 22 July, allegedly against multiculturalism.

The writer had drawn a parallel to events in India where Sonia Gandhi’s UPA has literally created a brand new phenomenon called Hindu terror. Some very striking points of similarity between Anders Breivik and Hindus who have been arrested for acts of terror –

· While all of them allegedly belong to some known organization or political party (Abhinav Bharat, Progress Party), they acted as individuals with little or no backing from the organizations to which they belonged

· All of them, according to available reports were trained and funded by shadowy figures who have not been identified so far

· All of them were chosen for their commitment to a defined political ideology related to multiculturalism

· All of them supposedly used ammonium nitrate and fuel oil to manufacture IEDs

· All of them were amateur terrorists, first time offenders, almost certain to be arrested

If Christian terrorism sent the signal that Europe and America had reached the end of their multiculturalism tether and wanted it to end, inventing the phenomenon of Hindu terror sent the signal that resistance by Hindu nationalists to multiculturalism would not be countenanced. The Generic Church, it was clear wanted multiculturalism like jihad to end in Europe and America but wanted it alive and active in India.

(Editor's Note: All social evils racism, slavery, genocides, trail of tears, banishment to reserations, intolerance of extreme nature in the West needs to be forgotten as the thing of the past and attention needs to be focused on India for all social evils that do not even have the fraction of the magnitude of the violence and disrespect for human life evinced in the West thoughout the last several centuries and especially in the 20th century continuing into the 21st century,- obviously a double standard. )

And that is why the plot to launch new-wave Christian terrorism and Hindu terrorism must have been hatched around the same time by the same forces for exactly opposite reasons.

Multiculturalism is a misnomer for warring monotheisms. When Prime Minister David Cameron said state multiculturalism had failed in the UK and Hillary Clinton, while on a state visit to India last month said she was going to Chennai to get a sense of the city’s culture, two of the world’s most influential political leaders used the word culture in entirely different ways.

When David Cameron spoke about state multiculturalism what he actually meant was government policy to invite people of different races, different religions and different countries to make the United Kingdom their home so that Pizza and Paratha, Bharatanatyam and Flamenco could live together happily ever after. It is not surprising that multiculturalism failed in the UK and is failing everywhere in the world.

Elsewhere the writer had observed that the Hindu nation is formed on the basis of what unites us, what we have in common while Abrahamic religionists fragment their countries into smaller countries and states on the basis of how they differ from each other.

If all three Abrahamic religions owe allegiance to the same god and hold the same prophets in reverence, why are Christians and Muslims at each others’ throats in several parts of the world; why are Muslims and Jews at each others’ throats in the middle-east; why did Christians persecute the Jews over centuries?

Fundamental and irreconcilable differences among them which make them warring monotheisms are –

· Judaism holds the cults of Jesus and Mohammed to be heretic faiths

· The Jews do not believe that Jesus is either the son of god or even the promised messiah and are still waiting for God fulfil his promise to the Jews

· While Muslims revere Jesus as one of the messengers of God, they do not believe that Jesus is the son of god while Christians do not believe God spoke to Mohammed through Angel Gabriel

· Even as the Jews are still waiting for God to send them the promised Messiah the Muslims have pronounced Mohammed to be the last Prophet

All three Abrahamic siblings share the common belief that the last and final war before the end of time/end of world will be fought among themselves to decide who among them is god’s chosen people. For this final confrontation to take place, the world must be rid of all other (false) gods and all other (illegitimate) religions so that only their one true god remains to rule the world and only they, the three Abrahamic siblings remain to fight the last war.

This is not culture; this is the Abrahamic worldview or the world as the Abrahamic religionists view it. According to this worldview –

· The world is divided broadly as Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic

· The non-Abrahamic world, the territory and people, must be transformed to become Abrahamic

· This entailed either converting the people to one of the Abrahamic religions or forcibly taking over the territory and bringing it under the rule of an Abrahamic king

· The noun Messiah is transliteration of the Hebrew noun ‘Mashiach’ which derives from the verb ‘mashach’ which means to anoint. Mashiach or Messiah literally means the anointed one. In the Abrahamic worldview, only three categories of people are anointed – prophets, priests and kings. The prophet was considered as representing god to the people; the priest represented the people in all their interactions with god and the king protected the people, ruled over them and defended the territory (the kingdom or nation) which belonged to the god of Abraham. The person so anointed, prophet, priest or king, then became divinely enabled so that he and he alone was chosen by god and authorized by god to serve god and fulfil god’s purpose

· The purpose of the god of Abraham was to first subjugate and enslave the people who did not owe allegiance to the god of Abraham (Abrahamic kings and god’s soldiers did that), then take away the territory of these non-believers (their kingdom and nation) and bring both people and territory under the control of the god of Abraham after destroying the (false) gods and their places of worship

· This was god’s task and purpose which he entrusted to prophets, priests and kings

The Abrahamic worldview where the world is divided into two adversarial, conflicting segments, therefore placed the adherents of Abrahamic religions in a constant state of war – against non-Abrahamic nations, peoples and gods and among themselves as countdown and empowerment for the final showdown which will decide who among them is the chosen people of the god of Abraham.

This explains why –

· The Jews have always tried to control money and resources which makes up for their numerical inferiority because one is born a Jew and is never converted to the Judaic faith

· The prophets – Israelite, Ishmaelite both have such violent histories

· Islam and Christianity must expand into every continent of the world using violence, and leaving behind a trail of abuse and total destruction, even as both of them persecute the numerically inferior Jews across continents and deny the Jews any settled place to live

· Almost every pre-Islam and pre-Christian faith in all the continents, entire nations, tribes and kingdoms have been destroyed for ever with no living trace of these once prosperous, thriving and vibrant religions and civilizations; they are all, people and continents both, either entirely Muslim or Christian or neatly carved up between both

· Why the Pope can speak from both corners of the mouth at the same time; one corner of the mouth says freedom of religion be damned, multiculturalism be damned, secularism be damned, he does not want ‘Asiatic, Muslim Turkey inside Christian Europe; while the other corner of the mouth says at the same time that he will plant the cross in Asia; Muslim Turkey will not be allowed to move into Christian Europe but the white Church must be permitted by secular India to enter and expand across the territory of Hindu India, Confucian China and Buddhist Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Myanmar

Contrast the Abrahamic worldview with Hindu worldview –

· Dharma is supreme, even our gods are subject and subordinate to dharma

· Dharma can be embodied not only in gods but also in humans and non-humans

· A Hindu acquires his worldview not from understanding time, space and the cosmos first (western science and philosophy) and then place the individual within this understanding but by knowing the nature of the individual first and proceeding from that to understand the nature of the rest of the world – time, space, and cosmos

· The journey within the self and from the self to the world is a Hindu’s religion, his spirituality

· God (devas) is the name Hindus give to the extraordinary power, intelligence which permeates all creation

· Because this power, this intelligence (god) is already present, already permeates the world, Hindus do not have to be in a constant state of war with the world to bring any nation or kingdom under the control of our devas

· There are as many gods as there are humans and as many layers of understanding the truth that every god, every method to know the truth, so long as it is subjected to and governed by dharma, is legitimate and deserving of respect

· Wars were waged by kings to establish dharma and the victorious king had to be a dharma vijayi and not a lobha (plunder) or asura vijayi (rape, plunder, murder, mayhem and destruction)

· Within the Hindu nation, Hindus who worshipped Shiva or Vishnu, Kali or Aiyanar, mountain or river, stick or stone or his parents, even if he chose not to worship anyone or anything (that itself indicated simply one level of understanding and he would be born again and again until the fruits of his karma enabled him to know the nature of the self; after that words like belief or non-belief become redundant) could all live together without killing in the name of their god because everything was god and godly when the worshipper was ruled by dharma

· When people lived by dharma and were ruled by dharma, there were no multi-cultures as the Abrahamic world understands the word; there was only one worldview and all creative expressions proceeding from this worldview was culture.

Monotheisms cause multiculturalism and multiculturalism breeds conflict and wages war. Wherever Abrahamic religions exist and their adherents the very nature of their god and their responsibility to fulfil their god’s purpose inevitably places them in constant state of war against the rest of the world.

Within the Hindu nation, Islam and Christianity both are at war against the Hindus. Hindus have to be forced to give up their dharma and their worship either by terror, fear, bribes or blandishments (religious conversion) followed by eventual control of territory (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jammu and Kashmir, North-East, south Tamil Nadu, the eastern and western coastal regions) until Hindu India is fragmented into Christian states like East Timor or South Korea, or Muslim states like Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan.

The rise of Hindu nationalism once again after 1909, in the second half of the 1990s decade rests on the understanding –

· All gods are not the same

· All religions do not have the same objective and so do not lead to the same goal

· Hindus have never conquered territory, enslaved other nations and cultures in the name of their gods and will therefore resist efforts by Abrahamic religions within the nation and outside to make Hindu India another Abrahamic fiefdom

· This means Hindu nationalists will not allow religious conversion and will not surrender Hindu territory to Islam or Christianity

· Will not allow Muslims and Christians in India to claim Hindu territory because their god and their religion has placed this religious mandate upon them

That is why Hindus are reacting violently to increasing Muslim and Christian provocations. When Hindus use force against the constantly warring adherents of Islam and Christianity, they are only protecting their dharma and defending their native land, their janmabhumi.

If India and the rest of Asia have to be transformed for the last war or Armageddon, India’s Hindus must always be kept in a state of weakness, they must never be allowed to capture state power.

