Rajdeep Sardesai writes to Raj Marathi-Manoos Thackeray. We reply!

Recently, Rajdeep Sardesai has written an open letter to Raj Thackeray, chiding him for being parochial. Here, we try to present a counter-view. This piece is not intended to be comprehensive. We have interspersed our comments, in red while the original is in blue.

Dear Raj,

This is the second open letter I am writing to you since, as was the case four years ago, you refuse to do interviews in any language other than Marathi. We have a popular Marathi channel whose ratings soar every time you speak to us. You are a box office hit in Marathi. But Mumbai is no longer a Maharashtrian city. It hasn't been one for well over a century. By contrast, the percentage of non-Maharashtrians, and especially Hindi speakers, has gone up steadily even though the rate of increase has declined in the last decade. A substantial number of the migrants are from UP and Bihar. They are, it seems, the 'new enemy'.

Is it necessary that Mumbai must continue towards non-Maharashtrian citydom? If we use Rajdeep's line of thinking, we can ask: India has been corrupt for past 65 years, why should we want to change it? Rajdeep might answer that Corruption is "wrong" then he is introducing an Ethical point. Thus before clarifying his ethical position it is futile to make such arguments. Now will Rajdeep clarify his Ethical position on 'migration'?

For example: Is forced integration, where a resident population is compelled to accommodate migrants, a desirable thing?

Four years ago, I had pitched for a course correction after north Indian taxi-drivers in Mumbai were assaulted. MNS workers even hurled bottles at the house of the ultimate national icon, Amitabh Bachchan, suggesting that he was partial to his home state of Uttar Pradesh. At the time, it seemed an act of temporary madness, part of a larger battle you were waging with your cousin Udhav for control of the Shiv Sena.

If Rajdeep is upset that MNS workers took law into their own hands, then he must cultivate the habit of writing open letters a dozen a month if not a week. One does not even have to be a politician for that. Most 'rich' and the 'connected' people behave as if they are above law, and they get away with it!

If Rajdeep is upset owing to some 'deeper' reasons, then he has not mentioned them. Without going into why 'assaults' took place, it is futile to pass judgments. Rajdeep has forgotten that for past many decades, Indian law-enforcement has had such a poor track record that in most matters people hardly expect that justice will be done. 

Further, such pathetic law-enforcement performance has been the primary reason why there is so much 'Corruption' that Rajdeep harps on in his TV shows. For the higher-ups know that they can get away with anything!

Four years later, I thought you had outgrown the politics of hate and violence. Two weeks ago when you delivered a passionate speech in support of the policemen who were attacked during the Azad Maidan violence in the backdrop of the Assam riots, I could see a political rationale for the demagoguery and your 'rose diplomacy' with the constabulary. There was genuine sympathy in Mumbai for the beat constables who had been targeted by a mob of criminals from the minority community. While the state government pussyfooted over the issue of arresting the ringleaders, you took up a cause that seemed to resonate with a number of people who were tired of the politics of "appeasement".

We hope that Rajdeep will ask the same question of Representatives of Islam and their handmaidens in the Congress and the Left; and even the true-secular among the BJP. Does Rajdeep believe that Islam is a religion of peace, spreading love and non-violence?

We also hope that Rajdeep wrote open letters to Maharashtra CM, Maharashtra Congress President, Manmohan Sigh and Sonia Gandhi as to why such 'pussyfooting' has been an indulgent norm with Congress and its governments.

Also, our question is, what is Rajdeep's moral stand on politics of 'appeasement', and what is his track record in questioning the politics of appeasement of Islam in India?

But within days of striking a popular chord over the Azad Maidan violence, you have returned to a familiar refrain by calling Biharis ínflitrators and threatening to drive them out of the city. You may well claim that your outburst is a fallout of the controversy over the arrest of a teenage Muslim from Bihar's Sitamarhi district for the desecration of the Amar Jawan Jyothi. But if there is any issue over the mode of his arrest, then it should be sorted between the Mumbai and Bihar police, but to deliberately politicise the arrest is to do exactly what you are accusing the Cong-NCP government in Maharashtra of: make the police hostage to vote bank politics.

