"Religion of Non-Violence" vs "Religion of Peace"

Have you been following the developments in Myanmar (formerly Burma) as much as you do the events in Assam? If not, we recommend you do. Muslims from Bangladesh etc. immigrate into India and Muslims from Bangladesh and Thailand immigrate into Myanmar. While Indian Leaders are always bending over backwards to Muslim sensitivities; their Burmese counterparts, notwithstanding their religious allegiance to "Non-violence" are treating the members of "Religion of Peace" the way they need to be treated, as the other and as aggressors.

Myanmar, all our proud Leftist would know, was ruled by military junta and has recently turned into an Electoral Democracy. Our proud Seculars will note that Myanmar's majority population is Buddhist. Suu Kyi is the force behind Democracy and Human Rights in Myanmar. Now what happens when Buddhism, the Religion of Non-Violence and Islam, the Religion of Peace meet? Blood, mayhem and civil strife!

If you search Google News for Myanmar and Rohingya for past month you get this and this. We recommend our readers to peruse casually among the list and understand the situation.

The epitome of democracy in Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi is being accused of indifference. The epitome of "World Peace" OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) want her to help Rohingya Muslims. Peaceful Citizens from the Holy Land of Islam, Pakistan, yes you guessed it right, the Taliban have threatened Burma. You must understand that this is a "peaceful" threat. International Leftists are shouting at roof tops against the injustice. But the Burmese Leaders insist that Rohingyan are not their citizens.

Why do our "intellectuals" answer when faced with an innocent question like: Why is it that wherever there is large scale violence, usually Muslim populations are involved? They quickly answer: Because All over the World the Muslims are discriminated against for being "Peaceful". When "human rights" of members of "Religion of Peace" are violated, they stage a small protest. Don't they have a right to even protest? These moronish intellectuals completely obfuscate the point that the mere existence anywhere of a non-Muslim is a human-right violation of a Muslim! They ignore the fact that the UN Human Right standards are violated by the dictats of Islam. For starters, Islam advocates death penalty for apostacy while the Human Rights Charter grants "Freedom of Religion", thus the two are inherently incompatible.

The Burmese know that they need to defend themselves, and they do not mind violating the principle of Non-violence taught by the Buddha. However, our "pussy-intellectuals" want us to honor the Mohandasian non-violence even at the risk of Civilizational Suicide! Of course, you must ask where these intellectuals live? Do they live in Muslim dominated localities with having to suffer 5 times braying everyday, or do they live in posh silent localities protected by the lives and blood of Hindu Security Personnel? The answer is obvious. This is exactly what V. S. Naipaul told the pussy-intellectual Dilip Padgaonkar (see here):

Naipaul: ...What is happening in India is a mighty creative process. Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on, especially if these intellectuals happen to be in the United States. But every other Indian knows precisely what is happening: deep down he knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening. 

However, we are aware of one of the more cynical forms of liberalism: it admits that one fundamentalism is all right in the world. This is the fundamentalism they are really frightened of: Islamic fundamentalism. Its source is Arab money. It is not intellectually to be taken seriously etc. I don't see the Hindu reaction purely in terms of one fundamentalism pitted against another. The reaction is a much larger response... Mohamedan fundamentalism is essentially negative, a protection against a world it desperately wishes to join. It is a last ditch fight against the world. ...

Also

Padgaonkar: My colleague, the cartoonist, Mr R K Laxman, and I recently travelled thousands of miles in Maharashtra. In many places we found that noses and breasts had been chopped off from the statues of female deities. Quite evidently this was a sign of conquest. The Hindutva forces point to this too to stir up emotions. The problem is: how do you prevent these stirred-up emotions from spilling over and creating fresh tensions?

Naipaul: I understand. But it is not enough to abuse them or to use that fashionable word from Europe: fascism. There is a big, historical development going on in India. Wise men should understand it and ensure that it does not remain in the hands of fanatics. Rather they should use it for the intellectual transformation of India.

This Hindu reawakening, which is on going, is to be whole-heartedly supported. Subramanian Swamy's idea of disenfranchising those Muslims who refuse to admit Hindu-ancestry and Modi's idea of Development are merely preliminary stepping stones. We must consider them, admire them, and possibly even implement them. However, we must not stop with them, we need to go further, without fear and without guilt, and work towards Sanatana Bharat.

Gutter Mouth DogVijay Singh Speaks on Communalism, Ignores State Incompetence!