It is to attain this objective, to break the backbone of Hindu nationalism again as they did in 1909, that Hindus defending their nation have been labelled terrorists. If the state in India had derived from Hindus then the state would ban religious conversion, the Hindu state would resist forcefully any territorial claim by Muslims and Christians.

But the post 1947 state in India does not derive from the Hindu nation; it derives from Gandhi’s understanding of nation and Nehru’s un-Hindu and anti-Hindu ideology for governance.

Gandhi’s unnatural and unreal understanding of the Hindu nation was typical of general Hindu foolishness that all gods are the same and all religions have the same goal. Gandhi failed to acknowledge even in 1947 when the Hindu nation was vivisected that Islam and Christianity both are mandated by their god and prophets to conquer Hindu territory.

It is this stubborn foolishness which made Gandhi think that Hindus and Muslims, Hindus and Christians in India are brothers because they have the same ancestors. Gandhi should have read the Bible and the Koran with political sense to grasp the political objectives of both books of revelation. Both books declare, a brother is he who worships the same god; if your blood brother worships another god, he is an infidel; convert him or kill him.

Gandhi had no such political sense and Nehru was an irreligious man; and that is why the Hindu nation, governed by the Gandhi-Nehru INC, is destined to be enslaved by Gandhian sense of the nation –

If Hindus believe India should be peopled only by Hindus, they are living in a fool’s paradise. Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, and Christians who have made India their home are fellow countrymen; they will have to live in unity if only for their own intests. In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms, nor has this ever been the case in India. (Hind Swaraj, Chapter X, The Condition of India (cont.): The Hindus and the Mahomedans, pp 52-53)

Savarkar on the other hand suffered from no such delusions –

As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India, several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. Our well-meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities… The solid fact is that the so-called communal questions are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of a cultural, religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and the Moslems. When time is ripe you can solve them but you cannot suppress them by merely refusing recognition of them. (Savarkar’s Presidential address to the 19th session of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha at Karnavati (Ahmedabad) in 1937)

To make sure the Gandhian sense of nation prevails in India and to make sure that Hindu nationalism never raises its head to threaten the movement towards the two stage Apocalypse-Armageddon end of world, the US is making moves, going by this news report, to interfere actively in India’s internal affairs:

The legislative process in the United States Congress on the bill tabled by Congressman Frank Wolf and co-sponsored by Representative Anna Eshoo from California promises to be a fateful happening for the 'defining partnership' between US and India. It is titled as 'To provide for the establishment of the Special Envoy to Promote Freedom of Religious Minorities in the Near East and South Central Asia'. A hearing has been already held by the House of Representatives although the Indian media hasn't yet apparently caught on what is unfolding on the Hill. The bill has bipartisan support, especially from Christian Conservatives, and there is strong likelihood of it becoming law. India is specifically mentioned as one of the countries where the US will closely monitor the plight of the minorities. The bill demands the creation of the post of a special envoy in the State Department specifically to monitor countries like India. Pakistan has been included in the scope of the bill along with India, but China is not- although Beijing has been openly defying the Vatican's right to control the appointment of Church functionaries in China. As the text of the bill envisages, the proposed US special envoy is expected to:

a) "promote the right of religious freedom of religious minorities" and recommend "appropriate responses" by Washington to instances of violation of the rights;

b) "monitor and combat acts of religious intolerance and incitement targeted against religious minorities";

c) "work to ensure the unique needs of religious minority communities... including the economic and security needs of these communities";

d) work with Indian NGOs and take up with the GOI any Indian laws that are "inherently discriminatory" to minorities; and,

e) raise the issues on the multilateral fora, including the UN and the OSCE.

1 million dollars will be allocated annually to facilitate the work of the special envoy in undertaking activities such as conducting investigations. The bill says: "The Special Envoy should be a person of recognised distinction in the fields of human rights and religious freedom who shall have the rank of ambassador and shall hold office at the pleasure of the President." It seems the Barack Obama administration may already be having a nominee in mind.

From all appearances, the law would be geared in the Indian context to bring under the scanner the working of the Sangh Parivar organisations which have often been implicated in violence against minorities. Most certainly, the latest moves by public organisations in the US to monitor the activities of the Sangh Privar outfits in America now assume even greater significance.(http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/07/30/us-may-bring-sangh-parivar-under-scanner/)

The proposed Communal Violence Bill, the arrest of Pujya Swami Aseemanand and Sadhvi Pragya and the proposed Bill to monitor rights of minorities in America are all of the same piece.

This explains why Hindu PIOs felt compelled to explain Dr. Subramanian Swamy to protestors at Harvard University in the following Abrahamic multiculturist idiom -

I cannot understand how anyone can call Dr.Subramanian Swamy a BIGOT. Dr.Swamy’s brother-in-law is Jewish, his son-in-law Muslim, his sister-in-law Christian and his wife Parsi. One of his two daughters is married to an Indian Muslim with whom he has closest relations, and therefore how can he possibly be a bigot against the Indian Muslims or Christians.

Multiculturalism is for the birds; the Hindu twit (Concluded)

13th August, 2011.

ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN COMPETING TO OWN THE WORLD !!!

http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1583&Itemid=1


Multiculturalism is for the birds - I

Moving towards Armageddon

by

Radha Rajan

Anders Behring Breivik’s bomb besides killing 76 people in Norway, besides exploding several popular, motivated myths about terrorism and the war on terror, also exposed the hollowness of so-called liberal Christian political theories dominating international political discourse.

The concept of ‘universal human rights’ was crafted in the wake of public pronouncement by the Generic Church at the end of colonialism, slavery, and World War I and II; the Generic Church conceived the idea with great far-sightedness and had it legitimized internationally by its pan national constituent, the United Nations, with no real challenge from any member country to the purpose of the law or its content.

“Human Rights,” the Church’s offspring, is expected to be the pervasive universal virtue for all times, of all actions of all governments of the world, in domestic and international affairs. In reality, it is the Generic Church’s bloodless weapon in the “war-by-other-means.”

Even as ‘Human Rights’ became (even if only in theory) the centripetal force drawing towards it all other dominant so-called ‘liberal’ Christian political theories like democracy, freedom of religion, multiculturalism, freedom of religion, and protection of individual rights, the centrifugal force which determined the actual conduct of Abrahamic countries, propelling it in the exact opposite direction to human rights was the hard-headed political objective lying at the core of all three Abrahamic religions. (Editor’s note: Two concurrently operating contradicting thrusts, one overt and one covert, generated by the same force)

The tragedy of Iraq and Afghanistan, the continuing tragedy of Libya, the very creation and continued existence of Pakistan, and the persistent bleeding of India attest to the fact. Read this together with the economic melt-down in America and Europe and we know that all three Abrahamic religions are determined to do each other in and drag the rest of the non-Abrahamic world towards their Armageddon. (Editor’s note: see “Terrorism: An Indian Perspective” http://www.swaveda.com/articles.php?action=show&id=111 “Dhee: The Essence of Hinduness” http://www.swaveds.com/articles.php?action=show&id=125 )

Islam and the Generic Church continue to pursue world conquest and domination through control of territory and people as their ultimate goal; while Judaism continues to pursue (very successfully) its goal of dominating world affairs by directly or indirectly controlling all world capital.

It bears mention that the money flow with the power to move and direct world affairs originates in the drug trade and western financial corporate world including the most powerful banks, and quite possibly controlled indirectly by the same forces. Which would explain the suddenness with which large banks collapse and then recover with Abrahamic miracle; economic crises, market melt-downs and banks collapse unfailingly whenever the Generic Church has made a major move, unacceptable to Israeli interests, to resolve the Israel-Palestine crisis.

With all three Abrahamic religions pursuing a historically mandated predatory global agenda, the Generic Church is beginning to talk of post nation-state amorphous entities which will facilitate yet again, the free movement of Abrahamic religions into non-Abrahamic territories; only this time the Generic Church would ideally like the conquest to be bloodless, legitimized by its pan-national structures and ‘liberal’ Christian political idiom.

Freedom of Religion, which the Generic Church claims is a fundamental human right and deriving from that the two bloodless territory-conquering rights – religious conversion and rights of religious minorities, open markets, free (one-way) flow of capital, self-determination, borderless states and humanitarian intervention are the new calling cards specifically designed within this political idiom for what the Abrahamic religions think will be the second and decisive Abrahamic conquest of the world culminating in Abrahamic Apocalypse.

The third and final war will be fought bloodily among themselves in what will be an All-Abrahamic Armageddon with one victor emerging while the other two may be exterminated or subjugated in slavery. The world, as Hindus continue to sleep unconcerned, is moving inch by determined inch only in this direction. Norway was an unwitting give-away of the Generic Church’s movement towards this two-stage Apocalypse-Armageddon.

The motivated and thundering propaganda that Islam was the fertile womb for terror and the Generic Church was the Universal Soldier fighting the War against Terror came to a totally unforeseen and abrupt end on July 22 in Norway. Norway proved conclusively what Hindu nationalists have always been maintaining - that ‘liberal Christian’ is as much an oxymoron as ‘liberal Muslim’ and that multiculturalism, popularly known as pluralism in India, is only for the birds; for the Hindu twit. (Editor’s note: Here the word Christian and Muslim need to be understood as the organized Christian religions and organized Islamist religions)

Norway revealed to the world the ugly face of Christian terrorism, which Hindus and non-Christian tribal peoples have known and suffered in Orissa’s Maoist-infested districts, in Nagaland, Manipur and other states of India’s North-East. India’s Hindus will pick blindfold Generic Church/Christian Terrorism as accurately as they will pick Jihadi terrorism in any police parade of Crimes against Humanity.