Again, without going into the details of the case, Rajdeep is being prejudiced. Rajdeep, must first realize, and we are saying this to him because he seems to be the least unreasonable amongst the comity of journalists, and this is an opportunity for him to exhibit that his 'journalism' is not a facade.

Also, we always wonder why Indian people, more so journalists, and surprisingly even politicians, constantly accuse their opponents of 'doing politics' or 'politicising the issue'. After all, why are politicians there, if not to do politics and to politicise the issue whenever possible. Rajdeep must wonder what his reaction would be if his competing media people accused him of 'journalising the issue'!

The other related aspect is that of vote-bank politics. As we mentioned here, with a free entry to voting-rights, and with elected members having the power to enact legislation providing differential advantages to different sections, vote-bank politics is inevitable.

The accusations of 'politicising the issue' and/or of 'vote-bank politics' are usually a ploy to trick the opponent into the slippery slopes of moral high-ground.

Such techniques preclude whatever negligible remaining possibility exists for a dispassionate debate to decide issues, reducing them to a simple mud slinging contest.

There must be zero tolerance for those responsible for the Azad maidan violence. No community has the right to use a sense of 'victim-hood' to take the law into their hands. Nor should the Nitish Kumar government in Bihar protect any criminal by asserting federal powers. But to stereotype every Bihari as a consequence as an infiltrator is to do irreparable damage to the idea of Mumbai, and, indeed India.

The slogan of 'zero tolerance' has become a farce. Also, if Nitish is so concerned about the welfare of Biharis, he must focus on the atrocities that his own government and its machinery inflicts on Biharis. By siding with alleged anti-national person of Bihar, under the pretext of bureaucratic procedures, it is Nitish who is being deceptive.

But returning to Rajdeep: Will Rajdeep present what his idea of Mumbai and of India is? Does Rajdeep too, like the empty-suit Katju, believe that Mumbai is a city of immigrants, and India a nation of immigrants? Also, does he insist that people have no freedom to disagree with him on his ideas of Mumbai and India?

Mumbai, like many great cities across the world, was built by waves of migrations. What would Mumbai have been in the 19th century without Parsee and Gujarati entrepreneurship and in the 20th century without Sindhi and Punjabi business acumen? In the last 30 years, migrants from UP and Bihar have provided a large pool of labour, skilled and unskilled, to service Mumbai's commercial engine. How many Maharashtrians will readily work as security guards on double shifts, often without minimum wages? Economic needs often drive demographic shifts: assimilation, not aggression is the way to deal with it.

Whether Mumbai was built by immigrants or not is not relevant here. The question is what you find as desirable, and do others have a right to disagree with your desires or not.

We also hope that you are not advocating immigration so that Mumbai can afford security guards below minimum wages. If you turn your argument on its head, disallowing immigration will do a great justice regarding the wages of security guards!

The irony is that there is a political vacuum in Mumbai waiting to be captured by a far-sighted leadership. The ruling Congress-NCP alliance has proved to be dysfunctional: its local leadership has been exposed for its links with real estate sharks and for doing little to stop the criminalisation of Mumbai's political ethos. The Shiv Sena which won the city municipal elections in February is barely held together by a tiger in the winter of his life. Your cousin Udhav appears to lack the charisma or the political instincts of Balasaheb.

How about a bigger vacuum at the Center?

There is space today then for a political grouping that can promote cultural pride while respecting Mumbai's inherent cosmopolitanism. When you set up the MNS a few years ago, I thought you were aiming to break with the past: to represent a new, self-confident Maharashtrian identity that would co-exist with growing economic competition. Unfortunately, you have chosen to revive an ugly parochialism which is premised on insecurity and anger towards the "other".

