Sunday, February 27, 2011

Godhra Verdict, another tomfoolery.

Meghnad Desai's article on Godhra verdict calls it half and half, comparing it to the Babari Masjid verdict.

I had presented my views on Ayodhya verdict here. The members of the Congress party, the Left (and possibly many in the BJP as well) want Narendra Modi to be indicted in the Godhra case. For them it is one more opportunity to appease their Jihadi friends.

In a country like India, where justice comes, if at all, after so long a time, that one wonders if there is any law-enforcement institution in India at all! Under such circumstances, how are the near and dear ones of the kar-sevak victims, who were burnt alive in the coach of Sabarmati Express, to react?

The Left is busy defending Binayak Sen who is an ideologue of a movement, the Maoist movement, which regularly kidnaps and kills people including police-men. The Left justifies this defense as a revolt against the state-atrocities. Never mind the atrocities that the Left committed on the people of West Bengal for over more than three decades.

Now, the question is how can the Left accuse the relatives and sympathizers of the victims of the carnage (the Kar-sevaks) if they too revolt against the apathy of the same state, against whom their Mao friends are revolting?

The Left and the Congress has mastered the art of doubles-speak, and the BJP (Mr. Advani, Mr. Jaitley, Ms Swaraj, Mr. Jaswant) are not far behind. Indians will do well to recall that after the massacre of Sikhs by the evil hooligans of the Congress in 1984, the late husband of the current queen of Congress Ms. Sonia Gandhi, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi had said: “Some riots took place in the country following the murder of Indiraji. We know the people were very angry and for a few days it seemed that India had been shaken. But, when a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little.” And this exemplifies the attitude of Congress towards killing of innocent Sikh-people.

So if tens of Kar Sevaks were burnt alive, was that not the same as the falling of a mighty tree? In my opinion, the sole culprit of the riots in Gujarat are those who committed the carnage. The court has done a great disservice to the cause of justice, the cause of peace in society, by letting the prime accused off the hook.

And O stupid politicians, don't rely on the media sycophants, when your moment to depart arrives, they will cheer your downfall in as vociferous a manner as they are cheering you now. But of course, in India the term stupid-politician suffers from the error of redundancy. Aren't they all (well almost all) DFs?

Friday, February 18, 2011

Advani: Loh Purush? Purush? You must be joking!

There was a time when Advani appeared to be a Purush. He used to declare with vocal support from the crowd: "Jahaan Ram ka janm hua hai, mandir vaheen banayenge". However, things changed drastically. Possibly owing to his mentor Vajpeyee. Now Advani, like his predecessor "Vajpeyee" is NOT a man. He is a Shikhandi. However, the blame of Advani becoming a Shikhandi is his own, not of anyone else, never mind his mentor.

For quite sometime, whenever Advani opens his mouth, he spurts out some trash. Recall his blabber. On this occasion he has "regretted" the "hurt" caused to Sonia and her family. And he has been rightly rewarded by the CBI re-opening a case against him.

Those who are afraid of the truth will be tried for the false! The Congress is making use of the CBI in an opportunistic fashion. The Congress does not deserve any blame. The Congress only deserves to be buried, along with the ghosts of Mohandas, and Jawahar and their illegitimate political and intellectual children.

However, the opportunism of the Congress does not absolve Advani of the DF-ery. If a report by the BJP contained allegations against Sonia, then the allegations stand either on prima-facie grounds, or they have to be refuted on the basis of tangible evidence. This old joker Advani has accepted Sonia's mere denial, and expressed "regret"! He should rather have regretted that the denial came so late, and that the denial is unacceptable unless accompanied by some documentary evidence, for the circumstantial evidence rather gives credence to the suspicion!

But how can a being (I insist that he is not a man!) think without a head, and feel without a heart?

One clarification: When I state the Vajpeyee and Advani are not men, I do not mean that they are women. India has traditionally had women like Sita, and even in recent history has had Rani Laxmibai. And these women have been much much more than many a men. So with due apologies to Shikhandi, Advani and Vajpeyee have to be likened to Shikhandi.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Geert Wilder's Address to the Muslims. When will an Indian politician tell the Truth?

Here is the text of a message by the Dutch politician Geert Wilders to the Muslims. It is copy-pasted from here.


Muslims Debate asked Mr. Geert Wilders why he became anti-Islam and what is his message to the Muslims?

Geert Wilders:

I first visited an Islamic country in 1982. I was 18 years old and had traveled with a Dutch friend from Eilat in Israel to the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh.

We were two almost penniless backpacking students. We slept on the beaches and found hospitality with Egyptians, who spontaneously invited us to tea. I clearly recall my very first impression of Egypt: I was overwhelmed by the kindness, friendliness and helpfulness of its people.
I also remember my second strong impression of Egypt: It struck me how frightened these friendly and kind people were.