What, in your expectation, will come out of the gutter? Fecal matter, you'd reply at once. So it is. The DogVijay Singh has opened his gutter mouth and ejected the same stuff again. This time accusing the BJP of communalizing Assam Violence (see here and here). The turd-between-the-ears preceptor of Congress's blue-gene prince forgets conveniently that it is people of his ilk who have given "inverse communal color" to Gujarat's anti-Hindu police action in 2002. Recall that about 250 Hindus died in police action. The dead were among the people who were protesting peacefully against the monsters who had torched sleeping travelers of Sabarmati Express wherein the travellers included significant numbers of senior citizens, women and children. Anti-Hindu parties have termed even a peaceful protest against such blatant anti-Hindu violence as pogrom against the minorities! Such is the poison of Secularism.

The people who, since the time of their ancestors whose illegitimate intellectual progeny they are, have been worried about Fascism and Nazism while callously, conveniently and completely ignoring the massacre of about 80,000,000 Hindus and equally large number of rape-victims among Hindus by the practitioners of "religion-of-peace" Islam. Not to forget the Goan inquisitions and Churchian atrocities on the Hindus. And, dear readers, we need to remember that the onslaught is ongoing with anti-Hindu state and media support.

The problem of illegal immigrants in Assam has been known for a long time. The whole movement of Akhil Assam Gana Sangram Parishad had started on this plank, and DogVijay's Don, the father of DogVijay's hallowed student, had signed an accord with them. Immigration is a problem, and illegal immigration is a bigger problem. 

On one hand, atrocities on Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh makes them flee their countries and seek refuge in India in exactly the same manner as Hindus from the Indian-state of Kashmir are forced to seek refuge in their own mother nation. The followers of religion of peace are indulging in ethno-religious cleansing of their countries. The gutter-mouth and his ilk are too scared to talk on those issues, calling this rabid fear their "sensitivity" for minority sentiment.

On the other hand, Muslim-immigrants, legal as well as illegal, from Pakistan as well as from Bangladesh, are entering India only to wage a Jihad against one of the oldest, if not the oldest, religions in the world. And lo and behold, even a token resistance against this Islamic expansion is being termed as an attack on "Secularism" and being called "Communalization of the issue"!

The central question to ask is: What does the State exist for, if not at the very least, to protect its citizens againt foreign invasion? If DogVijay's heart bleeds so much for the Muslim refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh, then why does he not spend a fraction of his own money and spend it on charities in those countries from where the Muslims are emigrating? And we emphasize the term "his own money" which we are sure is minscule. Most of his wealth, that he otherwise claims to own, is only the shadow of the ill gotten money that he and his illegitimate siblings have stashed in foreign banks.

We repeat: What does the State exist for, if not at the very least, to protect againt foreign invasion? 

Is Mao secessionism OK because it is in a BJP ruled state? Binayak Sen would comfort his behind on a membership of the National Advisory Committee, a committee which comprises of the strange bedfellows of the UPA chair-person. Is Kashmir secessionsim OK because it is being done by Muslims? Arundhati Roy, the spokesperson of the separatists, will be mollycoddled. Was Bhindrenwale OK because he was in an Akali Dal ruled state? And then did he turn into a "terrorist" because he turned against Indira Gandhi? Was Bodo agitation OK till it was against Akhil Akham Gana Sangram Parishad government? Has it become Evil now because it is in a Congress ruled state? 

Mr. DogVijay Singh, and you politicians of the Evil ilk, must understand that when the State fails to protect the rights of its citizens, it loses its legitimacy. You can not run a government as corrupt as your Manmohan Singh is running - Manmohan Singh who is a self-appointed-epitome-of-cleanliness while in actuality he is a leader of the pack of one of the most Evil and Corrupt government in India (second possibly only to Jawahar's government) - and yet accuse people of sedition if they protest. You can not call a Kejriwal a separatist for his suggestion that people should refuse to pay taxes. Kejriwal is infected with the poison of Secularism and that is bad enough, but you will never fault him on that, for you are infected with the same poison. You would not notice the "communalism" of the news that "Muslim MP's across all political parties combine to protest againt the 'Assam violence'". You and your ilk never combined together to protest againt the burning of the coaches of the Sabarmati Express, never staged a protest againt the killing of 250 Hindus by the Gujarat police. And of course you would call it Jawaharian ideal of Secularism.

Mr. DogVijay Singh, you and your ilk deserve on your heads loads and loads of what you have between your ears, namely undiluted poisonous fecal matter. And that would only be a trailor of the beginning of the trailor of the full movie to come. Ishwara that you do not believe in won't protect you and the Allah that you believe in can't protect you.

Karnataka BJP in Crisis Again? No. It was never out of Crisis!

The trouble is not that Pranab Murkhaji has become the president elect. The trouble is not even that there was cross voting in BJP, after all BJP's allies openly defied the NDA guideline. Further, when P.A. Sangama was seeking "conscience vote" he should have considered the possibility that he might lose "conscience vote". Then what is the matter? The story in brief:

Ananthkumar (the snake under whose shadow Karnataka BJP has become a Devdasi), the manipulator, has been trying to puppetteer the state government. He can hardly win the state elections on his own, but he likes to "control" all that moves in the state. Well, to be fair to him, he may in turn be manipulated by the BJP-high-command!

