Friday, January 30, 2015


An Open Letter to President Obama on Religious Freedom

Barack Obama
Dear President Barack Obama,
You spoke of religious freedom and in favor of the right to proselytize during your recent visit to India. Your words reflect the Christian West’s obsession with religious freedom. We Hindus have little doubt that when you talk of religious freedom you have the freedom of Christians to proselytize Hindus and not the freedom of Hindus to practice Hinduism in mind. In many Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, a Hindu cannot even carry pictures of Hindu deities to worship in the confines of one’s home. You have never pontificated to the Saudis about the virtues of religious freedom. In the Christian Greece, it was illegal for a Hindu to cremate the dead until 2007 yet no American president pontificated to the Greeks. So, we rightly conclude that the religious freedom of Hindus is nowhere on your radar.
However, we are not asking you to stand up for our religious freedom. We are, instead, challenging your obsession with religious freedom. Let us begin by talking about some fundamental teachings of Christianity which you are presumably familiar with.
I did not render service. I have been responsible for genocide. It took me 18 years to realize that.
Christianity requires a groom to drag his bride on the nuptial night to her father’s doorstep and stone her to death on the suspicion that she may not be a virgin. It urges onlookers to participate in this violent orgy (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Jesus sanctified and vowed to fulfill such terrible, misogynistic teachings (Matthew 5:17). We Hindus view the feminine as sacred and will not allow anyone the freedom to spread misogyny. We will not protect the alleged freedom of a misogynist at the expense of the dignity of a woman. We understand that you are not eagerly defending the freedom of the Taliban to spread Islamic misogyny in the USA. We are pleased to inform you that we Hindus will apply the same yardstick to Christian misogyny as well.
The Second Coming of Jesus is a core and fundamental Christian belief. On this occasion, Jesus would torture millions of Hindus for a period of five months, massacre them, and put them on the hell-bound cargo to be condemned to eternal torture (Revelations 9:4-5). Jesus also promises to make the Hindus kneel before the Christians in abject submission (see Hartung, John: Love Thy Neighbor – The Evolution of In-group Morality, pp. 15-16). We Hindus value human rights and will not grant anyone the freedom to spread genocidal hatred or subjugate others. You should be able to relate to our stance because you too aren’t advocating the freedom of Al Qaeda to spread genocidal hatred against Americans, are you?

Jesus Christ on the Cross
Misogyny, a craving to subjugate others, and genocidal hatred are poisonous. Giving them a religious sanctity doesn’t make them desirable. Karl Popper cautioned against the tendency to tolerate the intolerant because such a misplaced tolerance would result in the demise of the tolerant and eventually lead to the demise of tolerance itself. His sage advice applies to intolerant, hateful, and misogynistic religious beliefs such as Christianity and Islam. According such religious beliefs even a modicum of freedom would eventually degrade the feminine and extinguish freedom itself.
We Hindus value freedom; not merely freedom of religion as Western Christians mistakenly value. In our reasonable worldview, only freedom is a fundamental right whereas religious freedom is a privilege that is earned only when the religious teachings do not subvert freedom. A religion that subverts the very foundation of freedom and human dignity by advocating misogyny and genocidal hatemongering cannot be accorded that privilege.
In The Religious Crusades of the CIA, Arvind Kumar shows that ‘religious freedom’ is a euphemism for the CIA-led initiatives to destabilize Hindu society. The Tamil writer Jeyamohanshows how the Ford Foundation acted as the front for this imperial agenda by funding Christian missionaries in India’s northeast. These missionaries facilitated the entry of other western-funded groups which sowed division and hatred among the various ethnic groups that had hitherto coexisted for millennia. These imperial-funded and orchestrated initiatives resulted in gruesome riots, bloodshed, and massacre of many a thousand besides sinking the entire northeast into abject poverty. One of the missionaries that had facilitated the pillage eventually had a moment of realization and confessed to Jeyamohan, “I did not render service. I have been responsible for genocide. It took me 18 years to realize that.”
President Obama, we will not allow another genocide by facilitating the spread of imperial-funded Christianity. Instead, we will initiate every measure to curb it. We will bring forth legislation to prevent the CIA and its front agencies such as the Ford Foundation from destabilizing India. We will also prevent western powers from controlling the churches in India by nationalizing India’s churches and NGOs and by empowering the government to nominate priests. In the true spirit of democracy and freedom, and in the spirit of Indian pluralism, these priests would hail from all communities and religions as well as from among the ranks of atheists.
You may also anticipate legislative measures which would protect indigenous religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and the various tribal religions. We would reverse the existing system which discriminates against indigenous religions while favoring Christianity and Islam. The state would fund institutions belonging to indigenous religions. We hope this idea would resonate with you; after all, the UK protects the Church of England and funds its educational institutions. America’s Christian churches are the leading beneficiaries of faith-based initiatives. So, this idea is no stranger to westerners.
We hope that not only Hindus and Indians but reasonable Americans too would laud these forthcoming initiatives. After all, a vibrant, democratic, and multicultural India is in the best interests of America as well. On the other hand, an India laid waste to by the predations of Christianity can only harm Indian as well as American interests. A patriotic American should be appalled by the fact that American textbooks indoctrinate defenseless children in Christianity. These textbooks portray Jesus as an embodiment of compassion. One would never tolerate a sanitized portrayal of a terrorist such as Osama bin Laden as compassionate. Yet, Jesus, who isindistinguishable from Osama bin Laden, is hailed as compassionate in textbooks. Such indoctrination is an abuse of the trust children place in adults. It is not only the mind of the American child that is abused. Defenseless children are subject to physical abuse as well because of their parents’ beliefs in biblical teachings. The Bible mandates the circumcision of the male child (Genesis 17). As a result, despite the progress in scientific knowledge, over 58 percent of American male children are subject to genital mutilations. These are examples of serious violation of a child’s freedom.
We hope that America ends such discriminatory practices by emulating the Indian example of curbing Christianity (as well as Islam) through legislation. We look forward to the day when America respects the freedom of a child to grow up unmolested in an environment nourished by reason. We hope you realize that the freedom of a child cannot be sacrificed to propagate Bronze Age superstitions.
Our ghar wapasi program is ready to embrace America’s recovering Christians.
Yours truly,
An imaginary Indian politician
PS: How I wish an Indian politician wrote such a letter! Alas, in all likelihood, an Indian politician or a lay Hindu is likely to appease the Western bully by pleading that India is doing a lot to ensure religious freedom and will do even more. They would then grant more freedom to the rapacious missionaries and foreign NGOs until India becomes another Philippines.

Sunday, January 25, 2015


Terrorism: An Indian Perspective

66th Republic Day Reminder - We shall not forget 11/26, 9/11or any other attacks. 