While we were in Sharm el-Sheikh, President Mubarak happened to visit the place.

I remember the fear which suddenly engulfed the town when it was announced that Mubarak was coming on an unexpected visit; I can still see the cavalcade of black cars on the day of his visit and feel the almost physical awareness of fear, like a cold chill on that very hot day in Summer.

It was a weird experience; Mubarak is not considered the worst of the Islamic tyrants and yet, the fear of the ordinary Egyptians for their leader could be felt even by me. I wonder how Saudis feel when their King is in town, how Libyans feel when Gaddafi announces his coming, how Iraqis must have felt when Saddam Hussein was near. A few years later, I read in the Koran how the 7th century Arabs felt in the presence of Muhammad, who, as several verses describe, “cast terror into their hearts” (suras 8:12, 8:60, 33:26, 59:12).

From Sharm el-Sheikh, my friend and I went to Cairo. It was poor and incredibly dirty. My friend and I were amazed that such a poor and filthy place could be a neighbor of Israel, which was so clean. The explanation of the Arabs, with whom we discussed their poverty, was that they were not in any way to blame for this affliction: They said they were the victims of a global conspiracy of “imperialists” and “Zionists”, aimed at keeping Muslims poor and subservient. I found that explanation unconvincing. My instinct told me it had something to do with the different cultures of Israel and Egypt.

I made a mistake in Cairo. We had almost no money and I was thirsty. One could buy a glass of water at public water collectors. It did not look clean, but I drank it. I got a terrible diarrhea. I went to a hostel where one could rent a spot on the floor for two dollars a day. There I lay for several days, a heap of misery in a crowded, stinking room, with ten other guys. Once Egypt had been the most advanced civilization on earth. Why had it not progressed along with the rest of the world?

In the late 1890s, Winston Churchill was a soldier and a war correspondent in British India (contemporary Pakistan) and the Sudan. Churchill was a perceptive young man, whose months in Pakistan and the Sudan allowed him to grasp with amazing clarity what the problem is with Islam and “the curses it lays on its votaries.

“Besides the fanatical frenzy, …, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy,” he wrote. “The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist where the followers of the Prophet rule or live. … The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to a sole man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. … Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.” And Churchill concluded: “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

There are people who say that I hate Muslims. I do not hate Muslims. It saddens me how Islam has robbed them of their dignity.What Islam does to Muslims is visible in the way they treat their daughters. On March 11, 2002, fifteen Saudi schoolgirls died as they attempted to flee from their school in the holy city of Mecca. A fire had set the building ablaze. The girls ran to the school gates but these were locked. The keys were in the possession of a male guard, who refused to open the gates because the girls were not wearing the correct Islamic dress imposed on women by Saudi law: face veils and overgarments.

The “indecently” dressed girls frantically tried to save their young lives. The Saudi police beat them back into the burning building. Officers of the Mutaween, the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice,” as the Police are known in Saudi Arabia, also beat passers-by and firemen who tried to help the girls. “It is sinful to approach them,” the policemen warned bystanders. It is not only sinful, it is also a criminal offence.

Girls are not valued highly in Islam; the Koran says that the birth of a daughter makes a father’s “face darken and he is filled with gloom” (sura 43:17). Nevertheless, the incident at the Mecca school drew angry reactions. Islam is inhumane; but Muslims are humans, hence capable of Love – that powerful force which Muhammad despised. Humanity prevailed in the Meccan fathers who were incensed over the deaths of their daughters; it also prevailed in the firemen who confronted the Mutaween when the latter were beating the girls back inside, and in the journalists of the Saudi paper which, for the first time in Saudi history, criticized the much feared and powerful “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.”

However, Muslim protests against Islamic inhumanity are rare. Most Muslims, even in Western countries, visit mosques and listen to shocking Koranic verses and to repulsive sermons without revolting against them.

I am an agnosticus myself. But Christians and Jews hold that God created man in His image. They believe that by observing themselves, as free and rational beings capable of love, they can come to know Him. They can even reason with Him, as the Jews have done throughout their history. The Koran, on the contrary, states that “Nothing can be compared with Allah” (sura 16:74, 42:11). He has absolutely nothing in common with us. It is preposterous to suppose that Allah created man in his image. The biblical concept that God is our father is not found in Islam. There is no personal relationship between man and Allah, either. The purpose of Islam is the total submission of oneself and others to the unknowable Allah, whom we must serve through total obedience to Muhammad as leader of the Islamic state (suras 3:31, 4:80, 24:62, 48:10, 57:28). And history has taught us that Muhammad was not at all a prophet of love and compassion, but a mass murderer, a tyrant and a pedophile. Muslims could not have a more deplorable role model.