Considering that contrary to initial hysterical outbursts from western media and politicians in the first 24 hours about Islamic terror in idyllic Norway, neither the perpetrator of the outrage nor its victims were Muslim; the Christian world should look deep within itself, its religion and the methods it has used historically over centuries to expand and conquer the world, if it wants answers to explain Anders Behring and Timothy McVeigh. The self-righteous Christian world must confront the ugly truth that the fundamentals of their religion too, like its younger sibling Islam makes monsters of ordinary people.

The forces which handpicked Behring to do what he did find themselves in exactly the same unenviable position that P Chidambaram and his goons in the Maharashtra ATS, NIA and CBI found themselves in today after they invented Hindu terror. And, the driving force in all their twisted minds curiously is the fear of Hindu nationalism.

One idea that has taken a beating since 9/11 and Norway event of July 22nd is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, as it is known and experienced today, the defining political virtue holding sway since the last quarter of the twentieth century was a bogus virtue born of necessity – the necessity, called the Great Depression. Britain’s fond hope that the sun would never set on the British Empire ended when Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar blew the bugle for India’s total political independence from colonial rule.

Details about why after the end of World War II the Generic Church could not make a villain of Nazism without ending colonialism and without simultaneously ending slavery and all its morphed manifestations in America, is not the subject of this column but suffice it to say - if the end of colonialism put paid to the rape and plunder of the natural resources of two continents, Asia and Africa, by the Jewish people and White Christians, ending colonialism and slavery denied them two important sources of slave labor for their slave-labor-intensive economy.

The Generic Church had to think on its feet to quickly regain what it had lost; in 1944, even as World War II was coming to a close, it created the Bretton Woods Bandits to attain the objective. The Bandits first delivered the idea that all world trade would now be pegged to the American Dollar; in one fell stroke all national currencies were devalued and their worth was judged in comparison to the Dollar with the balance tilted artificially in the Bandits’ favor.

The Bretton Woods Bandits created the IMF and the World Bank and the Generic Church kept both pirate banks firmly in its control. Not surprising, considering that the BWB comprised in the main all arms-manufacturing countries whose economic might in 1944, besides the plunder from the colonized countries of Asia, America, and Africa rested only or mainly on the war industry. The war industry was about the only indigenous industry of the Generic Church in those times, not to say the most profitable. While America kept the reins of the World Bank in its hands, the IMF reins were controlled by Europe. (Editor’s note: International firearms and small weapons trade in the black market is equally significant industry and created the monsters in Afghanistan and other areas of the world mostly far away from America and Europe.)

There was just so much that the Bretton Woods Bandits could do to control world trade and commerce through control of international monetary structures and capital flows without commensurate access to manpower, natural resources, and markets for their manufactured goods. The Generic Church also realized that extraordinary intelligence and genius besides hard work and industry was the basis of India’s pre-colonial fabled wealth. (Editor's note: This was an economy that did not exploit other countries and other cultures with no war industry deployed on large scale for empire building. This economy was not based on monopolies, patents, control of market share by a few profiteers.)

The time was right for new methods to access the riches of other countries and new slave labor to be moved into their own continents to power their war-torn economy; the Generic Church prodded the BWB to invent immigration even as it began to lay the foundation for the formidable structure of globalization. Immigration to BWB countries, both temporary and permanent, came in three waves, pre-globalization, during globalization and at the height of the Information Technology pandemic. Multiculturalism became, to that end, a necessary official political virtue. (To be continued)

MULTICULTURALISM, OUT OF NOBILITY OR NECESSITY?

http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1584&Itemid=1

Multiculturalism is for the Birds – 2

by

Radha Rajan


Monotheism breeds multiculturalism


Immigration to BWB countries came in two forms – slave labor which performed hard, physical manual work as skilled laborers in their factories, and as ‘unskilled labor’ comprising a major segment of their service industry; all for the privilege of being allowed to view from a distance the American Holy Grail Dream.

In the second stage, well-camouflaged slave labor was promoted and elevated to the status of domestic help when bogus Christian egalitarianism allowed them to live inside the home of the master and eat off the kitchen table. This labour came into these countries as doctors, engineers, scientists, educationists, yoga gurus and IT experts.

Multiculturalism in America and Europe was a necessary virtue when it was multi-flavoured Christianity - newly-liberated, end-of-segregation African American, Cuban, Irish, Italian and Latin-American; multiculturalism as immigration from countries which they had colonised and impoverished was suffered as token Christian reparation for war crimes and the crimes of colonization; multiculturalism was also a show-and-tell virtue when it was docile, self-effacing, hardworking Hindus and Sikhs who knew their place, were immensely grateful for being allowed to graze on green pastures, and who, despite more wealth in the bank than their masters, did not threaten hostile take-over of the house, bless their Hindu souls!!

Multiculturalism began to lose its sheen and virtuous veneer when it came to Muslims – Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani Muslims, African Muslims and growing numbers of a new wave of Africans fleeing poverty, hunger and Aids. The increasing visibility of migrants from Asia – from India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, China, Indonesia and Sri Lanka, and from Africa was altering the racial demography of the white landscape and multiculturalism was beginning to pinch.

It began to pinch painfully when the new wave of Muslim immigrants, unlike the Hindus refused not only to remain confined to the kitchen and service quarters but insisted on running amok in the garden and the living room. Some of them even declared their intent to subjugate and take over America and Europe by altering the religious demography of the American and European landscape and eventually to do unto Europe and America what they had already done to India in 1947 and what Europe and America had done to Indonesia, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Sudan.

All this was unsettling to the White Christian-ness of public spaces in Europe and America compounded by the imminent danger from multiculturalism to the pre-eminent position of the White Christian, ruling supra-elite.

America and Europe were forced to revisit multiculturalism as a political virtue when Islam’s symbols and way of life began to pervade the two continents. Samuel Huntington had to undertake a massive exercise to probe the content of being ‘American’ while Britain and France, Australia and Canada began to analyse and describe their national culture and ethos. All of them concluded ridiculously that the ability to speak English or French, and not permitting Muslim women to wear the veil constituted the essence of white culture.

Democracy was thrown in as a component of self-description only to juxtapose it against what the Generic Church considered was non-democratic, non-liberal Muslim social and political culture. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994, State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron)

The first important step in Europe towards self-description came in 2002 from Pope John Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger, now incumbent Pope; in America, around the same time the process of self-description was marked by Samuel Huntington’s Who are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (Simon & Schuster, 2004) and a renewed national debate over whether the Pledge of Allegiance (not to be confused with the Oath of Allegiance) was mandatory for all students in American schools.

America’s multiculturalism was heaving and churning, threatening to dislodge the cowboy.

When the fall of the Berlin Wall was engineered by the Generic Church to coincide with neo-colonialism’s globalization, neo-Imperialism smacked its lips as new frontiers beckoned it and new vistas for expansion opened up. Greed for new territories to occupy and control was tempered by the sobering realization that a significant part of Eastern Europe was Muslim and even if one did not factor globalization-immigration into Europe, parts of the continent were as distinctly Muslim as other parts were Christian.

As the European Union was emerging from its chrysalis, the Pope had to speak up, as others had, to emphasize Europe’s Christian-ness before Multiculturalism was made Europe’s defining virtue.

Q: There is a debate over the inclusion of the word 'God' and references to Europe's Christian past in the preambles of the future [European] Constitution. Do you think there can be a united Europe that has turned its back on its Christian past?

A: I am convinced that Europe must not just be something economic [or] political; rather, it is in need of spiritual foundations.

It is a historical fact that Europe is Christian, and that it has grown on the foundation of the Christian faith, which continues to be the foundation of the values for this continent, which in turn has influenced other continents.

It is imperative to have a foundation of values and, if we ask ourselves what that foundation is, we realize that, beyond the confessions, there are no others outside the great values of the Christian faith. And this is why it is imperative that in the future Constitution of Europe mention is made of the Christian foundations of Europe. (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from an interview given on 1 December 2002 to a group of journalists at the Catholic University of St. Anthony, Murcia, Spain)

Europe is a cultural and not a geographical continent. It is united by its culture which gives it a common identity. The roots which formed ... this continent are those of Christianity. (Josef Ratzinger prior to his election as Pope Benedict XIV, in an Interview in Le Figaro, August 2004, putting the case for the exclusion of Turkey on religious grounds)

Turkey [is] an Asiatic nation, its capital is not in Europe, 95% of its population is outside Europe. Turkey has a different culture, a different approach, a different way of life. Letting it in would be the end of the European Union. (Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, French President 1974-1981, President of Commission for drafting the EU Constitution set up in 2002. Widely taken to mean he doesn't want Turkey to join because it is a majority Muslim country)

Europe's founders, like Adenauer, De Gaspari and Schuman, put their Christian [Catholic] faith at the centre of their political lives. How can we underestimate, for example, the fact that in 1951, before beginning the delicate negotiations which would lead to the adoption of the Treaty of Paris, they wished to meet in a Benedictine monastery on the Rhine for meditation and prayer? (Pope John Paul II, 7 November 2003, Audience with members of European Christian Democrat Foundation, appealing to have Christianity mentioned in the EU Constitution)


We will be joined to a Europe in which the Catholic religion will be the dominant faith, and in which the application of the Catholic Social Doctrine will be the major factor in everyday political and economic life. (Shirley Williams, British Labor Minister and later co-founder of Social Democrats)

Besides turning the Genesis on its head by attributing human Founders for Europe and besides giving short shrift to geography, the following ideas emerge unambiguously from these statements –

· The then Pope, the incumbent Pope and important political leaders in Europe declare firmly that Europe is Christian

· The bare-faced lie that Europe grew on the foundations of Christianity

· That Europe is not a geographic but a cultural entity and Europe’s Founders put their Christian faith at the centre of their political lives

· The Generic Church will not acknowledge, much less legitimise any pre-Christian past or roots for Europe

· The incumbent Pope and a former President of France (the spectre of Algeria was haunting France) do not want Muslim Turkey within the Christian European Union which would effectively make Turkey a European country



This is not the only instance when the Church has rejected multiculturalism on its turf. The Church closed ranks and rejected the Muslim demand to build a mosque adjacent to the Basilica of Annunciation in Nazareth. The Basilica of Annunciation is built on the site where the Church claims Angel Gabriel told Mary she would give birth to Jesus.