Now Rajdeep is opening himself a bit and revealing some thing about himself. We would like to know, what he defines as a combination of 'cultural pride and inherent cosmopolitanism'? We ask this in the same humble spirit that he asks others.

I guess you believe that only competitive regional chauvinism with the Shiv Sena will get you votes and strengthen your claims to being the true successor to Balasaheb. But the politics of 'sons of the soil' is now subject to the law of diminishing returns. Identity politics may get you support from the committed, political machismo may draw applause from the youth, hate speech will attract controversy and eyeballs but if you wish to be a true leader of Mumbai, you must build a cross-class, cross-community appeal that goes beyond shrill and divisive rhetoric.

If the politics of 'son of the soil' is subject to the law of diminishing returns, what is Rajdeep's view on Bangladeshi immigration? Does he advocate an open borders policy?

Maybe you are a prisoner of your legacy: having consciously tried to model yourself on Balasaheb, it is perhaps too late to break away from the past. Maybe you don't wish to offer a real alternative. Maybe, Mumbai is destined to be caught in the cross-fire of the militant Senas. Which is a pity for a city in desperate need of urban renewal and, above all else, good governance.

Post-script: I have many Bihari friends today, including my driver, an honest God-fearing man from Darbhanga who is driven by a singular desire to ensure his children get the best possible education. He asked me the other day why Raj Thackeray disliked Biharis so much. As a proud Maharashtrian and Indian, frankly, I had no answer.

As a proud Maharashtrian, you should have surely asked the honest '(possibly) Allah-fearing, non-Muslim-hating man' that if he realized that Bihar was not good enough for his children and himself, why he wanted Maharashtra to become like Bihar, instead of wanting Bihar to become like Maharashtra? And yes, if Rajdeep's driver is not Allah-fearing, then Rajdeep must be accused of practising discrimination against Dalit and poor Muslims.

Analogously Rajdeep must also ask a similar question to Paki and Bangladeshi immigrants: If they are running away from the holy land of Islam, then why do they not run away from Islam itself? Why do they want India to go the Pak and Bangla way?

And we are sure, that Rajdeep has no courage to speak out legitimate answers to these questions as well.

- Rajdeep Sardesai

There is an urgent need to guard against Marxist eulogy of  multi-culturalism, pro-immigrationism and such hogwash. While Rajdeep advises Raj to make cross-class, cross-cultural bridges; it is Marxists like Rajdeep who destroy peace and harmony by emphasizing the 'victimhood' of the lower-classes and of the immigrants.

It is Marxism which has as its ethics 'eternal victim-hood' of the  proletariat, and its yearning for the revolutionary uprising to bring about a 'just' society, which has had the worst violent streak.

Rajdeep and media-morons of his ilk are the worst perpetrators of the Jawaharian meme of anti-Hinduism.

While Raj Marathi-Manoos Thackeray deserves to be severely chastised for his  Savarkarisn 'Secular-Marathitva'; Rajdeep's Marxist criticism holds no water.

 

Mohandasian-Jawaharian Hypocrisy: 1962 vs 2002 is a prime example!

Politics, which is a damn serious matter, is seeing more and more degradation in India. So much so, that most of the politicians have reduced it to sheer hypocrisy or a black farce. Here we present a comparison between Jawahar-1962 and Modi-2002. The stark reality stares at our face. Hindus really need to girdle up their loins.

1962:

1. There were ample indications that China was preparing for war: Jawahar did Precious Nothing. This was not intelligence failure, this was Jawahar's-intelligence (if at all it existed) Failure! As we shall see, Jawahar was not unintelligent, rather he was a crook (against Hindus).

Further, he provoked China with his Dalai-Lama act, not because he loved the Dalai-Lama, rather because he was consumed with lust for international (read white-western) acclaim, a disease which has chronically afflicted Congress Leaders.