Sometime in 2008-09, BSY was about to be sacrificed (like the giant Kalyan Singh was sacrificed for Hajpeyi's frothing-at-the-mouth-againt-Manuwadis sister Mayawati) for the bigamous Kumaraswamy. We suspect that was an insider job. However after HDK deceived BSY, the assembly was dissolved and the people of Karnataka (or do we say Lingayats of Karnataka) gave a comfortable majority to the BJP.

As an aside, albeit it is true that BSY has support of, possibly, only Lingayats; this should be no surprise. Not even, Jawahar, whose false glory is sung time and again by his backside comforters, had a uniform and homogenous support across all "vote banks"! The biggest stalwarts in Indian politics thrive on support of their small yet chosen vote-banks, usually Muslims, and then Yadavs, Dalits and so on. So no point in grudging BSY his vote-bank. But possibly, Anantkumar grudges that! And there begins the inside job, or the subterfuge!

BSY was made to resign for maintaining the "clean image" of the BJP. Then, Sadananda Gowda cheated BSY.  BSY, in his turn, exhibited adoloscent courage and womanly cowardice. He paraded his supporters to dislodge S. Gowda, and then started singing glories of Sonia . He was alleged to be contemplating splitting the BJP but then had no gall. Then, he started a rebellion, demanding Gowda's ouster. During the interregnum BSY also dabbled in praising Modi.

Unfortunately B S Yeddiurappa has come a full circle. Recall the cry-baby Yeddy of yore. We think, finally when he saw the toothless BJP surrendering abjectly to JD(U) and ShivSena, he decided to wedge his sword in to the wound. However, Yeddy must show manliness not cowardice.

The problem or the issue is not of dissent, the issue is of back-stabbing. Hindus have been unnecessarily tolerant of back-stabbers. Had BSY declared that a few of the MLA's will vote for Pranab at his behest, that would have been something else. There is also a possibility that Sadananda Gowda engineered a cross voting to malign BSY. If BJP can not find out who did the cross voting and can not throw them out, Similarly, if BJP can not be stern with its allies, especially the anti-Modi JD(U), then the BJP in its present form has to be summarily rejected. Let it join the cabal of rank anti-Hindu parties. 

This further establishes the need for a vertical split within the BJP, into those who are not anti-Modi and those who are anti-Modi, viz. those who are strongly anti-Hindu and those who are only mildly anti-Hindu. If the RSS has even a pea-sized brain, it must keep a list of 1000 fresh candidates ready. A list of those who will contest the next LokSabha elections on a Hindu platform. In the current political scenario, if RSS is even dreaming of a milder form of anti-Hindu alliance (pro-Hindu, or even a Hindu-neutral alliance seems too far fetched), it must mercilessly eject ambivalent and truly-Secular candidates. The Hindus need a new political party with a clear Hindu attitude.

In the mean while, political careers of a lot of people, especially the back-stabbers, need to be destroyed, at the very least they must be shown the door. If the RSS wants to avoid the NDA contesting the next general elections under JD(U) leadership, it needs to start an internal cleansing drive right now.

The problem of "Mad Chase for GDP Growth" can not be addressed by Snipe Hunt.

Usually we focus on political problems afflicting the Hindus. Recently it has become a fashion to sermonize on Development. Especially terms like Inclusive Growth are increasingly used to affect pretentious cloaks of Sagacious Wisdom. Thus, for a change, we take a small detour and tread on the subject of National Growth.

While Jawaharian ideals wrecked political havoc on the Hindus, their bastard children set the cat among the pigeons in their economic affairs. There is no dearth of "wise men" who pontificate on the ills afflicting the economy while their prescriptions for solutions rely on the magic of proverbial alchemy. In a recent article, Mad chase for GDP growth has been critically questioned. However, the article fails to point out fundamental lacunae in the solution strategies. Therefore the article goes on to suggest a rehash of old medicine in terms of replacing the "Old Plan" with a "New Plan". This is, in our opinion, the proverbial Snipe Hunt.

Six decades of Jawaharian propaganda has inculcated the false mantra of "Government must do something about it" as solution for all problems. The poor as well as the rich industrialists rely on subsidies/tax cuts. India has not liberalized its economy. It has converted Socialism into Crony Capitalism. The flawed thinking, euphemistically known as "Planned Economy", must be comprehensively rejected.