By Achintyachintaka

Posted first on Jul 15, 2005 originally on and reproduced by courtesy of this article was written soon after 9/11/2001 and envisioned the need for a strong collaboration of the free world with India. This document is prepared for U.S. Citizens -second generation- of Indian origin mainly, and for Indian citizens who feel the need to be proper spokespersons in these difficult times. Recently there is unnecessary, and uninformed, mention of the “history” and political events of India in the media. That may naturally lead the misinformed public to turn to us Indians for clarification. It is hoped that this document will provide the proper bearings and an appropriate perspective for Indian viewpoint)(Caution: Use extreme caution in interpreting this article. It is not directed against any group or any followers of Islam. It is a clarification of events and in general denounces all terrorism, and especially the terrorism promulgated under the name of Islam. It also places Jammu & Kashmir issue in a legal and historical perspective.

Some of the U.S. media are pontificating on this issue stating that “Indian occupation of Jammu & Kashmir is illegal by virtue of not following the mandate of the UN as regards plebiscite.” This is a wrongheaded analysis and only a pro-Pakistan propaganda. Such position sides with totalitarian countries promulgating terrorism. The US is currently enamored of its two allies, namely the Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, whose duplicity and anti-US terrorism-mongering covert policies should have been amply transparent to the wise American politicians, journalists, and the media by now.

Unfortunately, the 9-11 incident has not yet fully awakened the concerned Americans. The Jammu & Kashmir issue is a product of Islamic terrorism and not the other way around. It is a red herring to detract people from the long-standing tactics of Islamic political expansionism. Handing over Jammu & Kashmir to Pakistan is nothing but yielding to Islamic terrorism and will have cascading consequences for the free world. The UN and the world community including the U.S. need to be alert to this issue. They must not maintain a flippant attitude of acting like a wise man on the camel in these matters simply because India turned to the UN 54 years ago. No country has truly any guidelines at present as to how to deal with a neighboring nuclear power engaging in blackmailing its neighboring country with terrorism over the last 54 years. Imagine Afghanistan in place of Alaska, Pakistan a nuclear power supported by China in place of Canada breeding terrorists on its territory to play havoc in the U.S. for 54 years over a terrorist created problem in Maine under the terrorists raid and regime! Leaders in India would want to do what President Bush did in his efforts to eliminate terrorism. Given the above hypothetical situation what would have been his response? At the same time, no responsible leader in India wants nuclear war. Yet, terrorism must end in the civilized world. Terrorism sponsoring Pakistan or any other country can never be considered as part of a civilized world.)*****************

The tragic attacks of September 11 have opened our eyes to a well spread, metastasized cancer of Islamic terrorism in the civilized world. In the words of the 2001 Nobel Laureate for Literature, V. S. Naipaul, Islam is a calamity on humanity. Obviously, he referred to the uncivilized Islam and not the civilized, cultured, and modern followers Islam presuming such people exist in large numbers. The reader is cautioned to note that all references to Islam in this article refer to Islamic terrorism, Islamic political expansionism, and acts of terrorism committed under the banner of Islam that have been historically documented. The acts in the 20th century especially in the last 50 years are rationalized under different reasons. There is no question the Islamic populations probably experienced injustice especially in Palestine. This very well may be unjustifiable. However, long before Palestine-Israel conflict, there were instances of rampant violence, mostly unprovoked, against civilians throughout the last 12 to 14 centuries, under the name of Islam and Islamic Jihad that are quite difficult to justify.

This cancer of “Radical Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism” requires radical treatment. There is nothing to be gained by saying there may be other cancers or other ailments in the civilized world. Everyone agrees there are many social evils. The most virulent one already detected has been growing and spreading for the last 12 to 14 centuries or more in different parts of the world though it gradually became obvious in the U.S. only in the last 15-20 years. The U.S. may have less empathy for those world populations that have been victims of such terrorism for many, many centuries. The usual view shared by most members of the Islamic world is that the U.S. is the greatest terrorist. However, the history of Islamic and Jihadi terrorism predates the birth of the U.S.

The Islamic terrorism creeps up slowly but it has already formed a “green belt” (here green stands for Islam) around half of the globe in the Northern Hemisphere. Islam is unquestionably a proselytizing religion and has historically used very cruel and violent means including massacres and extreme intimidation to spread itself, everywhere, from where it originated. It has justified its means on its scriptural basis and has used the term “Jihad” only in the violent sense for all these centuries not unlike now, regardless of the different scholarly meanings of this word. Escalating violence is not new to Islam.

The modern means of communication, shrinking of the global community, and increasing sophistication in the weapons of destruction, far superior to the sword recommended in the Islamic scriptures, change the picture entirely. It makes this type of terrorist activity far more dangerous than the nuclear warfare. The latter has usually more checks and balances as well as diplomatic restraints built into it. There is nothing to stop the Islamic terrorists from acquiring and indiscriminately using nuclear weaponry without restraints if such weaponry falls in the hands of the fanatic terrorists. Many other countries suffered the senseless violence on innocent populations, continuously and intermittently, for centuries at the hands of this type of primitive Islam.

The Western and most of the U.S. media tend to characterize unfairly the victims of such violence, reacting in their own defense, as the “militant groups”. These so-called “militant groups” mostly demonstrating “mob-mentality,” and using sticks and stones, or may be even swords in the past, do not go outside the borders of their respective countries or commit mass murders or hate crimes. They are perforce defending themselves against the imperialistic Islamic terrorists. They are not to be compared or confused with the above identified cancer, which has caused their origin in the first place.

The latter on the other hand have their sole purpose of combating the cancer and they will naturally cease to exist when the cancer is eliminated. This particular cancer of Islamic terrorism has historically presented itself as the victim of the people that have been the victims of its own aggression! Islamic terrorists have been adept at “turning things around” to make their arguments convincing for their uninformed followers. The world community needs to wise up to this tactic repeatedly used by the expansionist Islam that has a tendency to distort the facts completely. The educated world community needs to comprehend the larger geopolitical and historic picture.

Judaism and Hinduism had to protect themselves from such Islamic terrorism for centuries; yet the expansionist fundamentalist Islam will project unjustified blame on the non-aggressive cultures and civilizations that have been its victims in reality. A good look at the geopolitical world map and a rudimentary knowledge of world history will convince any novice as to whether Judaism and Hinduism reflect any political expansionism on the map, in contrast to the blatant geographical expansionism and infiltration of Islam. Totally disregarding and defying “population control,” in the last fifty years, (when India and China have struggled hard to implement it in both the countries), Islam today boasts to be the “second largest religion in the world.” Islam maintains that “population control” is against its religion. The Islamic population has grown by 5% in the Indian Republic over 50 years but the population of the Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh is reduced to mere 3 to 5 % from 35% in 1947. It is thus competing with the only other aggressively proselytizing and expansionist religion in the world, namely Christianity.