We remark that in our opinion, P V Narasimha Rao was an exception, though from Congress, and Atal Behari Vajpeyee was NOT an exception despite not being from Congress. In present times MMS epitomizes the afflicted!

2002:

1. There was planning by the Jihadis, but there was no actionable prior intelligence that the Godhra burning will take place. Thus, there could not have been a preparedness which comes as a result of prior knowledge. One might call it intelligence failure, but it surely was not Chief Minister's Failure!

We also mention that the three neighboring States, then ruled by Congress, refused security-forces assistance.

1962:

The preparations were so utterly atrocious that Indian soldiers lacked such basic things as shoes and warm clothing! More over, even though the Chinese were violating the border in swarms, the soldiers were ordered to 'hold fire'. India had superiority in Air-Force, but Air-Force was not used, courtesy Jawahar! 

As a result India lost the war very badly.

2002:

Godhra Burning happened, an act which was horrible beyond imagination, but something that is common-place for Islam against non-Muslims! When there was a spontaneous reaction and subsequently riots took place, Hindus were mercilessly massacred by the Police. Out of the total, about 1000, killed, more than 250, about 25% were Hindus. In other words as many Hindus as one third of as many Muslims were killed, (Since governments always exaggerate Muslim deaths and hide Hindu deaths, the figure can be much worse) and yet it was called an Anti-Muslim Pogrom!

1962:

Jawahar shamelessly stuck to his post claiming that not even a blade of grass grew in the lost territory. His sycophants kept shouting that Jawahar's hands must be strengthened. And they conned the Indian public into sympathizing with Jawahar.

2002:

Narendra Modi resigned and elections were held. Narendra Modi won the elections convincingly.

For how long will the debates be on vacuous issues? Recall that Indira Gandhi, on one occasion, blamed the CIA (or Foreign Hand) for the failure of Monsoon!

If the Congress can get away with the lie: Mohandas won independence for India and that too through Mohandasian non-violent means,

If the Left can get away with the lie: Lenin and Mao brought in peaceful revolution to liberate the poor,

If Muslims and Seculars want to get away with the Mother of All Lies: Islam is a Religion of Peace,

Then, what is wrong (Even if, merely for the sake of argument if we assume that it is a lie) if Modi gets away with the alleged 'lie': NaMo brought development to Gujarat!

The issue is not lies, the issue is that politics in India is never based on ideas which have to be made to work. A vague, romantic, and hypothetical idealized view (in one word Foolish) is endlessly repeated. Most parties, especially the Congress and the Third (rate) front have an extremely myopic vision: their focus is on winning elections, by hook or by crook.

Despite our intense displeasure with the fact that Sonia (essentially a foreigner) is the Super-PM of India, we can not ignore the stark reality of our politics and politicians. And the dark reality is: If Sonia G dies, the Congress will pretend sadness but will be internally happy, for it might yield potential electoral gains! Inhuman, you may say, but that is the unfortunate truth. Unbounded selfishness!

With such selfishness, which prevailed all over, is Mohandasian-Jawaharian hypocrisy any surprise? Thus it will be better that we quickly recognize that our Society and Constitution are failing. We are not inching, we are galloping towards anarchy and civil-war. Hindus need to wake up, and organize themselves for their survival.

India: A Democracy On the Verge of Failure?

For past 65 years Indian politicians, intellectuals, media persons, elites have been chanting the Democracy-mantra. Being accused of being un-democratic has been perceived as being worse than being called a rapist or philanderer, which incidentally many among the most respected in the present times are. The present write-up is intended more as thought-provoking rather than as a final word!

Let us take a look at the facts:

At the Center, Congress has been a Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Various factions emerged from it, bit the dust, and only the dynasty remains.