Chronic problems require radical solutions. Chronic problems engendered owing to long application of wrong ideas can only be cured by sustained application of better and right ideas. Planned Growth (whether GDP or otherwise) and Egalitarian Spread of Growth are both False Goals. The correct ideas are inter alia: Freedom and Responsible Behavior, and a summary Rejection of  "protection" and "subsidies". Protection and Subsidies must be available for none; neither for the rich nor for the poor! Keynes said "In the long run we are all dead"; and his remedies inflicted even more suffering than they sought to alleviate. The effect has been:"In the long run we all (well except Government cronies) suffer".

As long as "Central Planning" is worshipped as a god to be propitiated for economic prosperity, As long as unethical practices like "wealth redistribution" from the working population to the ultra rich (Crony Capitalism) and poor (Socialism) through misguided ideologies of "Panning for Growth" and "Affirmative Action" are practiced, As long as "Equality of Result" is desired in the name of "Equality of Opportunity", As long as Egalitarianism in held as an ideal, As long as fair discrimination based on Competence is vilified, As long as belief in "Free Lunch" is perpetuated in various guises, As long as mandating of Responsible Behavior is vilified as "Bourgeoisie Exploitation", The solution to any of the problems mentioned in the said article can never even be attempted.

In terms of economics, the Government should do what it does the best, Nothing! We must wake up to the fact that the Government almost always has the anti-Midas touch; whatever the Government touches turns into turd, and you can't polish turd! People do not need to be saved by the Government, they need to be saved from the Government! Give the people Freedom and they will solve their problems. They may take a little while to wake up from delusional hopes in Jawaharian solutions, but wake up they will, as wake up they must.

Narendra Modi's ignorance ... on Mohandas

The more we notice the rampant, callous and dangerous ignorance in our politicians, the more we feel compelled to repeat our clarion call to the Hindus. While murderously anti-Hindu Secularist and evil farthest-left Socialist politicians never tire of screaming the patent falsehood that Modi is "extreme-right-wing" "Hindutwa-vadi"; we are deeply worried about Modi's increasing anti-Hindu pro-Mohandas leanings. We not only suspect his "right-wing-ness" (Crony-Capitalism is NOT right-wing), we have also questioned his pro-Hindu-ness. Recall that he has not apologized for the 250 Hindus killed by the Gujarat Police.

Many self annointed Hindutva-vadis already exist in the obscenely large number of Mohandasian-Jawaharian anti-Hindus. Starting with the wind-bag Hajpeyi to the latest additions of Keshubhai and Sanjay Joshi.

Keshubhai is betraying senility by worrying about Modi's autocratic reign of fear. Keshubhai seems to prefer Islamic reign of terror and fear, a la Mumbai 26/11. If this is not senility, we do not know what is.

Does Keshubhai have the guts or even merely the clarity, to say that Modi has been unable to evoke sufficient terror and fear in the hearts of Islamic Terrorists?

Sanjay Joshi is orchestrating his supporters, notwithstanding his own hypocritical and false denials, to publish posters in his own favor and against Modi. Funnily, most posters read "Tute man se koi bada nahin hota ... Kaho Dil Se Sanjay Joshi Phir Se", meaning "None becomes greater by breaking hearts, Say with heart we want Sanjay Joshi again". Sanjay Joshi and his morons have forgotten that a similar attempt to keep the "heart" united led to a Bloody Massacre during Partition of India. The land mass with India did NOT increase with that partition. Despite losing that land mass, we gained no peace. And this moron Sanjay Joshi wants to embrace the same Islam-appeasing Secularism.
 

Does Sanjay Joshi have the clarity or even merely the heart to say that he did not mind his heart being broken so long as India, as the land for Hindus, remained unbroken?

Have Keshubhai or Sanjay Joshi, notwithstanding their RSS association, ever said that however much they might oppose Modi they oppose Mohandas, Jawahar, Secularism even more? Have they ever said that their allegiance is to Hindus and their opposition to Modi is under a Hindu umbrella. And we emphasize: "Hindu" umbrella, and not the Namby Pamby Hindutva of truly-Secular morons. 

Mark our words, such platitude rattlers are shameless and ruthless power seekers who - never mind how "simple" they are in their clothings and visible life-styles - will compromise Hindu interests for their personal survival. Yes, being RSS pracharaks they may have some goodness in their hearts, but their heads, especially as far as Hindu-interests are concerned, are completely empty, nay poison-filled!

So much so for the suckers, but what does the alleged "terror-inspiring extreme-right-wing Hindutwa-vadi" do? He credits Gujarat's success to Mohandasian model (see here)! 

Worse still he thunders:  

The change in Gujarat happened because every Gujarati feels that he is part of the development process. The freedom struggle existed even before Gandhi. But it was Gandhi who made it a mass movement and made every individual aware of his role in the freedom struggle. He made even simple actions like weaving, sweeping and boycott of foreign clothes relevant to freedom struggle. Similarly Gujarat's success lies in public participation," said Modi.