Muslims claim that the site is important to them too historically because it is the final resting place of Shahib-al-Din, nephew of Saladin who commanded the Jihadi army which defeated the Crusaders in 1187. The Israeli government at first permitted the Muslims to build the mosque and the marble cornerstone was unveiled with much fanfare on November 23, 1999.

The Christian world reacted with anger over the Muslim demand and over the Israeli government’s decision to allow the mosque to come up next to the Basilica. This notwithstanding the fact that Nazareth is important to both Christians and Muslims; that the site in question is historically important to both communities; most significantly, notwithstanding the fact that Muslims today constitute two-thirds of Nazareth’s population.

Considering the lectures on pluralism, freedom of religion and rights of minorities which the U.S and the Vatican have given to India’s Hindus, this makes interesting reading –

A special Israeli government committee is debating whether Nazareth officials should allow Muslims to continue building a mosque alongside the famous Basilica of the Annunciation.

Israeli officials created the committee in response to a new wave of international appeals. Israel decided in 1998 to allow the mosque's construction, despite protests from Nazareth's Christians. The Vatican, the White House, and an international coalition of Catholic and Protestant Christian church groups have opposed construction.

Critics have said that the new mosque could physically overwhelm the adjacent church site and threaten the delicate status quo between Nazareth's Muslim Arab majority and Christian Arab minority.

The mosque might contain multiple spires that would tower over the black-coned dome of the basilica, says Dave Parsons, a spokesman for the International Christian Embassy, one of the groups protesting the construction.

"It will demean the basilica and force Christians to run a gantlet from the main street to the church," Parsons said. "We want the city authorities to restore the public plaza and establish a buffer zone against any future encroachment attempts.” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/march11/27.33.html)



America fares no better than Europe at self-description and dealing with multiculturalism. Samuel Huntington, like President Kennedy before him described the United States of America as a Nation of Immigrants. For “an anguished, frantic, over-burdened academic producing scholarly works”, the description was a travesty of truth which condemned Native Americans and African Americans to non-existence by leaving them outside the pale of this popular description.

Native Americans were native or indigenous to the continent and Bering Strait theory notwithstanding cannot be termed immigrants; and the forcible transportation of Africans to the American continent can hardly be termed immigration. If we discount from Huntington’s description the blatant falsehood of calling European Christian genociders, invaders, freebooters, settlers-by-force, slave holders and slave traders as immigrants, what remains of the American populace – Germans, Irish, Scandinavians, Latin Americans and Asians - fits the description. America is a nation of immigrants.

America could not be described in terms of race, ethnicity or religion. Except for Native Americans who belonged to the soil, the rest of the populace was not bound to the nation by primordial, umbilical ties. Huntington and the White House had to confront the truth that there were powerful “sub-national, dual-national and transnational” identities which were always simmering at the top of the people’s consciousness.

That people feel a permanent sense of belonging to each other only when they share a common sense of belonging to the soil is a truth that is always fudged, swept under the carpet and rejected outright; but the truth keeps coming back as is the way of truth.

Faced by the sobering truth that there was nothing that could hold the artificial entity called United States of America together, the ruling elite was compelled to invent the onion called American Creed. When Huntington peeled the onion he was forced, like the Pope to conclude that America was white Christian!

The ‘American Creed’ as initially formulated by Thomas Jefferson and elaborated by many others, is widely viewed as the crucial defining element of American identity. The Creed, however, was the product of the distinct Anglo-Protestant culture of the founding settlers of America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Key elements of that culture include the English language; Christianity; religious commitment; English concepts of the rule of law, the responsibility of rulers, and the rights of individuals; and dissenting Protestant values of individualism, the work ethic, and the belief that humans have the ability and the duty to try to create a heaven on earth, a “city on a hill.” Historically, millions of immigrants were attracted to America because of this culture and the economic opportunities it helped to make possible. (Samuel Huntington, Who are We, pp xv-xvi)

Huntington admits –

· American Creed is the essence of American nationalism

· Nationalism is culture

· Culture derives from religion

· American Nationalism is a mixture of Anglo-Protestant cultural and political values like individualism and the religious commitment of the individual

· This cultural nationalism, if it finds no favour with non-Christians as it doesn’t, is made attractive with ‘economic opportunities’ seasoning

· America, like any other Christian country or society is only a sum total of individuals

White Christian America, after inventing the binding glue called American Creed realized that the glue did not always work and its populace kept looking back wistfully for the nation they had left behind for the American Dream. The American state needed something more than the voluntary code of the American Creed to survive; it crafted the Oath of Allegiance, which immigrants had to take when they opted for American citizenship; and the Pledge of Allegiance which adults and school children took every morning around the American flag.

The Oath of Allegiance is intended to make a new-convert-to-the-faith of the immigrant – reject all previous fidelity to previous gods, reject totally your previous gods and worship none but this one true god.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform non-combatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

So help me God! Which God?

The Pledge of Allegiance, which is an oath of loyalty to the American flag and the American Republic, composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally accepted by the American Congress in 1942, reads as follows –

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The American state is one state under god and indivisible! Considering the numbers of dictators America has supported, the violence it has triggered and sustained around the world, the separatist and secessionist movements and groups it has funded and encouraged, the nations it has torn apart and divided, the Oath and Pledge of Allegiance is a telling commentary on the Abrahamic monotheisms.

The words of the Oath of Allegiance and the Pledge of Allegiance are perfect examples of monotheist intolerance which is the very antithesis of multiculturalism or pluralism. They also testify as nothing else can, that monotheist religions, ideologies and countries want for themselves what they deny to others.

Monotheist religions and political ideologies have brought the following conflicting dichotomies into political discourse –

Nation – State

Nationality – Citizenship

Nationalism – Patriotism

Multiculturalism/Pluralism – Diversity

These conflicting, warring dichotomies arose from the political objectives which lie at the core of all three Abrahamic religions; the Abrahamic religious objective to destroy all other ways of life, all other worldviews, all other religions and faiths, all other gods, all other objects of loyalty and reverence.

It is the Abrahamic politico-religious culture which has made possible what Hindu dharma rejects strongly –

· That the state does not derive from the nation

· That a person’s nationality can be different from one’s citizenship

· That nationalism and patriotism can be two entirely different things and

· That multiculturalism is the complete opposite of diversity.

(To be continued)

UGLY UNCONSCIOUS OF "CIVILIZED WOLRD" UNFOLDING !!

http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1585&Itemid=1


Multiculturalism is for the Birds – 3


by

Radha Rajan

Having successfully sold the "lemon" that the war against terror was fought by white Christians against Islam, as Jews stood in the shadows, the Christian world had to scramble to find explanations for what could no longer be hidden – that the carnage in Norway on 22nd July was "Christian terrorism."

The immediate, and as it turned out incorrect conclusion was that this was the handiwork of Islamic terrorists. When it turned out that the terrorist was a white Christian, the second immediate and again incorrect conclusion was that Breivik did it to protest the immigration policy of his government and his killing spree was a reaction to multiculturalism.

As it turned out, the victims were not Muslims or from any other immigrant community. All those killed in Oslo and in Utoya were Norwegians; in fact the persons Breivik shot in cold blood were teenage boys and girls at a youth camp organized by Norway’s Labour Party. This act of pre-planned, calculated terror was perpetrated by a white Christian against his own countrymen practicing the same religion.

So why did Anders Behring Breivik do what he did?

The truth, no matter how galling, is that the Christian world with all the resources it commands, including the FBI, Scotland Yard and Mossad to investigate, track down and bring terrorists to account, especially when their own have been killed, has not been able to tell us conclusively why Breivik killed 76 people on one day although speculations abound about Breivik being a neo-Nazi who was inspired by Hindutva. Although why when Christianity itself had already successfully manufactured Hitler, the Ku Klux Clan, and Mussolini, Breivik should look for distant inspiration, is conveniently left unanswered.

It has been confirmed that Breivik bought six metric tonnes of fertiliser of which five tonnes have been found on Breivik’s farm; one tonne of fertiliser is missing and unaccounted for till date. We may assume this is nitrogen-based fertiliser and Breivik intended to manufacture Ammonium Nitrate using the fertiliser which when compounded with fuel oil makes for an effective Improvised Explosive Device or IED.

The truth which stares us in the face is that one tonne of missing dung and all the planning and preparation (reports speculate that at least two years went into the planning) killed only seven people in Oslo. The rest were killed by old-fashioned guns and bullets. So, was Breivik learning as he was working, and was he the lone executor of the plan while the forces which created him and funded him remain in the shadows are questions begging an answer

Breivik’s magnum opus "Knights Templar 2083" in which he allegedly pours out his white Christian heart, besides anger against immigration and multiculturalism, is also supposed to contain references to Hindu nationalist organizations; and it is in these references that the writer senses the stench of deep-rooted evil.