In states: In Tamizhnadu, MGR and now Jayalalita - AIADMK, similarly Karunanidhi - DMK. Bihar: Lalu Yadav - RJD, and RamVilasPaswan - LokJanshakti Party. Orissa: Navin Patnaik - BJD. Maharashtra: Bal Thackeray - ShivSena, Raj Thackeray - MNSena. Karnataka: Devegowda - JD(S). Jammu and Kashmir: Farookh Abdulla/Omar Abdulla - National Conference, and Mehbooba Mufti - PDP. UP: Mulayam Singh - SP Andhra Pradesh: N Chandrababu Naidu - TDP, YSR Congress - Jagan Reddy.

Political parties which have been accused of dynastic rule have been healthy and have survived longer! The only major parties than can claim non-dynastic status are the BJP and the commie brigade. The Congress which is dynatic at center, at states it has been more like competing dynasties within the Congress, though the dynasty component is not that apparent now.

The other notable thing is that in parties who claim to be 'democratic' there is what can be alleged as 'factional politics'. Thus Congress is always rife with factionalism in states. The BJP is rife with the same ay both the Center and the states. The CPI(M), the CPI are all similarly rife with factionalism. It appears that 'dynastic rule' unites and the 'democracy' leads to 'factionalism'. Also, this factionalism seems to end as soon as a dynastic leader or 'alleged dictator' emerges. For example: Modi in Gujarat, Nitish in Bihar, etc.

Why is it that the situation is as it is? Of course, the most often used explanation is that we have all these problems because we do not have a healthy democracy. But a counter question that can be posed is: Why can we not have a healthy democracy? If in 65 years we have not been able to make it a healthy democracy why are we persisting with trying to make ourselves democratic?

Coming to issues and policies, one can notice how 'factionalism' is being fuelled by Social Justice: Eternal and ever increasing demand and supply of reservation and quotas. It started with SC/ST for an initial period of ten years, and is continuing ad nauseum. Not just that, it grew to accommodate OBC, and now there is demand for Women and Monirity reservation Bills. Further, now there is an effort to amend the Constitution to implement reservation in promotions as well! Moreover, notice how states keep demanding 'special packages' and how Presidential elections are decided by promises of Special Package.

So we need to ask some relevant questions: Why is it that what works for political parties is considered bad for the nation? Also, if 'factionalism' within parties is considered bad, how can fomenting factionalism by granting reservations be good for the nation?

The answer is, universal-adult-franchise-democracy is fatally flawed. If a nation is governed using such a system, either the government or the nation or both are bound to fail! In 'our' democracy, while earning the right to rule requires winning elections, the right to vote comes for free (requires merely ageing!). It is not difficult to see that an aspiring 'representative of the 'people' would like to keep his constituency as much prone to manipulation by himself as possible. Also, various groups will quickly form 'vote-banks' to extract their 'pound of flesh'. This combination inevitably results in the formation of 'extractive elites' whose sole purpose is to cling to power and immense wealth, by hook or by crook! The concept of 'extractive elites' is also discussed in the book: Why Nations Fail. The flaws of Democracy are discussed in the book: Democracy: The God that Failed.

For long we have been foolishly patting ourselves on the back, priding ourselves in our vibrant democracy. What we have managed to do is to make for ourselves a system which every five years (or often oftener) conducts elections, congratulating itself in a self-aggrandizing manner for choreographing this 'dance of democracy'.  The fact that Indira Gandhi lost elections after emergency debacle is no sign of the success of Indian democracy. But the fact that merely 65 years after a bloody partition there are political parties who are promising reservations on the basis of minority-religions is a sure sign of impending failure.

We closed our eyes till 1991, for 44 years, until we were rudely woken up from Socialism by the shock of impending economic doom, but it has not taken us even 20 years to fall asleep again! Regarding civilizational survival, if we continue to remain asleep, the warnings by Rajiv Malhotra might well turn out to be a mere trailer of the things to come.