Hence, the Islamic terrorists have a tendency to project the age-old “crescent versus the cross” conflict on the current war against the terrorism and discolor it to suit themselves. This is again the same clever tactic distracting attention away from its terrorist activities and blaming it on a religious conflict. Islam sees itself as fighting Christianity or Hinduism or Judaism (non-believers) while concealing its violent expansionism. In spite of this rhetoric some Americans continue to be confused and cannot tell who is their friend and who is their foe in forming its foreign policy. The U.S. foreign policy is only economically driven. It seems to lack idealism or commitment to “secular” democracies of the world. (Unfortunately the word “secular” does not mean the same to the average American and usually does not have the lofty connotation it has for an Indian.)

A short-term gain of such policy is to gain control over geological and other needed resources. It will be self-defeating. It is not in the larger interests of the world.There is no reason whatsoever, though, to compare the conflict between Pakistan and India with that between Palestine and Israel. These are not parallel conflicts though historically overlapping and equal in duration. The hostilities and violence committed by either side in the Palestine-Israel conflict are far greater in magnitude. There is also the factor of behind the scene involvement of the U.S. as suspected by Islamic terrorists.

In these features, it differs markedly from the “Jammu & Kashmir” conflict. Some Arab countries question the very existence of Israel. In contrast, India has no problem with the existence of Pakistan and has not used any unprovoked aggression against it no matter how Pakistan wants to present the facts in a distorted fashion to International audience. India has never used terrorist tactics. Military defense is all that India has deployed for 54 years. However, but for the militant Islamic thrust and terrorist activities of Islamic fundamentalists of Pakistan in Jammu & Kashmir and other areas in India, India and Pakistan could have lived together in peace.

Recent coincident terrorists acts in London and Ayodhya indicate that India is possibly equated with the “bullying” West by the fundamentalist Islam while there is no such comparison justifiable.All of the above facts need to be placed in a new historical perspective for the educated world community. Denying that the cancer of Islamic terrorism is wildly spread, because we are extra cautious not to offend some innocent civilized peace loving Islamic affiliates, will only interfere with efforts at eliminating this evil.

There is no doubt that we need to respect the nonviolent, peace loving affiliates of Islam and even protect them and ensure that they do not become victims of irrational retaliation. There is no question that this peace loving aspect of Islam is hardly recognized anywhere in the world because the history of Islam is so replete with horrendous overshadowing violence committed by the Islamic regimes all over the world for ages (14 centuries or more.) For those from the countries familiar with the dismal political history of Islam “Islam for Peace” is an “oxymoron.” Even so, peace loving rational civilized spiritually evolved Islamic population all over the world must be respected for what it is.

We need not be blind to the duplicity in some of their militant members though, for example, the sleeping cells of terrorists taking cover in this noble section of the peace loving Muslims and in their mosques in the U.S. and Western Europe and U.K. Even recognizing the vulnerability of the heart and sentiments of such peace loving Islamic populations to be swayed in the direction of their terrorist and terrorizing fundamentalist brothers and sisters, they deserve to be given the proper benefit of the doubt in countries that respect civil liberties. However, forming alliance with those who have historically harbored, financed, and encouraged terrorism for their own political ambitions, not only against their own neighbors but also in far away countries like U.S. and U.K. will be dangerous in the long run. Flaunting them as allies of the U.S., could also be a disastrous move. It will, moreover, encourage and excuse their mendacity. This primitive, incorrigible element may not be capable of reform, and needs to be viewed for what it actually is: "An opportunist state." The spade must be called a spade.

The deceptive hypocrisy of such states is revealed by some of them making a one hundred and eighty degrees turn around to ostensibly "fight terrorism." It is a public knowledge, for example, that the lead terrorist of Sept. 11 attacks did receive $100,000.00 wired from Pakistan only a few days before September 11. It is also well known that Pakistan had hosted “bin Laden” and allowed him to operate his training camps on its own territory. The graduates of his terrorist training camps were used not only against India and against Indians in Jammu & Kashmir but also against the United States.

The terrorist organization “Lakshar-E-Toiba” is a well-known affiliate of “Al-Queda” terrorist network operating primarily against India. It is supported and financed by ISI, the Pakistani equivalent of CIA. This statement is made to highlight the possibility that the credibility of the Musharraf-led government of Pakistan could be quite questionable if the Americans kept their eyes open and as described by President Clinton in his recent autobiography.The U.S. media behave as if they are divorced from the history, and are trying to distort the obvious facts. They may be inadvertently misled if not voluntarily corrupted. How else could one characterize them when they repeatedly describe Pakistan as the "second largest “secular” “Muslim country" formed in 1947 to separate from "Hindu India?" The media need to know by now that Pakistan is a theocracy (a state based on religion) that is neither a democracy for the most part, nor has it ever been a “secular country.” In contrast, the so-called "Hindu India," (a misnomer quite akin to "Christian USA, Christian Germany, or Christian UK"), described by the media, has in reality chosen ever since its inception in 1947 to remain a “secular democratic country.”

India, the largest or the most populated democratic country of the world, is also the second largest Muslim country in the world next to Indonesia. (Note Pakistan is neither the largest not the second largest Muslim country in the world.) This will be evident if the Muslim population in India, living for the most part peacefully in a democracy for over half a century, enjoying the freedom and the right to vote, is recognized. It is high time that the expression (or, is it an epithet?) “Hindu India” is viewed as a mischievous “name-calling” and this epithet, if it is one, needs to be abandoned entirely by the informed people of the world.

The Muslim population of India needs to be viewed by the educated community worldwide for what it is. It is to be commended for voluntarily choosing to live in democratic India. Unfortunately, the cancer has in part infiltrated this population also for decades, and has been a source of concern for the majority of peace-loving Indian population of all religions besides being a source of terror and violence. This population sometimes fails to show true allegiance to India and its national interests and emotionally shows a conflict of loyalty by often siding with its theocratic neighbor not difficult to understand why. The Islam continues to have a spell of its imperialistic ambitions and mission for the spread by proselytization all over the world on its adherents.That is the reason why India readily volunteered its assistance to U.S. in its fight against terrorism.