The Generic Church has used its propaganda machinery to dismiss stubborn efforts by intelligent persons to make sense of momentous (catastrophic) events impacting global economy or politics as being ‘conspiracy theories’; but those theories which stubbornly float around and refuse to go away may be closer to the truth which the Generic Church would like to bury.

The following points need to be kept firmly in mind –

· Nazism, Ku Klux Clan and Fascism all grew in the fertile soil of Christianity and reflect the nature and purpose of the Church

· The methods that Nazism, fascism and the Ku Klux Klan adopted in executing their ideology have been the exact same methods the Church adopted in achieving its expansionist missionary politico-religious objectives

· Christian terrorism is therefore as inherent to the expansionist Church as Islamic terrorism is to expansionist Islam

· The actions of adherents of the Abrahamic religions faithfully reflect their understanding of their god and reflect too the content and character of their religion deriving from this understanding

· Abrahamic religionists, irrespective of the name by which they call their god, Allah or Jehovah or Yahweh, is the god of Abraham, Issac, Moses, Jacob, Jesus and Paul

· Abrahamic religionists, Jews, Christians and Muslims are therefore siblings with the same religious genes, same religious purpose moving towards the same end of time/end of history objective and will partner each other if need be against Hindu India

Breivik’s actions do not follow logically from his written rant; Breivik placed his IED in a truck outside the federal building in Oslo which houses the office of the Prime Minister. Generous immigration policy and support for state multiculturalism were ideological policy issues for the Labor Party. But the Labor Party had been defeated in the elections and the incumbent government was not Labor Party government.

Then why did Breivik target the federal building and why kill children and young people of the Labor Party attending a youth conference? The entire episode smacks of irrationality and pure evil. It is almost as if Breivik had been undergoing some kind of intense brain-washing, training programme intended to make a killing machine out of him.

References to Hindu nationalist organizations makes the writer suspect that there is more, a lot more to Breivik and to the forces behind him than meets the eye. Just as the world will never know who killed the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme in February 1986, and therefore, will never know why he was killed, the world will never know the truth of who created the Christian monster called Anders Breivik and why.

It is quite possible that the reasons may well be the same or connected.

There is an eerie and chilling parallel to events in India beginning October 2008. A young Hindu sanyasin, Sadhvi Pragya is arrested on 10 October, 2008 for her alleged role in the Malegaon blasts of September 29, 2008. Considering the fact that P. Chidambaram’s goons in Maharashtra ATS, CBI and NIA are yet to capture anyone for the Mumbai blasts on 13 July 2011, it is breathtaking that the fumbling Maharashtra ATS hounds investigating the most probably Islamic terrorist's blasts, scented Sadhvi Pragya, tracked her down and arrested her – all within 10 days!

Like a well-crafted plot unravelling itself to pre-programmed time, the Sadhvi’s arrest is followed by those of Col. Purohit a serving army officer with Military Intelligence on November 18, followed by the arrests of Pujya Swami Aseemanand and Dayanand Pandey, a previously unheard of Sankaracharya of Sharada Peeth in Jammu.

All four were projected by Sonia Gandhi’s UPA II as being the face of "Hindu Terror." Just as we will never know the truth behind Norway’s day of horror on July 22, 2011, we will never know the truth behind this new intriguing phenomenon which Sonia Gandhi’s minions in the Congress have labelled "Saffron Terror and Hindu Terror." (Editor's comment: based on only a few instances with no established proof or guilt as against the golbal Islamists' terrorism which has been blatant and rampant!!!)

These points need to be borne in mind –

· Four persons were arrested but only two - Sadhvi Pragya and Pujya Swami Aseemanand are paraded periodically before the nation

· The routinely anti-Hindu 24 hour English news channels have not dared to ask what happened to Col. Purohit, the alleged mastermind who stole 60 kgs of RDX from the army depot in J&K and the so-called Shankaracharya of Sharada Peeth

· Col. Purohit, according to the Maharashtra ATS is alleged to have confessed/admitted that after taking just what was required to blow up the Samjhauta Express, he dumped the remaining 60kgs of RDX into the Jhelum river

· The army has strongly denied that Col. Purohit was authorised to access RDX from the army depot and also that no RDX in its control was missing

· According to news reports Sadhvi Pragya certainly and Col. Purohit (open to question) were both subjected to narco-analysis and brain mapping tests (Editor's comment both are widely accepted as unreiable investigative tools in sniffing out the truth, therefore, sodium amytal and pentothal are no longer officially accepted as the "truth serum" by the judiciary, "brain mapping" or quantitative EEG is even of less value in this respect. Both these are then to be viewed as PR measures for the law enforcing agencies to win some kind of browny points and mislead the public.)

· Performing these tests even once, which intrude into the deepest recesses of a person’s sub-conscious mind, particularly when their reliability is doubtful constitutes a gross violation of human rights but Sadhvi Pragya was subjected to repeated narco-analysis and brain mapping exercises

· Possibly something that Col. Purohit may have said during the first and only narco-analysis done on him frightened the daylights off the Maharashtra ATS and the Home Ministry and all of a sudden, nothing more is heard of this man and Dayanand Pandey.

· Soon thereafter Pujya Swami Aseemanand of the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram who like the late Swami Laxmananda Saraswati also of Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, who was leading the war against religious conversion and Christian missionaries, is arrested and the Maharashtra ATS pegs most terror attacks between 2007-2008 retrospectively on Sadhvi Pragya and Swami Aseemanand.

· Both of them continue to languish in prison without trial, despite the fact that there is not an iota of proof or corroborative evidence presented so far against them

Mocking at conspiracy theories be damned but it cannot be denied that Sonia Gandhi and her merry minions would have continued treading this path except that 26/11 blew on their faces in 2008, within days of arresting Col. Purohit and the "find-the-Hindu-terrorist" expedition was brought to an abrupt end. It cannot be gainsaid that after 26/11 no more Hindu terrorists have been tracked down or arrested and acts of terror pinned retrospectively on them.

When questioned about coining the phrase ‘saffron terror’ and ‘Hindu terror’ India’s new Home Minister in UPA II smirked, “The purpose has been served” and this raised the writer’s antennae and hackles. There was more to Sonia Gandhi’s Hindu terror it became obvious, than P Chidambaram and his goons were prepared to reveal. (Editor's note: Safron terror and hindu terror are then obviously terms that suit the political objectives of Sonia, Chidambaram and UPA II !!!)

The writer has consistently maintained that Hindu nationalism poses the biggest challenge to Abrahamic religions in theory and practice and also poses a serious threat to their movement towards the two-stage Apocalypse-Armageddon.

From around 2000 India watchers must have been seriously alarmed at certain trends emerging from within Hindu society which signalled that Hindu nationalists, best embodied by Hindu religious leaders and the RSS parivar, were resisting the spreading cancer of religious conversion undertaken by Christian missionaries as part of Pope John Paul II’s stated objective of planting the cross in Asia in the third millennium.

The Gujarat riots of 2002 following the burning alive of Hindu pilgrims by jihadis at Godhra station must also have alarmed India watchers. India’s Hindus were fiercely resisting the moves of the Generic Church and Global Islam to Christianize and Islamize Hindu India.

The BJP-led NDA lost a winning election in 2004 and the Generic Church has not looked back since. The rise of Sonia Gandhi provided the best opportunity yet to weaken Hindu organizations and render Hindu society defenceless against the Abrahamic agenda. Beside several other things which the Generic Church undertook through Sonia Gandhi, the writer is convinced that the plot to trap or place Hindu religious leaders and functionaries of Hindu organizations in the wrong box was one of them.

Neither Islam nor the Generic Church can succeed in their mission in India without help from renegade Hindus and without a degree of complicity by highly placed officials in government and administration. Until proved otherwise it is the writer’s theory that entities within the UPA government identified and employed renegade Hindus to penetrate Hindu organizations, identify and select elements which could be trapped in a web of counter-terrorism measures. This included teaching them to make low intensity crude bombs, putting together IEDs with Ammonium Nitrate and fuel oil and choose appropriate targets. (Editor's notes: The terrorists identified and labelled as Hindu terrorists do not seem to have a history of a long career as Hindu nationalists and could very well be imposters planted by the adversaries!!)

It is possible that the plot to entrap Hindus into the web of Hindu Terror was the brainchild of global forces outside the country but was implemented by anti-Hindu renegades within the intelligence community, government and counter-terrorism agencies. The plot to embroil Hindu religious leaders belonging to the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram and RSS functionaries was crafted and implemented with great success as seen.

The plot was crafted and implemented before November 2008 and there has been a near total change of guard in all these agencies – new Home Minister, new National Security Adviser and a new chief of the Maharashtra ATS. The nation will never know the truth about the forces which crafted and executed the plot.

The most important outcome of this successful plot (successful because until now Hindus have not acted to neutralise the consequences) has been to equate unfairly Hinduism and Hindus with Islam, Christianity and their adherents with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

When the Generic Church’s propaganda machinery floated the news that Anders Breivik was inspired by Hindutva and Hindu organizations, in one stroke it not only equated Christian terrorism with so-called "Hindu terrorism" in international discourse on terrorism but within the country it forced Hindus to go on the defensive to reject the association thereby abdicating their intellectual responsibility to go on the warpath and make the distinction between the political objective of Abrahamic monotheisms and the political objectives of Hindu nationalism. (Editor's notes: One would expect that if Hindu intellectuals were savvy enough to see this far-fetched connection leading to false accusation that Breivik was motivated by Hindu nationalists in planning and executing his bizarre violence there would have been a very loud outrage against people making such connections showing the absurdness of such a conspiracy theory !!)