Whether democracy, no matter which form, is doomed or not is a matter of debate. However, the fact that democracy as being practiced in India is on the verge of failure, is surely emerging. A lot needs to done, but more than that a lot needs to be thought!

Raj Marathi-Manoos Thackeray versus Nitish Secular Kumar

We have always held the Savarkarian notion of cultural-regionalism (whether of Hindutva or Marathitva kind) as suspect. We have done so not because the notions are totally wrong - they may be decent approximations - but that they are potentially, fundamentally and dangerously flawed as far as defense of Sanatana Dharma is concerned. Thus, we prefer Sanatana Dharma over 'Indianness' and similarly Sanatana Dharma over 'Marathi Manoos'.

Now, the present rift between Raj and Nitish is a different matter. In Mumbai, in Azad Maidan, traitors vandalized and desecrated the Amar Jawan Jyoti - a memorial for soldiers who have laid down their lives in the service of the nation - and the vandal was caught. It turned out that the caught hails from Bihar and is also a Muslim. Now the olfactory instincts of Nitish Secular Kumar may have sniffed a potential attention grabbing opportunity - recall that all are crying hoarse accusing both Raj Thackeray and Bala Thackeray to be psychotic attention seekers - and pounced upon it. Ignoring the gravity of the crime completely and shamelessly, Nitish went on to raise procedural issues against the arrest. Understandably, the Thackerays therefore have retorted and reacted furiously.

We would like to ask all the Secular Nationalists, who are jumping like the proverbial cat on hot bricks, what notion of nation are they shouting about and defending? The Secular-Nation oxymoron? A 'state' where Urdu is the 'national language' and Sharia the 'law'? What are they talking about? The scumbag Mayawati who wants Raj Thackeray to be tried for 'hate speech' will do well to remember that she is the intellectual descendant of the fecal-matter-bag Kanshiram whose favourite refrain was 'Tilak, Taraju, aur Talwar, inako maro jootey chaar' which meant 'Hit the Brahmins, the Vaishyas and the Kshatriyas with shoes'. The overawed-by-Modi Nitish must recall that his intellectual cousin Lalu Yadav had referred to Kannadigas as 'dirty people' while he was touring Karnataka.

In our opinion, the Thackerays are flawed not because they are fighting for the Marathi-Manoos. They are flawed if they insist on Marathitva more than they support Sanatana Dharma - like their cousins BJP who support 'Hindutva' more than they support Sanatana Dharma - which unfortunately they often do! However, this does not entitle evil Secularists like Nitish to raise issues of Constitutional propriety. The Constitution - which has failed - has been shamelessly abused and amended for trifling reasons. The evil imbeciles will scream and attempt the same for reservation for promotion as well. And yet, when a person is arrested for defiling the sanctity of a place which is in honor of those who laid down their lives, these morons cry foul?

The solution to these problems is not in becoming more 'nationalist' or more 'secular'. We already are 'nationalistic' except that we do not know who we are as a 'nation'. Also we do not recognize that the ideology of Secularism, like Socialism, is an evil, immoral as well as unethical. Thus the solution is to reject Secularism, Socialism, etc., and enshrine Sanatana Dharma. The unity of Maharashtra and Bihar (and for that matter the rest as well) does not lie in Seculaar-Nationalism of Urdu-Sharia kind. It does not even lie in Hindutva! The unity lies in Sanatana Dharma.

Provincial assertiveness is due to weak center tottering under coalition-adharma, and utter disrespect for federalism. If the center fails or asserts too much centralization, counter tendencies are bound to emerge. The intellectual class, which 'appreciates' - like the bitchy Arundhati Roy does, and the fool Binayak Sen does - secessionaist demands of Kashmiri Muslims and Maoists and demonizes legitimate regional aspirations, is not merely foolish, it is evil.