India did not wish to be sucked into the war against terrorism waged by President Bush. Morally and in its own self-defense, it felt obliged to agree with the President. India has been fighting its own war against terrorists for 66 years, but the U.S. and U.K. have yet to recognize it. The scourge of terrorism threatens the entire civilized world. This offer of friendship by India was interpreted by its neighboring country, Pakistan, as "taking advantage of the situation while not sharing even a mile of border with Afghanistan." Most of the 40 plus countries in the coalition against terrorism also do not share borders with Afghanistan and are not hopefully and in actuality viewed by Pakistan as "taking advantage of the situation."

On the contrary, Pakistan, merely by virtue of its geographic location, is in a unique position to “take advantage of the situation.” In fact, it has cleverly exploited this situation. The President of Pakistan has declared openly that the Prophet Mohammed also sided with the enemy, and made peace with them, when it was in the eventual interest of his people and his nation ("Mulk"). This was confessed in President Musharraf's first address to his own country to appease the lower one third of the socioeconomic fundamentalist Muslim class of Pakistan, by his own admission. Let us not forget that the numbers may be totally mistaken by the President of Pakistan. This element has been the calamity on humanity. It may turn against the President of Pakistan any time now, or in future, and it is this population that presents a threat to the stability of Pakistan and hence a danger to the free world also. It is to appease this population and divert its hostilities from the current regime that the government of Pakistan will need to fuel its so-called age-old enmity towards India. Only such lame move will assure some sort of stability in Pakistan.

The rhetoric and hullabaloo over Jammu & Kashmir fits quite well in such strategy. The recent move to establish peace with India is encouraging and it remains to be seen if Pakistan officially and in actuality divorces itself from the terrorist Islam.It is only fair for Pakistan now to admit openly its activities and alliance with the terrorists and terrorist regime as a mistake of the past. It needs to confess its role in inflicting violent acts against the innocent victims in India and in “Indian occupied Kashmir,” and, possibly indirectly, in many other countries of the world by helping set up terrorist camps in Pakistan. Only coming out clean, in not only a confession, and rhetoric, but also in future deeds and commitments, discouraging all forms of terrorism seeking haven on its soil, may assure peace with its neighbors. Such forthright position will win respect for Pakistan from the world community.Now, as regards the most often discussed but yet unresolved issue of Jammu & Kashmir, the semantics used by the media for international communication needs to be changed to match the historical facts. There is no “Indian occupied Kashmir.” Kashmir is not a “country” as is openly referred to in the U.S. media. Pakistan aggressed upon Kashmir. Kashmir is a province that had acceded to join secular democratic India in 1947. Several Muslim dominated provinces were annexed in the Republic of India. This should be a well-known fact.

India was not formed as a religious state (theocracy) in 1947, and it welcomed people of all religions as its citizens including the Muslim populations in Jammu & Kashmir as well as in all other parts and provinces of India. The legally accepted boundaries of Pakistan as per the agreement of the division of British India did not include Jammu & Kashmir. This needs to be loud and clear to the educated world. Pakistan has no legal claim to Jammu & Kashmir or any other “Muslim” dominated territory of India any more than the U.K. by virtue of it past domination and its past empires. Division of British India is a fait accompli. To reopen that issue now is like opening a Pandora’s box. It will be akin to the American Indians claiming a separate country or the African Americans, Mexican Americans, or the French Americans demanding to have a separate country. All of these are populations in the U.S. without a nation of their own and in contrast the Muslims of India have two separate nations already made available.

What is the justification for more territory after segregating nearly 33% of British India for Muslim occupation? In reality, as mentioned before, there is no “Indian occupied Kashmir.” There is only “Pakistan occupied Kashmir” without any legal standing. The U.S. media are misrepresenting the historical facts. India's legitimate claim to the entire province of Jammu & Kashmir originated by the decree of the then Hindu king of Kashmir to join India. Then, there was no understanding that the Secular India hand over any other Muslim majority territories within India to Pakistan in 1947, or even later, over and beyond what was agreed upon.

The “partition” had already created East and West Pakistan in full compliance with that understanding by August 15, 1947. The term “disputed Kashmir” is also spurious. There should have been no dispute over Kashmir but for the unwarranted aggression and transgression into Kashmir by Pakistan after the partition. This illegal transgression was in violation of the understanding about the division of “British India” leading to its partition. Therefore, the issue of protracted partition, or separatist agitation based on the religion of indigenous population is a spurious issue. It must not be forgotten that the Muslims of India are an artifact of the foreign invaders and their aggressive proselytization of the local indigenous population. The UN mandated plebiscite or referendum is also a wrongheaded solution of the problem. It is like recognizing illegal intruder and forceful violent unwanted dweller in your home to have a right to negotiate for ownership of room in your home.

It would be absurd to mandate a plebiscite in a territory where sixty seven thousand Hindus (Kashmiri Pundits) were slaughtered and hundreds of thousands made to flee and leave the territory over 54 years. If the logic of this spurious issue is legitimized by the UN or the International Community, chunks and chunks of India will need to be handed over to the Islamic neighboring nations (Pakistan and Bangla Desh). It would also be absurd to hold plebiscite in different regions of India. That would also set the precedent for Islamic nations all over the world to claim territories within other sovereign neighboring countries as their own.

This could happen readily in Russia and China. Based on the choice of the fundamentalist Islamic populations all over the world, such separatist tactics will continue to undermine the geographic integrity of democracies and other sovereign nations. Any fanatic religious groups with such political philosophy, if permitted, could divide India (or any other country) into many pieces as Christiandoms, Islamic nations, Buddhist, Zoroastrian and Jewish countries (within the subcontinent which is now India, the Bharat). This could happen to Russia and China, and God forbid, to the U.S. also. If the uninformed U.S. media continue to describe the “secular” democratic India as "Hindu India" 54 years after it chose to remain secular, and undivided based on religion, how would the media help resolve the Jammu & Kashmir issue? It should be clear by now that there is no country called “Hindu India.”

It is the fundamentalist Islamic population in Pakistan that is living in the past and is spinning its wheels in the 1940's. The governmental policies of Pakistan vis-à-vis Jammu & Kashmir reflect mostly this view and placate the fundamentalist and fanatic Islamist population. Some of its anachronistic primitive population is living in the last 12 centuries. This radical Muslim population, rather than learning to modernize, attempts to impose its antiquated views and ways of life and even Sharia laws on the “free” Muslims in India. This radicalism the fundamentalist Muslims will continue to try to impose on the Muslims wherever they live, even in the U.S. It is this population, as mentioned before, that threatens the stability of Pakistan also. Strangely enough, placating and appeasing this sentiment has become a necessity for gaining and maintaining political power within the Pakistani government. The continuous mention of Jammu & Kashmir issue and fueling enmity towards neighboring India unfortunately becomes a necessary tool for anyone wishing to win and hold political power in Pakistan.