Hindus proved yet again that the spirit of the kshatriya remains defeated.

The intellectual kshatriya would have seen that Anders Breivik was a bomb which exploded prematurely just as the plot to entrap Hindus in the web of Hindu terror also ended prematurely with 26/11. There is a connection here somewhere; only we have to wait for time to unravel the larger plot to destabilise parts of the world with killing machines wielding guns and IEDs. (To be continued)

NADAAN MEERA NANDA'S HASTY IRRESPONSIBLE COMMENTS

A LETTER TO THE EDITOR

EXPOSING MEERA NANDA'S FOLLIES IN "SPIRITUAL BEDFELLOWS"

by

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva


The Editor

Open Magazine

Dear Editor,


Re: 'Spiritual Bedfellows' (The Norway Massacre and the Indian Connection' by Meera Nanda, Aug.6,2011 www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/spiritual-bedfellows

I assume Ms Nanda is an academic/writer/journalist. A year or two ago I came across an article by her in The Hindu and replied to it. She seemed to be advocating the old philosophy of science world view of the Vienna Circle of the 1920s, and whose surviving thinker Sir Karl Popper(recently passed away) had changed his early views somewhat. At any rate, science itself has changed dramatically in all fields, especially in the hard core sciences, which were the models when Morris Schlick and the Vienna Circle first formulated their views.

I gather Ms. Nanda is also a Marxist, in which case she does not seem to be au courrant with Marx's article 'British Rule in India'(June 10,1853) Here, that world historical thinker whose critique of capitalism and his entire corpus of writings on the subject (including the 6 volumes of Das Kapital) have not been seriously answered to date(in my opinion) embarks on something that he is truly not competent to judge, namely Hinduism. In that article although he castigates Britain for exploiting India he goes on to say that Britain with all its iniquities was a progressive force in India where Man who should be the Master of Nature, falls on his knees before Hanuman the monkey and Sabala the cow !

This is Marx's humanism which he acquired from the Greek sophist Protagoras (an older contemporary of Plato) who said : Man is the measure of all things. Needless to say,it is a limited humanism.Also, Marx's knowledge of India was somewhat limited.

Ms. Nanda seems to be caught in this same strait jacket, with a lack of appreciation of the Vedic world and its celebration of Nature, the terrestrial, atmospheric and cosmic forces of Nature.Nature or God, said the Dutch philosopher Spinoza. Not understanding this Vedic world view Ms.Nanda launches out into an attack on the Hindu Right (as she calls it) and some of those authors associated with this philosophy. It is not my intention to defend these authors since they are all thinkers in their own right and capable of defending their positions, if they even choose to respond to her article, which seems to be written for the gallery, so to speak, or to camp followers.

However, she is a Hindu, I assume, or is an ex Hindu. Her espousal of Marxism as far as some of her articles go, appears to be rather superficial( a type of positivism) and judging from her article, her knowledge of her own native tradition is even less so. The Vedic tradition admits the equality of all religions in the sense that many paths lead to the discovery of spirituality and the place of humans in the universe. This is obviously a pluralistic tradition. However, the followers of monotheistic faiths(there is only one God) do not reciprocate this pluralism, and Indian history is replete with conquests and violence from these monotheistic faiths (Islam and Christianity). To that extent not all religions are equal. Ms Nanda needs to brush up on her Indian history.

In the absence of her knowledge of the above her comparison of Anders Breivik and the Hindu Right (as she calls it) ends up being hasty, frivolous and written for ideological reasons rather than for enlightening reasons.

I am a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university. My training has been in Philosophy, Political Science, Political Economy and History.


Sincerely,

Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Canada

HISTRIONICS OF IRRATIONAL FATWA ADDICTS AT HARVARD DENOUNCING DR. SWAMY NEEDS TO BE SQUASHED

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

In Letter to Harvard, Civil Liberties Group Cautions Against Swamy Investigation | News | The Harvard Crimson

Courtesy: The Harvard Crimson

July 29, 2011
In Letter to Harvard, Civil Liberties Group Cautions Against Swamy Investigation

By Leanna B. Ehrlich, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
In the wake of a controversial article written by Subramanian Swamy, the group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education sent a letter to University President Drew G. Faust on Wednesday urging her not to allow Harvard to take action against the Harvard Summer School instructor.

Swamy, a political leader in India who earned his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1965, penned an op-ed published July 16 in the Indian newspaper Daily News and Analysis that advocated for the removal of hundreds of mosques and the denial of voting rights to non-Hindus with the goal of stemming terrorist attacks in the country.

Following the publication of the article, several Harvard affiliates circulated a petition calling on the University to end its ties with Swamy, and in a statement, the dean of the Summer School said that the school “will give this matter our serious attention.”

But FIRE, a civil liberties group with a focus on academia, cautioned in its letter to Faust that the group is “concerned about the threat to freedom of expression” that may come about from that attention.

“The threat of a disciplinary investigation of Swamy stands in sharp and unflattering contrast to this admirable and appropriate understanding of the importance of freedom of expression in the academic community,” Adam H. Kissel '94, vice president of programs at FIRE, wrote in the letter.

Harvard has not explicitly said that it is investigating Swamy or that it has considered such an investigation. Messages to spokespeople for the University were not immediately returned.

Swamy teaches Economics S-110: “Quantitative Methods in Economics and Business” and Economics S-1316: “Economic Development in India and East Asia” at the Summer School.

In his letter, Kissel said that an investigation of Swamy’s article would go against Harvard’s commitment to free speech, as outlined in the “Free Speech Guidelines” adopted by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1990.

“If members of the Harvard community are given to understand that Harvard might begin an investigation—with possible disciplinary consequences—of the views they express, they likely will self-censor,” he wrote. “This is precisely the result that a university dedicated to intellectual freedom must seek to avoid.”

“Harvard must honor its own promises,” he said in a phone interview. “Students have every right to protest for or against ideas in article, as does Harvard, but Harvard may not investigate or punish the expression.”

While in some instances a professor’s publicized opinions might warrant disciplinary action, in these “extreme cases,” the professor’s opinion would have to prevent him from successfully teaching the subject, he said.

“In this case, it’s an economics professor with political opinions, and his subject has nothing to do with politics,” he said. “The University cannot simply investigate someone for publishing an opinion piece.”

—Staff writer Leanna B. Ehrlich can be reached at lehrlich@college.harvard.edu.

IN DEFENSE OF DR. SWAMY'S ACADEMIC FREEDOM AT HARVARD AND HIS RIGHT FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s Right to Speak Defense


Against Islamic Terrorism in India

by

Dr. Seshachalam Dutta


Dr. Subramanian Swamy was one of the youngest recipients of doctorate in economics at Harvard University who later became a professor of Economics. He turned to politics in India and did yeoman service to his native country during the notorious “emergency” imposed upon India by Indira Gandhi. He later served as the Minister of Law at the Central Government of India. His article in an Indian newspaper, “Daily News and Analysis” (DNA), caused an uncalled for storm at Harvard.

To use the characterization of Hindu Nationalists, some Muslim fanatics and Hindu degenerate renegades who have lost their self-respect have called for his ouster from Harvard. His distracters characterized his essay as bigotry. Leaving all the invective aside,Swamy is not a bigot. Right to speak and write was defended as early as in 1643 by John Milton in his famous Areopagitica wherein he said, “Give me the liberty to know, to utter and argue freely according to my conscience, above all liberties.” He was summarizing the fight for this freedom for which so many in the West sacrificed their lives beginning with Socrates which became the hallmark of democratic freedom in the civilized western world. Any Harvard student who did not know this doesn’t deserve to be at Harvard.

What did Swamy say that caused such an outrage? What he said is not much different from the position of George Will and Patrick Buchanan, who expressed strong position on the creeping multiculturalism in the U.S. George Will, a few years ago addressing Duke University convocation, pleaded that multiculturalism is acceptable only so far but no further. New immigrants have to accept the core values of the Founding Fathers of this country. Buchanan has the similar position that the core American values have to be accepted and multiculturalism is a threat to the National identity of America.

Swamy’s position is very similar in the face of aggressive worldwide Islamization and accompanying intolerance. The reaction of French people to the exhibiting of Muslim attire in public schools as distinct from others as not to integrate with the community has been a volatile issue. Demand that Sharia be accepted as a separate law Governing Muslim community in England and the activities of Muslim Immigrants in Germany have raised the question of how much multiculturalism can be accepted by the communities when such immigrants refuse to integrate into the National life. The issue is reverberating in Australia and even in China and Russia.

After a long lull, Muslim terrorism has reached India recently with full force and Swamy was addressing this issue. It should be remembered that India was already divided on the basis of religion as Muslim Country and Hindu country. Muslims argued that they could not live with Hindus and they created Pakistan, a Muslim country. Hindus could choose to be a Hindu Nation (though nobody would know what it means, as there are several interpretations as to what Hindu means-a foreign designation), but the leaders at that time opted for a secular pluralistic country. If the leadership was different like that of Swamy’s persuasion, it could have been a sort of Hindu Nation just as much as Muslim Pakistan. India is secular by choice and not by any compulsion. By its very nature even a “Hindu Nation” would have been secular at any rate as Hindus are as diverse as monotheists, polytheists, and even atheists and some even worshipping the tombs of Muslim holy men like that of Sai Baba! All world bodies have accepted Nations with exclusive cultural and religious identities; Israel is a case in point.