Without individual freedom, it is not surprising that the notion of man as a responsible agent is not much developed in Islam. Muslims tend to be very fatalistic. Perhaps – let us certainly hope so – only a few radicals take the Koranic admonition to wage jihad on the unbelievers seriously. Nevertheless, most Muslims never raise their voice against the radicals. This is the “fearful fatalistic apathy” Churchill referred to.

The author Aldous Huxley, who lived in North Africa in the 1920s, made the following observation: “About the immediate causes of things – precisely how they happen – they seem to feel not the slightest interest. Indeed, it is not even admitted that there are such things as immediate causes: God is directly responsible for everything. ‘Do you think it will rain?’ you ask pointing to menacing clouds overhead. ‘If God wills,’ is the answer. You pass the native hospital. ‘Are the doctors good?’ ‘In our country,’ the Arab gravely replies, in the tone of Solomon, ‘we say that doctors are of no avail. If Allah wills that a man die, he will die. If not, he will recover.’ All of which is profoundly true, so true, indeed, that is not worth saying. To the Arab, however, it seems the last word in human wisdom. ... They have relapsed – all except those who are educated according to Western methods – into pre-scientific fatalism, with its attendant incuriosity and apathy.”

Islam deprives Muslims of their freedom. That is a shame, because free people are capable of great things, as history has shown. The Arab, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Indonesian peoples have tremendous potential. It they were not captives of Islam, if they could liberate themselves from the yoke of Islam, if they would cease to take Muhammad as a role model and if they got rid of the evil Koran, they would be able to achieve great things which would benefit not only them but the entire world.

As a Dutch, a European and a Western politician, my responsibility is primarily to the Dutch people, to the Europeans and the West. However, since the liberation of the Muslims from Islam, will benefit all of us, I wholeheartedly support Muslims who love freedom. My message to them is clear: “Fatalism is no option; ‘Inch’ Allah’ is a curse; Submission is a disgrace.

Free yourselves. It is up to you.

Geert Wilders


Sunday, February 13, 2011

The last man (Arun Shourie: The crusader against corruption) Quitting?

Recently former telecom minister Mr. Arun Shourie appeared on a tv show and revealed a lot about the 2G-scam.

The summary of the revelations is as follows:

1. There is an honest officer (name not disclosed owing to security reasons) who knows everything about the scam, and who acted the whistleblower.

2. Arun Shourie informed the PM (Manmohan Singh the Turbaned DF!) in the corridor of Rajya Sabha, showing him the papers and documents. PM took no interest.

3. Arun Shourie informed the then CBI director (Mr Ashwini Kumar), the CBI got all the facts and then stayed put!

4. Arun Shourie told all he knew to the BJP "high-command", and they did nothing to follow it up. He surmised that there are vested interests.

5. AS said that Radia tapes have done a great favour for they have shown how everyone knows everyone else and talks to everyone else.

6. Arun Shourie himself did not pursue the matter since in his own words "There is no doubt that I could reveal it, but I don't have that anger now in me to pursue these things. I'm attending to other matters at home and that's what I'm doing."

7. Congress, and in particular Kapil Sibal, are trying to portray 2G scam as if BJP started it.

What do we understand from all this? This surely is not a very pretty sight, or is it? Congress, BJP and the third (rate) front are all corrupt. All along I have been calling hoarse that SP/BJP are spineless who either have no courage or have other vested interests. And now none other than one of their own insiders has revealed the truth of the matter.

India is being ruled by a bunch of traitors. And the opposition parties are their bed-fellows. Thus we have the three monkeys:

a. Congress: The eternal subverter, and anti-national.

b. BJP: A bag of spineless loud mouths who pursue vested interests claiming themselves to be nationalists.


c. The Third Front: The thirdest rate front!

And the saddest part of it is that the person who has always been a crusader against corruption, Mr. Shourie (Recall his contributions in removing AR Antuley from office way back, his role during the other such crucial investigations), himself seems to be giving up!

Mr. Shourie, you are one of the last men who are standing, how could you too give up? And even if you want to take a retirement, do not retire before building an army of young Arun Shouries who will continue the crusade, and you must mentor them to make them as bright as, if not even better, than what you are.


And I stand corrected. Just a few moments after I posted this write-up I came across this statement by Mr. Shourie. Shourie wrote: "... And it also so happens that I am an adorer of Sardar Patel as of the Lokmanya, and a worshipper of Gandhiji. ...".