The ambitious politicians of Pakistan have to gain the support of this primitive population that presents a threat to its own progressive or democratic government if there is one to be envisioned for Pakistan.If the lofty principles of civilized democracy and secularism are upheld by the UN, the solutions for peace in Jammu & Kashmir should be readily evident. Pakistan indeed has no legitimate claim to any territory in Jammu & Kashmir. It was the magnanimity of the peace loving Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime minister of India, which led to the referral of the Kashmir issue to the UN. Please take note, it was not the “aggressor Pakistan” that sought the help of UN. The UN has obviously failed to resolve the matter for 54 years by blurring the issues. However, if any Muslims in Kashmir wish to move to Pakistan or to a small portion of “Pakistan occupied Kashmir,” even now, and vouch to hold peace forever, they should be permitted to exercise their choice in a peaceful manner. They should then stop making any claims over “Indian occupied Kashmir,” thereafter.

They need to understand that it is time to stop violent and subversive Pakistani infiltration, occupation, and terrorism in any territory of India. If the Muslims in Kashmir don't wish to be in India, (accepting Kashmir as integral part of India), they could move to Pakistan during a proposed window of 3 to 6 months. This will need to be monitored by international monitors who are not motivated to play any more mischief in India. Enough is enough with “Islam” based nations and their terrorism. Kashmir issue is viewed as an anti-Islamic issue rather than what it actually represents in reality. The Islamic terrorists intruders called themselves “Razakars” then and inflicted anti-democracy aggression upon democratic secular India in Jammu & Kashmir. The so-called “Kashmir dispute” is thus a product of Islamic terrorism and nothing else. It needs to be squarely viewed as anti-democratic and anti-secularism, and therefore, anti-Indian and should not be labeled “anti-Hindu.”

It is a shame, but quite truly, there are no other religions except “Islam” in this 21st century that want to have equivalents of “Islamic nations.” No country, whether democratic or not, claims to be a Christian Nation, Buddhist Nation, Hindu Nation, etc. (technically, except perhaps Israel, Vatican and Nepal). No other religions call for any unity of religiously based nations, or for a unity based on religious majority in different nations, to form a terrorist coalition, except the fundamentalist Islamic people. It is time for the fundamentalist Islamic nations to join the rest of the civilized world and stop calling themselves "Islamic," or allow the peaceful civilized Islamic people name themselves differently in some other noble manner.

They need to try to espouse modern civil laws, democracy, and secularism by reforming their own populations. It is high time they respect the right of the other civilized people to live in the free world, in democratic countries, and respect the boundaries of those countries and people. There is no “Islamic Nation” that is spread throughout the world pervading different countries. If Islamic people choose to live in any country, they need to learn to become loyal to their country of domicile. They need to live in peace there and not ever align themselves with foreign fundamentalist Islamic movements or start militant and violent domestic fundamentalist Islamic groups that are anti-national. Curiously, Islamic population of India chooses not to apply its antiquated Criminal laws to Muslim population in India. It enjoys the privilege in the Indian democracy of living with the “freedom” and still insisting on having separate “Muslim Law,” as the special Civil code for itself, permitting polygamy for its male population only. This type of discrimination against women is undemocratic besides being primitive and antiquated in the 21st century. It is demeaning to women who have no choice or voice in the oppressive Muslim Indian population.

The recent implementation of Sharia laws in India have victimized some Muslim ladies “legally.” Incidentally, it is worth noting here that in absolute terms the Muslim population has grown from 40 million in India after the partition to a present number of over 120 million. There are hardly any Hindus left to live in the so-called “secular” Muslim Pakistan. These numbers are quite eloquent. The genocide of Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and in Jammu & Kashmir is quite evident, while Pakistan officially accuses India of harassing Indian and Kashmiri Muslims unfairly in its efforts to eradicate terrorism.“Islam” is the only major organized religion that is living and behaving as if the civilized world has not moved into the 21st century. Terrorism is of the past and must not exist in this 21st century and beyond. Ending terrorism actively needs to be a primary goal for civilized Islam.

Non-Islamic efforts to end Islamic terrorism may not succeed in eliminating this cancer. There is no need to get lost in the semantics to define terrorism. The history speaks for itself. The prognosis for cure of this cancer is, not unlike any other cancer, “very poor.” The cancer has been present for 12 to 14 centuries now. What makes us believe that armed conflict with the use of sophisticated weapons will eliminate this cancer? That is not saying that the U.S. and the civilized free world need not make every effort to eradicate it by employing military means among others. The irrationality of the primitive Islamic people will be played upon by the terrorists to turn a large number of them to become their sympathizers, or worse their overt or covert allies to escalate and prolong their struggles. This will happen all over the world including the U.S., U.K. and Western Europe. The struggle against terrorism, therefore, may not end in 27 or 30 years as predicted.

The ideological and religious reform at the grassroots of Islam will need to come from the initiatives of the more civilized and peace-loving Islamic people themselves with a great force from within. There is a dire need to form a large and powerful international Islamic organization of peace loving and freedom loving civilized and educated modern but strong Muslims. When formed, it needs to be supported and welcomed by freedom loving civilized people of all religions of the world. It needs to be fortified and protected in its efforts of reforming “Islam”. Winning friendship and respect for Islam needs to be viewed as a more “holy” cause than “Jihad.” It is high time Islam prove itself worthy of its name as a “peace-loving” religion and not just use the term “peace-loving” as a scholastic interpretation of the religion only for the world media. The adjective is very difficult to justify on historical grounds, considering the political history of Islam. However, it is time to accept the mistakes of the past.

While trying to seek sympathies for injustices experienced by Islamic populations in some parts of the world, it is also noble to take courage to make amends for past and recent atrocities committed by Islam. All religions will be better off if they admitted to the presence of social evils perpetrated by their followers for ages and engage in a clean up campaign for the 21st century. By corollary, all religions including Hinduism may have to do soul-searching to eliminate many social evils. However, this is not the time for India to engage in any introspection. The recent attacks by suicide bombers on the Indian parliament to kill Indian leaders, and Pakistan’s continued denial of its involvement are similar to the strategies used by bin Laden and the Taliban in the 9-11 attacks. The attack on the Indian Parliament is an attack on the heart of the largest democracy in the free world.

It needs to be met with the same courage demonstrated by John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Crisis, and the exemplary courage shown by President George W. Bush. Terrorism needs to be eradicated from the face of the earth, and to this end, all means including military action must be contemplated by the entire free world and the coalition of the democratic countries. President Bush’s policies are not to be translated to mean that terrorism directed towards the US alone is evil, and to be resisted, and terrorism directed towards India or U.K. is to be tolerated with "peaceful tolerance.” One needs to commend the delegation of Indian Muslim leaders who met with the Home Minister of India, Mr. Advani to promise full support to the Indian Government. Regardless of what Advani said in Pakistan, the effort to build friendship now after 58 years is commendable though the past wounds are still oozing. Let the world know that India is the largest democratic Muslim country in the world.