I would like to represent Swamy’s position without necessarily endorsing his view. Muslims living in India cannot and should not demand Sharia and they cannot and should not practice polygamy, nor should they be allowed to increase their population by abandoning birth control which is advocated by the Government of India which can be legally forced on Hindus only and thus upsetting the demographics. Muslims are now already getting away with insisting on living in India with no regard to Uniform Civil code, enjoying the right only for themselves to have four wives, no restrictions such as birth control, no restrictions on obeying the city ordinances in limiting the noise level emanating from their Mosques, and in fact practicing Sharia law which in conflict with Indian penal code and Civil law. Any part of India which has majority of Muslim population cannot and should not have special privileges as in Kashmir, no more than African Americans and Hispanics in America can demand separate political redistricting and special privileges based on their ethnic count. Muslims and Hindus can live in harmony once they accept that they are from the same genetic stock and same primary cultural ancestry as Hindus and not Arabic, Persian or Mongolian! The greatest Muslim intellectual of 20th century who advocated creation of Pakistan, Md. Iqbal was of third generation Kashmiri Brahmin descent. If the Indian Muslims accept that they belongs to the same land and have the same ancestry regardless of their faith, they would not resort to terrorism against their own brothers. No self-respecting Mexican would claim that he is of Spanish decent. Spanish conquerors ravaged their country, killed their men, outraged their women and converted them forcefully to Christianity. Indian Muslim should feel the same way. How else a Pakistani missile is named after Ghory who was the worst invader of India? This is the line argument of Swamy. He may not witness progress of India in this direction in his life time; but let it go on record that he was the one who was bold enough to say it.

Indians who are given to semi-monarchical idolatry, ruled by sycophants have very little appreciation for a free expression of such bold ideas in their country. India is largest democracy in the world, but a fragile one weakened by loyalties to dynasties at the Center and States. Loyalty to dynasties, as noted by Octavio Paz, Nobel Laureate and former ambassador to India referring to Indian politics, is anti-democratic. Democracy should guarantee opportunity to leadership regardless of class or birth. Reaction in India for Swamy’s article, therefore, is patently expected, but I commend Harvard to stand by their faculty member.

CORRUPTION IN INDIA: CRISIS OR CHAOS OF NATIONAL CONSCIENCE?

June 7, 2011
CORRUPTION
CRISIS OF NATIONAL CONCIENCE

by

DR. SESHACHALAM DUTTA

Edited and modified by Shree Vinekar on August 4, 2011

It is a recognized fact that for corruption India ranks 87th nation in the World. The issue of corruption attained monumental proportion in India and the resultant agitation reached the dimensions comparable to the current upheaval in the Middle East, as in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. The Government of India responded with extraordinary suppression and black mail of protestors not unlike Mubarak and Bashar Assad. Guru RamDev’s house was searched for spearheading the awareness campaign, and was dug into to find evidence of hidden treasures. Anna Hazare, who has caused such a popular uprising unheard of before from any “Congress Man” and a disciple of Gandhi, has a character that does not permit black mail or name calling. He a wears a traditional “Gandhi cap” whereas the other younger congress leaders now-a-days disdain the cap, not willing to cover their hairless pates, and regard him as a relic of bygone ideological past, but remain deferential to him as a Gandhian. Congress party claims allegiance to Gandhiism in namesake only, and therefore, instead of deprecating him directly and discrediting him, has begun attacking the reputation of his Associates. These associates were investigated for evidence of ill-gotten wealth and verbally attacked and harassed as a ploy to discredit Hazare.

The real issue is not whether Hazare or Guru Ram Dev and their followers or any of the agitator associates are corrupt: or if Ram Dev is a great Guru or not, but whether the Cabinet Ministers, legislators and people in the position of authority are corrupt. The fact is such diversion tactics are misleading the Indian citizenry. The astute citizens cannot be deflected by attacking the messengers of bad news. The issue stands as is clearly and succinctly stated in the judgment of Indian Supreme Court: “Corruption results from the collusion of lawmakers, law keepers and law breakers.” The question is how to bring these colluders under control. Since the lawmakers and law enforcers are cahoots with the law breakers the elimination of corruption finally falls into the lap of citizens at large. The entire Nation for the first time, since independence of India –one may say -after centuries of tolerance is now demanding reform. This is the crisis of conscience of a Nation that woke up after centuries of deep slumber. Whatever the outcome, there is no going back for this Nation other than to perish- a grim and apocalyptic prospect for a great civilization.

Corruption engulfed every man in the street in India and in every walk of life, every Indian knows that much. From the ticket salesman at the railway station to lowly peon in the revenue office solicits bribes; for the most part these people are dismissed as an annoying and petty nuisance, but not so when it comes to college admissions, Government employment (a major employer in a socialist country) which is all demeaning for the victims and the perpetrators alike who participate in corruption. Now, corruption has crept into multimillion dollar Governmental contracts and even among the judiciary, pervading every walk of life, in dimensions hitherto unheard of. Even those who accepted corruption as a way of life and participated in the past are appalled and have become at once conscience-stricken. Not surprisingly the politicians in the Government and their loyal supporters including partisan elite are standing to defend the status quo, in addition to the trio of ‘corrupt law makers, corrupt law keepers and the law breakers.’ Hazare is simple minded if he believes that the present Government would accept a truly effective Lok Pal bill to investigate corruption in the Government, in all three branches, legislative, executive, and judicial!!. Truly implementing such a bill and making it into a law that is not just a window dressing is like asking the Cabinet Ministers to commit suicide. Case in point is not just the multimillion dollar2G scam, but the glaring episode of Hassan Ali Khan’s multi-billion dollar scam, (8.4 Billion foreign deposits from arms smuggling). Prima facie case was established four years ago to book Hassan Ali Khan and no legal action was taken. Never mind that Khan’s passport was seized, but hallo, in corrupt society it was not at all surprising that a new one was issued when everyone turned their back! He still boldly lives in India. Supreme Court wisely concluded that this would not be possible without high level political and Governmental collusion but did not cite the perpetrators for contempt of court!!!! What a great insight into the workings of a corrupt society the Supreme Court of India has!! Let us see now how the Indian elite defend the Government manipulation of the citizenry to go against the Lok-Pal bill proposed by responsible citizens.

Kapil Sibal’s vociferous outrage: Kapil Sibal (Minister of Culture formerly minister of Telecom before the scandal broke out) protested in injured innocence with indignity how the Civil Society (responsible citizens) would dare accuse the Cabinet Ministers of lying and cheating. “Yes, Sibalji, that is precisely the point. You are corrupt and your predecessor Governments and successive Governments of your party are accused of corruption, lying and cheating. To highlight the point, if you have forgotten or pretend to have forgotten, here are the details to clearly point out to you that your outrage is not that of an innocent man accused of a crime to be understood and written off as a normal human reaction. It is not only disingenuous, irresponsible, and totally absurd but is ill-advised for a person of your stature.
The 2G scandal of your Government involved bribes in astronomical numbers and your Government’s ministers have been disgraced and jailed. You and your party High command is accused of stashing the corrupt loot in foreign Banks and the P.M has told the Supreme Court that you made treaties not to divulge the names of the recipients of the illegal deposits!

In 2006 Shibu Soren, a ministerial colleague of yours was convicted as a murderer. Nearly one fourth of the members of parliament of India have criminal records.

In 2005 another colleague of yours, Laloo Prasad Yadav was convicted for an arms deal with South Africa in a $40 million bribery scandal.

In 2003 Environmental Minister Dilip Singh (BJP) resigned on bribery charges, instead of subjecting himself to investigation and conviction. .This needs to be stated just to highlight the point that the issue is not limited to your party alone. We are not concerned with which party is less corrupt or better. The longer a party is in power and is unchallenged in corrupt environment the more damage it will inflict on the society. The UPA and Indian National Congress Party foot the bill for this natural law of economics of corruption.

In 2003 anti-corruption Bureau spent 4.3 billion US dollars in Indian Rupees and charged 2,642 employees of corruption and your Government turned a deaf ear and applied a blind eye to the investigation for eleven years.

In 2000 one of the Prime Minister (P.M.) of India representing your party, who was regarded as the best one after Nehru, P.V. Narasimha Rao of Congress, was convicted and sentenced for three years on the charges of corruption. Yet you argue P.M should not be subject to Lok Pal bill!

In 1977 the year P.M. Gujral promised a clean Government in future (admitting by implication that the government was unclean before) your colleague Laloo Prasad Yadav was convicted and sentenced in a $1.9 Billion fodder scam; and he went to jail.

In 1996 Telecom minister Sukhram was accused of $8.5 million bribery scam.

In I996 the son of P.M, Sanjiva Rao was accused in hawala Scam. Ten congress leaders were involved in hawala scam during the same year. The list goes on and on as far back as 1947 including massive Bofor scandal implicating Rajiv Gandhi, the husband of the present straw leader Sonia and sugar imports scandal of congress ministers, and Harshad Mehta scandal of Bombay financial market demonstrating on the TV how he had packed one crore rupees in a small brief case to bribe the then Prime Minister.

Do I need to go on? This list is long enough to shut up Kapil’s garrulous grin at the suggestion that the cabinet ministers, M.P’s and even the P.M should be brought under a law to investigate corruption. Yet there are supporters for Kapil both in the cabinet and outside for reasons that are anyone’s guess. When the corrupt politicians, law makers, and law enforcers join together to form a cartel, what can be expected to come out of the mouth of those engaged in corruption for years?

