Dealing With Islam

There have been two very encouraging developments in the Netherlands (Holland).

Good News 1:

Geert Wilders, a prominent politician from their country who was charged with hate-speech for calling Islam a hate ideology, and for making the movie Fitna, was recently acquitted of all charges.

Good News 2:

Recently, the Dutch parliament voted to move towards banning ritual slaughter (Halal) of animals.

These are the kinds of measures that need to be taken while dealing with Islam, while the ultimate solution is for the Muslims themselves to realize that Islam is an evil ideology.

An effective way of dealing with Islam-like ideologies is to profess the truth about them, and also disincentivize immigration of Muslim population. One strategy commonly used by Muslims is to insist on Halal food as their religious obligation. This is a self perpetuating cycle. More halal food for Muslims, so more Muslims needed to perform Halal, so more Halal food is needed! Such a vicious circle must be nipped in the bud.

We need to take similar innovative measures.

Even before the government bans Halal Food, non-Muslims must insist on non-Halal Food. Also, the evil nature of Islam must be discussed and brought out in the open.

Answer This Mr. Manmohan Singh!

In a recent press meet on June 29, 2011, the Prime Minister, Mr. Manmohan Singh declared that he is not a lame duck PM.

There are multiple things which are strange about this meet like:

1. Only five chosen editors were invited for the meet.

2. It has been decided that now the PMO (PM's office) will hold a press meet every week!

and so on. Some of these issues are well analyzed in an article (see here).

We want to analyze from a different perspective and re-establish what we have been claiming so far.

First, let us note the following:

1. We currently are in a parliamentary democracy.

2. Thus the parliament is the supreme authority, and being the leader/head of the parliament, Mr. Manmohan Singh is the head.

3. Now, such a head can be of two types:

a. Lame Duck Type

b. The man in-charge Type.

Please note that a lame duck head can beg for blamelessness citing that he was not in-charge and someone fired over his shoulders.

4. Manmohan declared that he is not a lame duck PM thus he is the man in-charge! And thus Manmohan is answerable and responsible for the things that are happening in this UPA-II regime.

5. All kinds of bad things are happening in the UPA-II regime where Manmohan is in-charge. Financial fraud (CWG, 2-G), democratic governance frauds (Handling of the Anna followers on Lokpal), evil treatment meted to citizens (eviction of Baba Ramdev's followers).

6. Either Manmohan is lying or he is not lying.

7. If he is lying then Manmohan is a dishonest man. And if he is not lying then he is the man incharge and the frauds are happening with his knowledge and thus he is a dishonest man.

8. If Manmohan is a dishonest man, then he could even be colluding with all these scamsters and pocketing huge money!

9. And in spite of all this, he wants to portray himself as an innocent honest man.

This man Manmohan is EVIL.

Advani's Late Pseudo-Enlightenment!

Mr. L K Advani's viola event is here. He writes ruefully about "Two missed opportunities, six disastrous consequences" and blames Jawahar (Nehru) for wrong decisions.

The fact that Jawahar hardly ever took any right decisions is something so blatantly obvious that we wonder how Advani took so long to see this light! But wait, it may be pseudo-light! For, we wonder why he did not chastise his senior Mr. A B Vajpeyee, when during his speech in parliament, Vajpeyee was gloating over the fact that Jawahar had praised his (ABV's) performance and that people had likened him (ABV) to Jawahar. Be it Advani, be it Vajpeyee, be it Ms. Bharati, they keep repeating the same blunders.

Then, Mr. Advani goes on to sing glories of Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherji about this and about that. Well, hoisting national flag in Shrinagar was a great moment. However Advani forgets that Mukherji had resigned from Hindu Mahasabha. Recall that Hindu Mahasabha wanted India to be a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation), and the reason for Mr. Mukherji's parting with Hindu Mahasabha was, as per the wikipedia entry on Hindu Mahasabha: "Mookerji had left Mahasabha after his proposal to allow Muslims to gain membership was turned down by Savarkar". Savarakar was the head of Hindu Mahasabha then.

Mr. Advani in one of his earlier posts sermonized Congress to reconsider their decision on Mr. Savarkar. What is your decision on Mr. Savarkar, Mr. Advani? And are you, or the BJP, willing to reconsider your decision on Mr. Mukherji? Or is it Mr. Advani's moment of pseudo-enlightenment?