The freedom of Muslims in India, Jammu & Kashmir and their choice to remain in the democratic free world, are also under attack by the Pakistani terrorists. The US did not entertain the demand to produce the proof when Taliban demanded it. There is no reason why Pakistan, who has been a well-known terrorist country, harboring, feeding, and financing terrorists against the US, Jammu & Kashmir, and India, should demand any proof of its involvement in terrorism. Irrespective of its role as the ally of the US in its action against Afghanistan, Pakistan is totally exposed as the supporter of terrorists. Its government has not taken sufficient action and demonstrated stands to take military action against its terrorist population within Pakistan or in Afghanistan. Repeated deceitful extension of hand of friendship while surreptitiously using terrorist tactics and war mongering is not a sincere gesture of move towards peace. It is another deceptive manifestation of the same cancer alluded to in the very first paragraph of this article. Islamic terrorism is the scourge of the 21st century and the free world, including the free Muslims, needs to unite to eliminate it forever.

This is a decisive moment. There is no room for lip service for the well meaning Islamic regimes, nor for the free world. Action alone will eliminate terrorism. “Jammu & Kashmir” should no longer be an issue. It is a smoke screen. The real offender is the age-old Islamic terrorism.If there is to be any war between India and Pakistan, it will be over the intolerance of Islamic terrorism that has been long tolerated by India. Any arguments regarding the unfairness of police actions against the suspected terrorists in India or in Jammu & Kashmir, and the huge outcry regarding human rights violations by India in this context are merely dust in the eyes of the uninformed public. These are, if verified in any measure, nothing but reactions to the pervasive Islamic terrorism. There is no moral high-ground for Pakistan to stand and denounce India when it is Pakistan that has been a country which has harbored and nurtured terrorists for decades and covertly practiced state sponsored terrorism.

Pakistan could invite the wrath of India having attacked the heart of India (Parliament and now Ayodhya) just as Afghanistan invited the wrath of the U.S. by bin Laden’s attack on the financial heart of the U.S. God forbid that the efforts of Advani to attain peace in the region be not sabotaged by internecine conflicts within BJP and Indian intelligentsia regardless how inept Advani is deemed to be by the historians for “what he said.” India needs to make its position crystal clear, and that is, regardless of any dispute over Kashmir, India will no longer tolerate terrorism. If Pakistan does not put a stop to it, and does not radically eradicate Islamic terrorism from its soil, Pakistan needs to be ready to face the consequences. India will have no choice now but to eradicate Islamic terrorism sponsored and supported by Pakistan from its very roots. No talks probably will be held over the Jammu & Kashmir issue or peace agreement now, until terrorism is eliminated from Jammu & Kashmir and India first! India’s heart has been attacked and India has every right to retaliate. The retaliation will probably only against the terrorists and those who harbor and support the terrorists. The threat of nuclear weapons must not be allowed to perpetuate terrorism. The entire free world community could be some day terrorized by the radical Islam. By perpetrating such nuclear threats or other threats of mass destruction, terrorism will be perpetuated to achieve its end.

We must therefore admire the strength of India. Strong India that eliminates terrorism with whatever means will be the beacon for terrorism-free "free world." The free world that has now only recently been the victim of Islamic terrorism must realize even more that it needs to unite with India that is the oldest and most deeply suffering victim of Islamic terrorism.


Read more: Swaveda - Articles - Terrorism: An Indian Perspective -

Saturday, January 24, 2015


God and the Constitution of IndiaPDFPrintE-mail
Krishen Kak
14th January, 2014

We Indians claim to be a secular democratic republic, governed by a Constitution of India we have given ourselves. If indeed we are secular, why do we recognize “god” in our Constitution? No, the Constitution does not use that word itself, but the “god” is very much there. Many of us believe “god” can take different forms, so which form has god taken in our Constitution? More topically, whose is this “god” and what divine providence do this god’s faithful have in store for us who do not believe?

It is in the Preamble to the Constitution of India that we, the people of India, proclaim ourselves to be “secular”. However, nowhere in the Constitution in its English version do we the people define “secularism”. As it happens, there is an official text of the Constitution in Hindi, and its Preamble uses the word panthanirapekshata. This word is quite unambiguous in its meaning. Monier-Williams gives nir-apeksha as “regardless of, indifferent to, independent of, disinterested”, so panthanirapeksha is that our Republic is indifferent to, independent of religion.[1] (Editor's note : 'Pantha' means 'path' -  obviously chosen for spiritual attainment)

Therefore, by the principle of harmonious construction, given that there are two official versions of the Constitution of India and that one uses a word that is unambiguous in its meaning and the other is silent in regard to it, we the people have resolved that our secularism means that our State must be disinterested in, must be neutral to religion. In other words, the State must disregard religion – a negative concept.

However, in 1994, in S.R. Bommai vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India ruled that “secularism is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions…..To the state, all are equal and are entitled to be treated equally”. In other words, for the Supreme Court, panthanirapekshata is really sarvadharma samabhava?

Sarvadharma samabhava is the mealy-mouthed Gandhian and patently false “equality of all religions” (with unwillingness to clarify the truth or covering up the less than noble intent and practice behind the professed noble words). Monotheisms by their own definition can never agree that any paganism is “equal” to their theism, that pagan divinities are “equal” to their “God”. Yet, the Indian State foolishly persists with “all faiths are equal” both as its belief and its ideal, mouthed by its various authorities, even its unofficial ones. For example, when the abrahamist Sonia Gandhi, was our de facto prime minister, gave it a clever twist with “secularism means equal respect for all religions” (note the intangible "respect", not the actionable "treatment"), and that Nehru-Gandhi camp follower Pranab Mukherjee, shortly before he became our President, went the whole hog by declaring that sarvadharma samabhava “constitute(s) the essence and spirit of our Constitution”.[2] (Editor's comment : the original intent of "secularism" was to effect a clean separation between the Church and the State, to keep each institution from meddling in the affairs of each other. That meaning is totally irrelevant for India where religion was never directly involved in ruling and governing the people. There was no time in India when an organized religion formed a government or ruled over the people.)

There are, therefore, two streams in the Indian construction of Constitutional secularism – that the State is independent of religion (the Preamble) and that for the State all religions are equal (the Supreme Court). The first stream is all but dry, and the second is now a river in spate. The name of this overflowing river is “Nehruvian secularism” (or, if you prefer, minorityism / minority appeasement / pseudo-secularism), and to try and dam it or even embank it is to be a "Hindu communalist" (for Nehruvian secularism there is no other kind of communalism).