Mr. Narendra Modi, you must read the following carefully! 

Mohandas DID NOT make freedom struggle a mass movement, rather he was foisted upon the mass movement by clever British Public Relation Machinery to strengthen the counter-revolution called Congress.

If Modi does not realize that then he must be like those Gujju regionalism afflicted who think that Morarji Desai, the man who undermined India's nuclear program and intelligence services RAW, was a great PM. Such a Modi can never incite fear in the opponents of Hindus, rather he is well on his way to compromise Hindu-interests.

Mr. Modi, learn at the very least from Ramdas and certainly  not from Mohandas! If you do not know enough Hinduism, know at least this much of Islam. Know that Islam seeks to exterminate non-Islam and wants to bring the whole world under Islamic rule. We do not know if even Ramdas appreciated that but Modandas certainly did not, nay he callously ignored it. If you do not understand this simple reality then you too are one of those cuckoo-brained demagogues who advocate mass suicide to Hindus.

Dear readers, do you appreciate why we repeatedly and untiringly emphasize (see here and here) that Modi is NOT pro-Hindu. The only saving grace for him is that he is the least anti-Hindu among the present lot (rot?) of politicians. We wish him well, but he too needs to be beware and improve! However, a Hindu political resurgence (see here) and vertical split in Indian political theater (see here) are the need of the hour.

The One Good Thing That Pratibha Patil Did: She was Opposed!

Pratibha Patil has not been spared of her quota of controversies. She will be rated as one of the worst Presidents India has had until now. Nonetheless, we must give even the Devil its due. We do not think that she would be remembered for anything other than being the first woman President of India. However, we think that she should rather be remembered for something that is more memorable than that. Thus, for our readers, we recall a good deed done by her, except that she did it not as a President but as a Presidential candidate.

In a function which she attended, the following was reported:

Patil was in Udaipur to attend a function held to mark the 467th birth anniversary of Maharana Pratap. When addressing the gathering, she said: "Maharana Pratap always ensured that women had a status in society. Women have always been respected in the Indian culture. The purdah system was introduced to protect them from the Muslim invaders. However, times have changed. India is now independent and hence, the systems should also change."

We would like to remind that when she referred to "Indian Culture", she meant "Hindu Culture". This becomes obvious since in the subsequent sentence she spoke about the cause as "protection from Muslim Invaders". Had Shiv Sena, we mean the fake Shiv Sena - The original Sena of Shivaji relied on the wisdom of Samarth Ramdas while this fake Shiv Sena relies on the victim-hood of Marathi Manoos - declared that they supported Pratibha Patil's candidature because she spoke this bold truth, it would have been somewhat respectable. However, they discredited themselves because they supported her because she was a Marathi! Recall that they opposed corruption charges against Sharad Pawar for Pawar is from Maharashtra. And now, they are betraying their tomfoolery by going the Pranab way!

While the "Men" politicians should have taken an inspiration from this, they unanimously decided to go the Mohandas way. The likes of Mulayam were too quick to jump into the bandwagon of demanding apologies. Romila Thaparian historians (Romila Thapar being the illegitimate intellectual bastard child of Jawahar) shouted that practices demeaning women existed long before the invaders came. Aren't there any decent unbiased historians who tell the truth, or at least tell us what they know rather than what they believe? 

It is high time that our "men" are tutored by women like Wafa Sultan. Nevertheless, let us congratulate Pratibha Patil for saying once what should be repeated time and time again. And let us not pardon those politicians who gagged the voice of a woman who was to become the President and who was speaking the bold truth. Why this woman never opened her mouth again on the same topic is left to anybody's guess! She will go a long way in expiating herself if after her retirement she tells the bold truth again.

Jinnah and Jawahar: Islamic-Pakistan a Failed State; Secular-India becoming One?

The names Jinnah and Jawahar tend to evoke strong responses. Pakistanis/Muslims love him and hate Jawahar; while Indians/Hindus are told to adore Jawahar and hate Jinnah. In our opinion, both were anti-Hindus; Jinnah inasmuch as he was pro-Muslims and Jawahar was directly anti-Hindu.

Jinnah and Jawahar were both ambitious and their ambitions were in conflict (both wanted to be the PM of undivided India). Mohandas played the spoil sport for Jinnah by siding with Jawahar. Jawahar, despite being anti-Hindu could project himself as an heir to Mohandas because he had a Hindu name and Mohandas was pretentiously projecting himself as a Hindu Saint.

Jinnah who had for sometime given up on his political ambitions returned with a new idea. Jinnah decided - he possibly had no other option - to pursue the Muslim-identity path. We also note that when Jinnah sought a division of the "property", he most probably thought (if we give him generous amount of benefit of the doubt): "I will lead my portion, let Jawahar lead the other portion, and I will ensure that my portion performs better than Jawahar's portion". Be that as it may, he took Allama Iqbal as his Mohandas equivalent. A religion-based two-nation theory took shape.