And a person who respects truth can scarcely be a worshiper of Gandhi. A worshiper of Mohandas is at best an ignoramus, and at worst a dark evil. A person of the name Arun Shourie ought to be much much better.

It is always somebody else's fault!

Another of India's buffoons, SM Krishna, currently goofing as the minister of external affairs, read out from a speech meant to be read by the Portugese foreign minister.

There are many notable things:

1. SM Krishna is completely unabashed about this.

2. The officers in MEA are "downplaying" the incident.

3. A congress-man demands Krishna's resignation.

4. BJP spokes-person Nirmala Sitharaman says: "... it has "embarrassed" India at an international forum and that the level of incompetence has reached its (sic) 'optimum'".

The whole scene is so pathetic and it is clear that they are all taking the citizens for a huge ride! Now this shows various facts about the "leading elites" (The Politicians, The Bureaucrats, The officialdom) of India.

1. They are absolutely callous and careless about all matters that they are supposed to handle professionally. They commit mistakes and blunders with arrogance and an air of impunity.

2. They always say that it must be somebody else's fault, or that the "mistake" is small.

Do you recall the Jawahar fiasco, while the clown-self-assumed-king Jawahar, post 1962 war with China in which India lost, claimed that "not even a blade of grass grew there", referring to the conceded territory. And the fawning Congressmen shouted from roof-tops that Punditji's (Jawahar's) hands were to be strengthened at the time of crisis.

A very important conclusion that one can draw is that:

There is a prevailing sentiment in the country that "You Can do anything, and get away with it", while the rest of the "masses" think that "nothing can be done".

Sadly, and surely, one of the dire consequences of this state of affairs is that before long we could be in a bloody civil war!

The problem is an immense problem, and the central question is: what can we do about it? Before we discuss what we can do about it, it is important to understand things that most certainly won't work:

1. Not casting votes: This is a very stupid argument which often otherwise seemingly sane people use claiming that they don't have any good choice so they do not vote for anyone.

2. Mere complaining and whining: That's like a cry-baby. We can be cry-baby, but then who will solve the problem? Some outsider? You got one outsider, Ms Sonia, and look what she has done!

3. Saying we are totally helpless: This is despair. We may not be able to do ALL, but we can surely do "something". We need to possess and begin with such a faith.

4. God will take care of it: This is utter mindlessness. Why do people "earn" a livelihood? Why not leave that too to God? And if you do not leave to God the task of earning a livelihood, why this "fake" surrender when it comes to honoring a socio-civilizational-national responsibility? The reason is not that there is true surrender or genuine dependence on God, the reason is that they are seeking an easy way out so that they can "relax". But remember that this "relaxing" will prove to be very very expensive.

So what could possibly work?

Let's approach it step by step. Where lies the problem? At the level of leadership, right? What does that mean? That there are no good leaders. So what is the solution? That we must produce from among ourselves good leaders. And how can we do it? By encouraging those who are good leaders, and rejecting those who are fakes. How do we find out? We may not be perfect in our discrimination, but we can still have a few working guidelines.

1. A leader must lead by example. And the leader can not repeat mistakes, and can not commit many mistakes.

2. No one should be able to get a higher responsibility without exhibiting competence at some lower level of responsibility.

3. A leader has to publicly commit his position and also accept the responsibility of its consequences.

4. A leader can not tell a lie, however trifling. One lie, and he/she must be out! And out meaning? Rejected by the people! Don't wait for the supreme court to act! You are the Supreme-most Court!

These are just a few and there could be many more, and we need to work on this list!

Further, if we examine, we have faltered on each of the above time and again. For example, despite imposing emergency, how could Indira Gandhi get elected? Without having any tangible results to show, how can Rahul G be "projected" as the next PM candidate? And the plight does not stop with Congress alone. All parties share the guilt. How can Lalu be re-elected after stealing thousands or crores in fodder-scam?

Don't complain that such people should NOT be allowed to contest. At the moment, even if you want a change in electoral laws, you need a leader! So we need to break this vicious circle of no good laws until good leaders, and no good leaders until good laws! Don't bother, elect someone, not someone shown to be corrupt. And what if there is none who is not corrupt? Then it is the responsibility of those citizens who are not corrupt, to contest elections. If we have NO citizens amongst us who are NOT corrupt, then what is the whole problem all about? Don't we, in a nation of more than one billion people, have 2000 non-corrupt individuals who are willing to contest a member-of-parliament-election? If we are so bad, then we all need to commit mass-suicide. There is NO HOPE. But the fact is, we ARE NOT that bad. Give encouragement and support to those who are not corrupt.

The least of it is that SM Krishna, and Nirmala Sitharaman must be thrown out of their present jobs. Krishna for obvious reasons, and Nirmala for calling it "optimal"!