The wellsprings of this river lie in the Constitution itself. While it is true that, in theory, the Republic of India does not recognize a State religion, the practice the Republic of India follows is certainly not panthanirpekshata (nor, for that matter, dharmanirapekshata). The Republic of India, while preaching sarvadharma samabhava to the abrahamists, in practice accepts the abrahamic definition that their belief-system is not samabhava with our indigenous ones. The abrahamic god by self-definition is "true" and therefore our indigenous gods are "false" (e.g., Isaiah 43.11, 44.6, 46.9). And the State accepts this on the authority of an "abrahamic communalism" that the Constitution itself sanctions.[3] (Editor's comment : While Hinduism is pluralistic and all inclusive in its ideal of "sarvadharma samabhava" a principle acceptable to all Hindus, this principle is not at all acceptable nor compatible with the abrahamic exclusivism which must be interpreted as historically the worst form of communalism practiced for two millennia all over the world decimating many "non-believer" cultures. So a constitution that makes room for such worse form of communalism and treats and dubs the Hindu solidarity that welcomes other cultures as the only "communalism" is absurd)  

With that background, let us look at the Constitutional provisions that belong to the first stream (panthanirpekshata) -

Article 14. Equality before law - The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Article 15(1). Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth - The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

Articles 16(1) and (2). Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment -

(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office under the State.

Article 29(2). No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.

Article 44. Uniform civil code for the citizens - The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.(Editor's note: this has not become a reality in practice nor legislated at the central or state government level)

Article 51A. Fundamental duties -

It shall be the duty of every citizen of India -

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;

(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;

Now let us look at the Constitutional provisions that treat all religions equally (note that this is not at all the same as saying that all religions are equal) –

Article 25(1). Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion - Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

Article 26. Freedom to manage religious affairs -

Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right-

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.

Finally, let us look at the Constitutional provisions that violate panthanirpekshata, provisions which enable or require the State to involve itself in religious matters, or that privilege extended to the abrahamic religions which by definition are communalistic –

Article 16(5). Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination. (Editor's Note: This 
provision is a violation of the principle of separation of the Church and the State
and is a direct intrusion or interference into the internal matter of any religious group)

Article 25(2). Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus...

Explanation II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2) the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. (Editor's note:
what this means is that the Abrahamic religions and also Zorashtrian or Parsee
religious institutions may prohibit non-blievers from entering their places of worship 
or enter into the governing boards of such places of worship or their institutions, 
while the Indian government reserves the right to force the Hindu temples and institutions to accept "others" on the governing boards of their places of worship or religious institutions.)  

Article 30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions -

(1)All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property is such as would not restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.

(2) The state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

The Constitution does not define “minorities” except in explanation that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are Hindus for purpose of socioreligious reform. However, the then government in its divide-and-rule wisdom took these “Hindus” out of the pluralistic fold and clubbed them with the abrahamic monotheisms under the National Commission of Minorities Act.[4]

Articles 14, 15(1), 16(1) and (2), 44 and 51A require not only that religion be irrelevant in and to public policy but they encourage and, indeed, expect citizens to be rational, to act rationally, to ask questions, to seek rational answers. They want “thinking” citizens, all equal qua citizens, of a democracy governed by reason rather than by faith, a democracy of humanists, not religionists. They want religious diversities to be transcended – and this is anathema to the abrahamisms. The very existence of the abrahamic “God” is predicated on the retention of his exclusiveness, and therefore the abrahamism must remain an exclusivism. An abrahamism can never allow even the conceptual possibility of there being other gods (hence the faux pas evident in the optimism of pagans for “inter-faith dialogues” with abrahamists).

Articles 25(1) and 26 accept the place of religion in the lives of people, accept that all religionists have the same rights, and that the State has no role here except in the limited sense of ensuring that “your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man´s nose begins”.[5]

Articles 16(5), 25(2) and 30 very clearly make a mockery of the panthanirpeksha Articles. They make a mockery of “all Indians are equal” by proclaiming that some Indians are more equal than others because of their religion. And which are these religions? The two primary ones are the grasping tentacles in India of foreign world-conquering octopoid monotheisms that together constitute about 55% of the global population and openly declare their global ambitions through means ordained or ordered by their defining texts.[6]

Articles 16(5), 25(2) and 30 make a mockery of scientific enquiry, of rationalism, of humanism, of the spirit of enquiry and reform. They discourage questioning, they encourage blind faith. They exclude the State from attempting socioreligious reform within Christianity and Islam. The State intervenes politically but professedly for socioreligious reform only within Hinduism and the Constitution implicitly accepts that Christianity and Islam, being faiths of the “One True God”, requiring no reform in their social practices or their governing of their palces of worship or their religious institutions.

Articles 16(5), 25(2) and 30 make a mockery of equal opportunities for and equal rights of citizens. Scholarships, vocational / professional training, reservations in admissions to academic institutions, free coaching for private jobs, free coaching for and reservations in government jobs (including the IAS, IFS, IPS), money for higher study abroad, money for business......the State, at the taxpayer's cost, extends a whole and now rapidly growing slew of preferential schemes for Indian citizens based on religion as long as they are not Hindu. State policy is expanding, in gross violation of panthanirpekshata, to give certain citizens (overwhelmingly Muslim) first claim on national resources because of their religion. As just one example, the Jamia Millia Islamia, which receives substantial State aid both as a Central university and for its free coaching scheme for the civil services, denies admission in this free coaching scheme to all Hindu women unless they are from J&K only (ask yourself why) and it denies admission to all mainstream Hindu men (even if they are from J&K – again, ask yourself why). Article 29(2), anyone?

These privileged citizens are primarily the abrahamisms, who claim to be created by their god in his own likeness (e.g., Genesis 1.26-27). Since their god is the only true god, he must be privileged and, it follows as being created by him in his likeness, that the followers are to be privileged too. They, as their theocracies demonstrate, consider themselves in their very existence to be superior to the pagan. And, as inferiors, we pagans accord the Christian / Muslim god – Jehovah / Allah – and his followers special protection, special rights in our supposedly secular Constitution. Hindu gods, declared false by abrahamists, are given no such protections, no such rights. Our gods are the objects of politics. Our gods and their temples can be investigated, can be reformed, can be subjected to temporal jurisdictions enforced by governments through officials who are non-believers who appropriate temple wealth for “secular” purposes. The abrahamic god and his places of worship and his wealth are holy, are sacred; the State dare not desecrate them as it does ours.