To us it appears that like Mr. Mukherji, like Mr. Advani and so on! The greatest tragedy with Hindus is that their self-appointed leaders have no clarity but maximum confusion. And the worst part is that they neither realize nor admit to their confusion. They want to exhibit great clarity and exude greater confidence.

And come to think of it, what a pity? Imagine the following:

1. Mr. Mukherji left Hindu Mahasabha because it denied membership to Muslims.

2. Mr. Vajpeyee prides himself in being likened to Jawahar.

3. Mr. Advani thinks highly of Jinnah (and Jinnah's Secularism!)

Do we need more examples before we learn that the self proclaimed political leaders of the Hindus are so bankrupt between the ears!?

Uma Bharti: And Her Dumb-Fuckery

Uma Bharti has been a fire brand leader of the BJP. She was unceremoniously and more importantly unjustly thrown out of BJP for making statements which peeved the then BJP high-command! So much so for the freedom to express dissent in the BJP! However, recently she has been inducted into the BJP fold once again. So far so good.

But it looks as if this home coming has gotten into her head and she has started indulging in thoughtless rants. Not that she was ever known for making very measured statements, yet she was passable.

In her recent speech she declared that she would gift Jawahar's book to Mr. Rahul (Doggy Singh's protege) Gandhi. She further continued:" ...I want Rahul to learn from his grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru how to respect your opponents ...".

Uma Bharti will do well to learn that Jawahar had scant regards for points of view contrary to his own. His dastardly behavior was mentioned here. Jawahar is also reported to have referred to many freedom fighters as "mis-guided youth".

By showing respect for that man, Jawahar, Uma Bharti has exhibited Dumb-Fuckery. Readers might recall that Anna Hazare exhibited similar DF-ery recently by writing a letter to Sonia Gandhi.

BJP leaders would do well to learn very quickly how to avoid being dumb-fucks. Sarcasm may be OK but DF-ery is not!

We Need Some Form of Consistency Checks

Politicians, media, bureaucrats, industrialists are all showcasing their wisdom by expressing their views on diverse matters. The discourse is full of confusion in and around words. On the one hand there are usages as what one might call genuinely technical terms which might clarify matters, and on the other hand there are usages as buzz words employed for obfuscation. These conflicting and confusing uses often impede reasoned debate.

For example: Socialism, social justice, communalism, secularism, nationalism, democracy, corruption, free-market, and many such are oft repeated words.

None of the parties or individuals are ever cross-examined on what exactly they mean or imply when they use such terms; nor are their meanings and implications examined if they have internal contradictions.

This has led to wide-spread hypocrisy in public discourse with the electorate and the public helplessly watching this as some meaningless entertainment.

We feel that there may be some way to get around this. And one such way is to design questionnaires for each topics. Those who express views in public could be required to commit their answers to these questions. They may be allowed to change their views, but then such changes will be recorded in the media, and can be used as reminders for public memory. Further, if there are stark inconsistencies in their views, such hypocrisies will be brought out in the open very effectively.

We may, as an exercise, consider the concept of Freedom of Art, Expression and Speech which was so hyped about in India in relation to an old man who died recently. And we could always ask the following:

In terms of Freedom of Expression which of these should be permissible by the law? The answers must be in yes or no.

1. Making nude pictures of Goddesses Lakshmi, Saraswati, etc.

2. Making nude pictures of Mohammad. (For much less, see Danish Cartoons)

3. Picturing Mohammad enjoying his time with a goat. (see geiten neukers)

4. The pictures shown by Andres Serrano as Piss-Christ.

5. The pole-dance video caricaturing Mohandas K Gandhi.

6. Picturing Gautam Buddha drinking wine.

7. Picturing Mahaveer Swami eating meat.

and so on.

The above set is merely suggestive, and it is clear that anyone who says "no" to any of the questions above is displaying inconsistency in his position.

We need to develop and improve such questionnaires to expose the hypocrisy of our public figures including politicians, journalists, media, and other celebrity riff-raff!

Of course, as many readers would have guessed, most of those asked would prefer to reply with "no comments"! These along with the hypocrites must be weeded out from reasoned debates.

We welcome readers' suggestions towards many more such sets of questions.