The Two-nation theory was based on the idea that Hindus and Muslims can not live together and Muslims will never get justice in a Hindu majority India. We need to understand this theory in a broader setting. Firstly we need to underline that Islam can not co-exist peacefully with non-Islam. This establishes that Hindus and Muslims can not live together. Secondly, for a Muslim (for Islam), the mere existence of a non-Muslim anywhere is an injustice to Islam! Thus, in the eyes of a Muslim, so long as there is any non-Muslim living anywhere there is injustice being done to Islam. Thus, this precipitates in the doctrine of eternal conflict between Islam and non-Islam. The notions of Dar-al-Harb and Dar-al-Islam have been well documented. The dream of Islam is to bring the whole world under the rule of Islam. 



Thus Jinnah, who although for his own selfish reasons propounded the two-nation theory, did a great service to Hindus by demanding a separation between Muslims and Hindus.  Mohandas and such fools, on the other hand, opposed this two-nation theory. However, being dumb-fucks, they opposed the theory on the supposition that peaceful coexistence between Islam and non-Islam was possible, not realizing that this was impossible.



Another interesting albeit debatable fact is that while Jinnah emphasized the two-nation theory, which was based on religious grounds, he  allegedly wanted Pakistan to be a Secular Democracy. This was utter stupidity or despicable hypocrisy or both. For Islam and Secular Democracy is a contradiction! Also, Iqbal is alleged to have retracted his support for a separate nation, however that is irrelevant to the discussion here. Both Jinnah and Jawahar were dumb-fucks who fed themselves with the political ideas from the west (therefore the fascination with Secularism and Socialism). They had no appreciation or understanding of their traditional home, Sanatana Dharma. And despite leading aristocratic lives themselves, always preached Socialism. Anyway, while Iqbal was pro-Islam, Mohandas was a big hypocrite and anti-Hindu.  Further owing to the "mentors", viz., Iqbal and Mohandas, while Pakistan (Jinnah's portion) became Islamic, India (Jawahar's portion) became "Secular" (read anti-Hindu). 

In the end, despite the drama of Secularism, on the basis of religion-based two-nation theory, Jinnah got Pakistan, which was full of Muslims, and thus Pakistan became Islamic. On the other hand, Jawahar got Hindus (mostly) with him and he thrust "Secularism" down their throat. Jinnah's Pakistan failed not because Jinnah was a fool, but because Islam was doomed to fail. And India has survived until now not because of Secularism, rather despite Indian Secularism and its inherent anti-Hindu nature. This good fortune has been possible because Hinduism has immense internal strength. 

Let us conduct a few thought experiments. Assume for the moment that Jinnah was a Hindu and became PM of Hindus and Jawahar was a Muslim and became PM of the Muslims. Had that happened, Pakistan would have collapsed within 5-10 years; and India would possibly be in not much different a state. Similarly, if we assume for the sake of argument that Jinnah was a Christian and propped up two-nation theory with Christians in place of Muslims, he would have got Christistan. This Christistan would have been much better than Pakistan, simply because Christianity, in many respects especially after reforming itself, is much better compared to Islam.

So, in our opinion, Jinnah was right in his adherence to the two-nation theory although his reasons were wrong. He projected as if Muslims would never get justice in a non-Muslim state, while the fact of the matter is that non-Muslims never get even a semblance of justice in a Muslim state. And this indeed happened and is happening to those unlucky non-Muslims who stay in Pakistan. In that sense, the separation which happened between Muslims and Hindus (non-Muslims) in 1947 was a good thing. The bad part was that owing to Mohandas and Jawahar, this separation did not happen comprehensively. We have written about this here.

Thus, the dumb-fuckery of Advani and Jaswant Singh lies not just in praising Jinnah, but rather in praising Jinnah for the wrong reasons. Jinnah might have been more competent than Jawahar and yet the nation he founded failed within decades of its birth because it was based on Islam and consisted of Muslims! Jinnah might have wanted to save Muslims from Islam through Secularism (like the Christian nations saved themselves from the Church through Secularism), however he failed in that effort. Jawahar on the other hand wanted to destroy Hindus in the name of Secularism. Jawahar, being inferior in intellect, failed to recognize that while people needed to be saved from Islam and Christianity through the use of Secularism; Hindus needed to be saved from Secularism!

Thus we must understand the following:

1. Both Jinnah and Jawahar were competing for the coveted post of PM.

2. Mohandas was the evil manipulator who projected himself as a Hindu-saint and sided with Jawahar in the battle of ambitions between Jinnah and Jawahar.