No Christian or Islamic theocracy anywhere in the world treats its minorities as equal citizens yet, in India, Christianity and Islam demand and a pusillanimous State extends to them rights and advantages that are historically and demonstrably destructive to indigenous belief-systems and that make the "pagan" majority less equal than the abrahamic minorities.

Why do we pagans believe we are inferior and act so inferior to these abrahamists? The hegemonic influence of dhimmitude / macaulayanism? A. Surya Prakash summarizes how pagan leaders in the Constituent Assembly buckled before the aggressiveness of the Christian members who insisted that “religious propagation was central to Christianity”. Six decades later, very recently, the Hindus beginning “to leverage Article 25(1)”, abrahamists and Nehruvian-secularists protest vehemently that what’s sauce for the abrahamic goose cannot be sauce for the pagan gander![7]

If the Republic of India is to evolve into a really secular democracy, how can this be done? Four measures are needed -

1. “To renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women” - Art 51A(e). The most effective and rational way to do this – and it has the support of the Supreme Court – is to begin the process to enact a uniform civil code – Art 44, so that all Indian women are emancipated and all citizens enjoy uniform civil rights irrespective of religion.

2. To enact legislation furthering the Supreme Court ruling that there is no Constitutional right to conversion. This will shift religion firmly into the personal domain – no really secular Indian can object to this and no really secular Indian can have any difficulty in their private lives of worshipping any form of divinity that appeals to them.

3. To extend Art 25 (2)(b) to all religions, or to repeal it. It is grossly discriminatory that only Hinduism is subjected to socioreligious reform, and the abrahamisms are noli-me-tangere (only the abrahamists have the right to warn the government not to touch, meddle or interfere in their affairs.)

4. To do likewise with the grossly discriminatory and pernicious Art 30 – apply it to all, or none. The equal treatment of all religions, remember?

(Tangentially, there is a fifth, the repeal of the “temporary” Art 370, an Article stoutly opposed by Ambedkar.)

The underlying ethical principle is The Golden Rule of Reciprocity, which goes all the way back at least to the Mahabharata, is found “in a wide range of world cultures, is a standard way that different cultures use to resolve conflicts”[8] and that the abrahamisms themselves in their own characteristic way sanction in their Holy Koran (2.178, 5.45) and their Holy Bible (Exodus 21.23-25; Leviticus 24.17-21; Deuteronomy 19.19; indeed, practised by their god himself – Judges 1.7).

In its most evocative – and instructive – form, it is Shylock’s speech in The Merchant of Venice, Act III, Sc.1 -

Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs,
Dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with
The same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
To the same diseases, heal´d by the same means,
Warm´d and cool´d by the same winter and summer
As a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us,
Do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility?
Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his
Sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge.
The villainy you teach me, I will execute,
And it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. 

It is pertinent that through the two millennia of their persecution and slaughter by their fellow-abrahamists, “if there is one place in the world which has been a safe haven for Jews, it is India”.[9] Ask yourself why India even now remains a haven for them, though they are an abrahamism, and though the Indian State does not choose to recognize them as a minority.

In conclusion, it should be amply clear that neither our Constitution nor our State are de facto secular –panthanirapeksha, not even practicing the inane sarvadharma samabhava. There can be no doubt that the form “god” has taken in our Constitution is that of the abrahamic god, the god of the Christians / Muslims. Therefore, what divine providence do Christians / Muslims have in store for us who do not believe in Jehovah / Allah? Their histories will tell you. Their defining texts will tell you.[10] Jehovah-Jesus / Allah-Mohammad do not mince words in telling you the fate in store for you. And every true Christian, every true Muslim is faith-bound to make those words come true.

Consequently, nowhere, but nowhere, in the world where these two abrahamisms have conquered have they allowed significant non-abrahamic populations to survive. Nowhere in the territories of these two abrahamisms is there a meaningful self-sustaining survival of a pre-abrahamic belief-sytem. There is not one significant exception to this worldwide historical fact. We are the world’s last pagans and our time has come, as momins and missionaries and the Pope of Rome and enormous amounts of foreign money openly target us. There are pagans with a consciousness of a millennium of our slavery to these abrahamisms and there is George Santayana’s lesson of history - “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” - yet we continue headlong the pagan-destroying Nehruvian-secular political pandering to and appeasement of the abrahamisms.[11]

Therefore, where is the safe haven for pagans in a land and its polity that propitiates those with a carnivorous history for both the land and its polity.

Dharmo rakshiti rakshitah.


1. ; ;
Monier-Williams, p.539, col. 3 - Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister approved it - “A state ispanthnirpeksha when it does not allow its policy decisions to be swayed by religious beliefs of any kind. This attitude entails no respect, or lack of respect; just a determination to keep religious beliefs at bay.” (Rohit Dhankar, “On Curriculum Framework”, Seminar, Sept 2000). The Constitution of India, in Hindi, makes clear that “religion” is “pantha”. How “religion” in English became “dharma” in our own languages and then dharma became “religion” is another story.

2., emphasis added; ; ; along with vasudhaiva kutumbakam, about which is educative; ; The Supreme Court itself reasons quite tortuously about the meaning of Indian secularism -

3. The abrahamisms are the religions that acknowledge the biblical patriarch Abraham - in our context these are the monotheisms Christianity and Islam. It was only in 1976, during the Emergency, that Indira Gandhi decided that we the people of India should announce ourselves to be “secular”- and added panthanirapeksh in the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment. But she did nothing to remove the abrahamic communalism that is entrenched in the Constitution.

4. They were very much part of the dharmic fold, see Koenraad Elst, “Who is a Hindu?” - Their evolution into “religion” of the abrahamic kind is partly the Nehruvian-secular adaptation through vote-bank politics of the missionary-colonial strategy of divide-and-rule. The Jains were in 2014 ( despite the Supreme Court rejecting “a petition to give minority status to the Jain community”, opining that multiplying religious minorities “would be a serious jolt to the secular structure of constitutional democracy”, and “urging the National Commission for Minorities to suggest ways to create social conditions so that the list of notified minorities `is gradually reduced and done away with altogether’” -



7. “Ban conversions to end controversies” -



10. ;

11. ; The most dangerous of these is the new State goal for Muslims of “Koran-in-one hand-computer-in-the-other” ( turning a blind eye to the irrefutable evidence from the West, the Middle East and our own country of how increasing numbers of modern-educated computer-savvy Muslims are using the one (computer) extremely effectively to propagate the violent other (the Koran). Why are madrasas not using their own money to reform their syllabi? Why is public money being used for this, even as madrasas use their own money to promote Koranic Islam? And why only madrasas? Why not State aid for pathshalas and vidyalayas too? Given sarvadharma samabhava, why then not a State objective too of the Gita in one hand and the computer in the other?