INTELLECTUAL CORRUPTION:

Corruption of mind and conscience is more heinous and cannot be measured in dollars and rupees. Chidambaram like Sibal is a graduate of U.S Universities, so also Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the opinion maker for Congress, both of whom oppose the present popular uprising against corruption. They coined the cheap slogan for the Congress. From a member of Indian Think Tank, Mehta turned into a journalist. It is no wonder these politicians in India all had modern liberal education from Western Democratic Countries like U.S and UK; so also Assad of Syria. Assad of Syria and Mubarak of Egypt have the knowledge of the liberties enjoyed by free societies in the west. What makes them think and act in complete disregard for the rights of the people? It is not lack of knowledge but only arrogant disregard and contempt for their own people. Otherwise, how else can one explain that Nehru had to be compelled by the Supreme Court to honor the rights of citizen to travel abroad? It took, in 1962, four months to get a passport for this author to go to McGill in Canada, losing almost the whole semester. It takes only one week to get a passport in the U. S.! Regardless of their training and knowledge regarding how free people should be treated, these politicians exercised cruel repression upon their people.

Chidambaram, a Harvard graduate sent special police units to arrest Ram Dev in the dead of the night and woke up the unarmed peacefully sleeping women, children and the elderly camping in demonstration tent and assaulted them although they had not disturbed the peace or broken any law. . Chidambaram accused RSS to defend his evil act just like Mubarak called the uprising Al-Qaida inspired. P.M too justified Chidambaram’s action as inevitable with no explanation of how he reached such a conclusion. The parallel with the Middle East is complete. The P.M should explain if it is alright to beat and maim women and children just because they are related to volunteers that were allegedly affiliated with RSS.

Writing in "Hindu," Pratap Bhanu Mehta argues, referring to the agitation, that demanding the financial disclosures violated the fundamental rights of privacy of the politicians. Can a robber resist a search by law enforcers to find the stolen goods by pleading he has right to his privacy? Does he maintain that rule for IRS? The sanctity of privacy will be subordinated by the courts of law when it comes to searching for the stolen property. Accepting bribe is just like stealing and the wealth accumulated must be considered as stolen property that is illegally acquired. Further he argues that the civil society’s action is a black mail by a few; the solution should be sought by the elected representatives only, he says. He conveniently ignores that the problem is the corrupt government which has to be specifically controlled as regards it corrupt practices. He further claims the agitation is about a single issue while there are many to be addressed. Sadly each person has a single vote. He forgets a single issue can determine the outcome of an election. What about the right of the people to express their will and their right to demonstrate? He sounds like Mubarak. This issue is the life and death issue of Nation as we will show a little later. These arguments were picked up, not only by Chidambaram, but also by the chief mouth piece of the Congress party Digvijay Singh. He condemned “satyagraha” as black mail. No one accused Satyagraha and fasting by Mahatma Gandhi for cause or his protests as blackmail. It is legitimate popular and peaceful expression of one’s conviction and is respected all over the world; and the World leaders like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela emulated Gandhi in this respect. Margaret Thatcher allowed fasting of IRA activists and allowed them to die in jail; Indian Government is free to follow her example if it chooses to do so by not heeding Ram Dev or Hazare when they go on a fast! But, to call this form of protest a black mail is “un-Gandhian” as well as “Un-Indian” and at worst hypocritical for someone who claims to be a Gandhi followers like Digvijay and Chidambaram, if not for westernized Bhanu Pratap.

There are others in the past who condoned corruption; for one no other than Indira Gandhi, whose Government during the emergency and later involving her sons Sanjay and Rajiv Gandhi and her Italian daughter-in-law, was complacent claiming that corruption was universal, meaning present in all countries and therefore to be accepted as a norm in India. Whether her father was corrupt or not never came to discussion, since he was a National hero. Only comments on his foreign accounts were published in American and Canadian press in 1960s. Ram Manohar Lohia a popular Socialist leader made comment upon Nehru’s death that “Jawaharlal Nehru gave nine crores to his daughter and only his ashes to India.” Not a single dime for a charity came from Nehru’s estate! When Nehru was a Congress Secretary, he did not have enough money and wanted to draw a salary from the Party, or he even was in the process of selling his furniture. Rising from such artificial economic depravity publicized by him there was no accountability to the public as to how and when did he accumulate nine crores of Reupees which is more or less equivalent of 100 crores in today’s value.

Justice Agarwal in condoning the judicial corruption said, “We come from the same corrupt society and do not descend from the Heaven! What about lawyers, politicians and the society.” Though he was right in his acknowledgement, he was rationalizing his condoning the conduct of corruption as a socio-cultural norm. This is a classic example of corrupted conscience as is demonstrated by Indira Gandhi and Justice Agarwal.

Culture of corruption in India has a long and continuing history. As against Indira Gandhi’s complacency, Mahatma Gandhi said in 1939, long before independence of India, “I would go to the length of giving congress a decent burial rather than put up with corruption that is so rampant,” referring to the corruption in Congress Ministry of 1937. It took Hazare, a Gandhian to talk about it again after 70 years and he is being attacked on all sides by supposedly true Gandhian congressmen. Indira Gandhi was right that corruption exists in all countries. But a venal corruption of the kind in India will destroy the country as noted by the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in his preamble to the United Nations report on corruption.”

Corruption is an insidious plague that has wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and rule of law, leads to violation of human rights, distorts the markets, erodes the quality of life, and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish”. He further went on to add, “Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.” India may rapidly develop economically, but the riches go to so corrupt few, exacerbating the poverty and increasing the income gap in the population. Anna Hazare, Guru Ram Dev and all other right minded people have to be admired for their bold effort, although Hazare has his own shortcomings in thinking for example that Nobel prize winners should be included in Lok Pal committees, forgetting that winning a Nobel Prize doesn’t confirm their ethical superiority or nobility in public affairs. Also, he seems to rely on Sonia Gandhi’s goodwill for his mission. Sonia as a head of the Congress with whom Hazare tries to consult is also accused of corruption who is suspected of participating with her husband and now with her son billions of dollars in black money in the Swiss bank(s), since her own National political culture was brewed in corruption. Giullo Andreotti, seven times Italian Prime Minister was accused of corruptions for a long time and repeatedly he got away with the help of the Supreme Court judge he himself appointed, Corrodo Carnivale, both of whom were eventually convicted. Italian political culture is notorious for corruption and the country is the main source of International lawlessness through Mafioso. It was ruled by at one time by a popular, but most brutal dictator Mussolini for over twenty years, not exactly where one would look for inspiration. That being the historical truth, naive Hazare is turning to a wrong person to seek approval for his anti-corruption movement.

Another line of familiar refrain is that a spiritual leader like Ram Dev has no business in politics or taking to public causes. It may be true that he should not be in electoral politics trying to come to power, although that is also debatable, as every citizen in a free country has a right for representative leadership, Pratap Bhanu Mehta attacks Ram Dev on his views on sexual orientation which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It is only a cheap shot diversion. On the other hand, it is the duty of every citizen to speak up and participate in a National movement of far reaching importance. Not only Ram Dev, but Shankacharyas, Mullahs, and Christian clergy all ethical public minded people should join the agitation to prevent the country from going to Hell in a hand basket. We should support Baba Ram Dev for bringing his followers to the agitation.

There is this strange thinking in India that spiritual leaders should not express views on politics, which shows ignorance of how democracy is practiced in the modern World. Martin Luther King, a Gandhian was primarily the leader in Southern Baptist Church through which he fought racial discrimination. He always addressed his following from the church pulpit. Gandhiji himself was also a spiritual leader so also many who fought for independence without seeking political power. Another remarkable example is that of Archbishop Makarios, a Christian leader of Cyprus who fought British, was exiled by British and finally won the independence for Cyprus. Without Imam Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran would be still languishing under Monarchy with a puppet as a head for Western interests. Chidambaram scares every one that RSS might be leading the agitation on corruption. If they didn’t yet, they should, actually do so and there would be nothing wrong to fight the evil of corruption. RSS volunteers have the same rights as any other citizens to protest against the evil of corruption and why should Chidambaram object to that? Indian leaders never learned the lesson that their unfortunate country was sold by bribery to the British. In the battle of Plassey, Robert Clive bribed Mir Jaffar, the military general of Suraj-ud-Doulah, Nawab of Bengal. He was paid a bribe to stand still and not resist the British. The battle ended in less than two hours with an easy victory for the British with loss of life on both sides of less than 300 men. Bengal which included current Bihar was won by East India Company for a bribe. The view prevails in the world, even internationally, that anything in India can be bought for a right price. 2 G scam will be a pittance when the West and Japan buy the rights to build nuclear plants in India. Japan already paid heavy prize for admittedly defective construction of several nuclear plants by the company trying to contract with India. French and U.S firms already declared they would not be responsible for any nuclear related disasters when they contract with India. A nuclear disaster in India through such corrupt contracts will be of so large scale that hundreds of thousands will lose their lives and several hundred thousand will be maimed replicating the Chernobyl disaster several fold. Given the level and prevalence of corruption in India it is not at all unlikely. That is the logical extreme of corruption in India which will destroy India ultimately. So accusing Baba Ramdev of adulterating the Ayurvedic medications he distributes with cyanide is the height of roguery of the corrupt Indian politicians when all chemists know that traces of cyanide are normally found in many herbs and spices and are harmless. If corrupt politicians use non sequiturs like this they think they can pull the wool over the eyes of intelligent public for a while to hide their sins. This is the crisis of conscience in India today. The national conscience can be considered to be aroused sufficiently only if it is effective in substantially changing the behavior of the society and especially its political leaders and government officers.