3. In his counter-move Jinnah based his case on the two-nation theory, which was right though for reasons contrary to those which were cited. He used Allama Iqbal as his Mohandas-equivalent.

4. Jinnah may have been a better human being as well as more intelligent compared to Jawahar - Remember that it is hardly difficult to be a better human being and more intelligent compared to an evil moron like Jawahar - However he had to bear the burden of his constituency, that is, of Muslims.

5. We would hardly ever know what would have happened had Mohandas not sided with anyone. 

6. Pakistan failed not because of Jinnah but because Pakistan was founded on Islam and consisted of Muslims who wanted to establish an Islamic State.

7. India is surviving not because of Jawahar and Secularism, rather India is surviving in spite of Jawahar and Secularism. Jawahar was an evil dumb fuck who benefited from inheriting a Hindu majority nation. India is surviving because of its majority Hindu population. However, we should not take survival for granted.

8. Secularism may be used to save people from Islam and Christianity, for Secularism is better than Islam and Christianity, however Secularism is worse than Hinduism and is dangerous to Hinduism.

9. Hindus need to be saved from Mohandasian non-violence and Jawaharian Secularism. Please note that Secularism itself is bad, but Jawaharian Secularism is infinitely worse.

10. Most importantly we must not over look that India has not failed until now only because of Hinduism. However, the more we become Secular the closer we get to Failure.

Thus even while we perceive impending disintegration and failure of Pakistan, we should not be foolish to ignore the dangers of India's failure that looms large over us. Pakistan may have failed more than 75% already, however, India too has failed about more than 40%. We Hindus need to girdle up our loins and fight against Mohandasian non-violence, Jawaharian Secularism and Socialism. We have proposed outlines of such plans earlier here, here, here and here.

Also, both Jinnah and Jawahar were anti-Hindus. While Jinnah worked for Muslims, Jawahar set in motion his heinous agendas which continue to screw the Hindus. Any effort to save Hindus, therefore, must begin with a comprehensive rejection of Mohandasian non-violence as well as Secularism (even more so Jawaharian Secularism).

Any Islamic Nation, specifically Pakistan, can not even be a Worthy Enemy, leave alone a Friend.

Our dumb-fuck politicians under "guidance" from their "clever" masters keep attempting "friendship" with Pakistan. It is not even a pipe dream! It is a poisonously suicidal venture.

India's foreign policy, if at all it can ever be called a policy, has always been delusional. Under the specter of Mohandas and Jawahar we pursued "Non-violence" and "Non-alignment" which were nothing but "Violence inflicted on oneself" and "Socialism" respectively. Further, this only meant compromising Hindu-interests. On reaching the verge of bankruptcy, we flipped from Socialism to Crony-Capitalism.

Hindus have avoided uncalled for aggression over eons and need no sermons on non-violence. Hindus, therefore, must reserve the rights to pre-emptive aggression. While we need the right for pre-emptive strike, what do our politicians indulge in? Policies like No-First-Use! With the kind of nukes Pakistan has, will India be even in a position to strike after it has been struck? More delusions!

Before we try to befriend Pakistan, we must understand Pakistan. And before we understand Pakistan, we need to understand Islam! Islam is a poisonously dangerous ideology as far as non-Muslims are concerned. Hindus, in the view of Islam, are idol-worshipping polytheists. Islam commands its followers to kill or convert such peoples. And Islam commands to use any means whatsoever, fair or foul, aggression or deception, to achieve this goal. The doctrines of Taqqiyya are well known and have been applied by Islamic people time and again throughout their history.

Islam considers all religions other than itself as illegitimate (read not worthy of existence and therefore must be destroyed). Thus, it advocates death penalty for apostasy (leaving Islam). Hence, not only can there be no "freedom of religion" in Islam; that besides all other religions are considered to be illegitimate (to be destroyed by any means fair or foul). Against Islam, non-violence is no strategy or policy! It is merely another word for meek surrender, and the resultant suicide.

Such is the case for a run of the mill Islamic nation. The cases of Pakistan and Bangladesh are worse. Pakis and B'deshis, like most others, are progeny of those ancestors who converted under grave duress as a result of violent tortures and rape. However, the compounding problem is that these fools take pride in claiming to be descendants of mass-murderers and rapists! Thus a typical Pakistani Muslim imagines himself to be of Arab blood, while the whole of middle east considers him to be trash! There are a few Pakistanis who are trying to educate Pakistanis about this, however they are still deluded about the nature of Islam (for example Tarek Fatah). So while their criticisms of two-nation theory, Arab descent, and such hideous concepts must be appreciated, their willful ignorance regarding the nature of Islam must remind us to exercise utmost caution in trusting what they propose.

Of course, a politician with even an iota of common sense won't need such comprehensive explanations. The behavior of both Pakistan and Bangladesh towards India and Hindus has been despicable to say the least. Unfortunately our "great" politicians, barring possibly few exceptions, don't have even such an iota of common sense! Thus there is a great drive among Indian politicians to have "friendship" with Pakistan and Bangladesh. Mohandas tried befriending Islam and failed. Jawahar tried befriending Pakistan and failed. Indira Gandhi thought Bangladesh would be a "friend", and she failed. Gujral tried his doctrine (unilateral backside offering!) and failed. The Hindutva "hero" Hajpeyi tried and failed. The only minor exception was, surprisingly, P V Narasimha Rao who declared from the Red Fort that the only task remaining was to regain the PoK! For how long are we going to try the same thing over and over again?

Pakistan and Bangladesh must clearly be told that they must first learn to be a worthy and decent enemy. At the moment, even the Chinese aren't that. India has to junk its false sense of "I-am-the-responsible-neighbor" attitude and realize that as a nation it first has to become responsible for the safety and security of its own citizens! The present lot of anti-Hindu appeaser politicians will never realize this. Hindus will need to force these politicians to become sensitive to the sensibilities of the Hindus. Or better still, they must outrightly reject all such anti-Hindu politicians and elect (become) Hindu-sensitive politicians.

Tarek Fatah: An ex-Pakistani Canadian Muslim, breathes Wisdom on Pakistan, betrays Ignorance on Islam, or ... is it Taqqiyya?

Saints and sages in India narrate the age old anecdote of a parrot. The parrot would recite various chants on the names of Ishwara, however once in the grip of a cat's paws, it would yell croaking sound. The story tells us that only trying circumstances reveal if there is true wisdom.

Tarek Fatah is an ex-Pakistani Muslim who now holds a Canadian Passport. He has authored two controversial and popular books: Chasing a Mirage: Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, and The Jew is not my Enemy. He is said to be working on a third: Jinnah's Orphans.

He is one of those left leaning, secular Muslims who openly criticizes Sharia, vehemently demands Equality, and wants to promote Secular Democracies in the Middle East. He is a strong critic of the Two-Nation Theory and very entertainingly mocks Pakistani people and Pakistani establishment. His conversations on his views on Pakistan are available on You Tube (see here, here and here). His other views are here and here. He rightly criticizes the left and "intelligentsia-in-democracy" for hobnobbing with - what he calls - Islamists. He openly criticizes America (see here and here) for its hypocrisy on Islam.

If one watched all the videos that have been mentioned above, one would admire this man. And to an extent the man seems admirable. However, the first doubts about his authenticity appear when he speaks about Jawahar with a sense of deep respect and adulation. And then the malaise oozes out when one learns about his reaction on Wafa Sultan's debate with Daniel Pipes (another moderate-islam-exists idiot). Wafa Sultan is an Arab lady who is trying to educate the world about Islam. She is the author of the famous book, A God Who Hates. For reviews on the book, see here and here.

The Wafa Sultan Daniel Pipes debate is here. In the debate Wafa Sultan mentioned a few historical facts, viz., that Mohammad consummated his marriage with Ayesha when she was 9, he was 54, that Mohammad attacked caravans, killed the men, distributed the wealth, women and children to his fellows reserving the juiciest ones for himself. Similarly she quoted Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, who said in 2007 in response to the term "moderate Islam": "These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it."

For detailed accounts of the episode see here, here, here, here, here, and here. This reveals how deep rooted the malaise of Islam can be in a person. And therefore how cautious one must be while listening to even those who appear to be vociferous against Muslim nations, Islamism, Islamofascism and so on.

While the truth of the matter is such, what do we see in our "wise politicians"? The same bull crap of Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace Islam appeasement! It does not matter how wise one is on Pakistan or Bangladesh or Muslims. What matters is: Does One know Islam for what it is, a violent and hateful ideology, taught by a violent and hateful psychopath Mohammad in the name of a violent and hateful Allah, and spread by violent and hate-mongering violent Jihadis.

As a commenter said here

Here's the part that all non-Muslims - especially journalists, diplomats and politicians - need to learn by heart. Tape it to the inside of the dunny door! Tape it to your computer screen! Say it and read it over and over until you can recite it to everyone you know.

"I would like to remind the readers that virtually all Muslim terrorists come from a secular background.

"At one point they were just as “liberal” as Mr. Fatah is today until something happened in their lives and they turned to their faith.

"Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist.

"It is time to put an end to the charade of “moderate Islam.”

" There is no such thing as [a] moderate Muslim.

"Muslims are either jihadists or dormant jihadists - moderate, they are not."

and the gem:

"The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire.

"For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.

Hindus must elect (also become) journalists, diplomats and politicians who know and understand this.