We need to strive not for National-Unity of the secular kind; rather we need Hindu-Unity and functioning federalism. Recall that in one thousand years of 'kingdoms' and 'princely-states' exacerbated by 'foreign rule', the Muslim population grew from 0 to 27 percent; while in mere 65 years of 'Secular-Nation' the percentage has grown from below 5 to above 15! Anyone who ignores this is a staunch anti-Hindu and Hindus will do well to summarily reject such leaders, journalists and dishonest intellectuals.

As regards Thackerays vs Nitish; Marathi regionalism is bad, but Secularism is much much worse. Thackerays will do well to demand Marathi-regional aspirations under Sanatana Dharma, and not under 'Secular-Nationalism'. Our advice to Thackerays (and any such regional aspirants) is, reject Savarkarian Marathitva; adopt Marathi-pride of Ramdas-Shivaji under Sanatana Dharma! You need not look towards 'Marathi' to unite you; Samarth Ramdas, Tularam, etc., do much better and they unite you with the rest as well.

Kodnani, Bajrangi et al.: Victims of Perception.

There is a famous rock song "Captive Honour" by the famous group MegaDeth and its lyrics contain the following:

And when you kill a man, you're a murderer
Kill many, and you're a conqueror
Kill them all... Ooh... Oh you're a god!

Rock music is known for its "Anti-establishment" themes, as the text discussed shows:

"I had a counselor who spent a lot of time in jail. And he talked about the code of poke or be poked. These little kids come in there, all tough guys from the street. They throw a blanket over them and beat the shit out of them. And they become somebody's manpussy. And I just went like, 'Wow.'" (Mustaine, 1992)

"'When you kill a man, you're murderer...' - 'cause if I kill you, I going to jail, right? In war, if you're like Alexander the Great and you can go into a village and you kill everybody or you, like these unbelievable historical militant people, who've gone in and destroyed, entire populations, like, in the beginning of the world, in the medieval times, like Vlad the Impaler, Leif Eriksson - any of these guys that would do shit like that. Then you're great conquerer, because you've conquered the Romans, you've conquered the Persians, you've conquered the Greeks or stuff like that, right? Because you've come in and you've killed armies of thousands of people. You know, people think: 'He's great, he's like Caesar.' If you kill everyone and there is no people left in the entire planet - you're obviously a god, because no one else would have the power to be able to do all that and get away with that." (Mustaine, 2001)

"This song has a lot of our friends doing spoken 'cameos' so it's fun to hear their voices. That said, I was never the biggest fan of all the spoken parts in our songs, especially in the later albums." (Friedman, 2002)

This song is one of the most interesting songs Dave Mustaine has ever written, mainly due to it's deceptive and disturbing prologue which muses, "When you kill a man, you're a murderer. Kill many, and you're a conqueror. Kill them all... And you're a god!" However, the main portion of the songs simply describes and detests the horrible conditions in modern prisons.

References:

Crimes against humanity, which were given rise to by the Nuremberg Trials following World War II, are violations of human rights of such an extreme nature as to warrant judgment and punishment by international councils.

The Marxist sentiment continues, and hence in present times, to paraphrase V. S. Naipaul, Politicians and Intellectuals, especially of the 'liberal' kind, are quick to use the two fashionable terms from Europe: Fascist and Nazi, to describe whatever they disagree with and especially whatever they do not understand. And thus, Secular politicians are crying hoarse calling Kodnani and Bajrangi Fascist examples of the Nazi ideology of the Hindu-right! Intellectuals are discussing whether justice has been delivered or not.

For example, Mani Shankar Aiyer - a Stephanian moron - who at best is illegitimate intellectual offspring of the pain(in the backside)ter MFH and at worst is an ideological cousin of equally despicable DogVijay Singh, brought Rajdeep Sardesai almost to tears. The best that can be said about RS is that he is a man who thinks that wanting to rise to the lowly level of Prannoy Roy is a formidable dream, and who in reality performs only marginally better than the one and only Arnab Goswami. Need we remind our readers that AG is someone who anchors debates as if he were a puppeteer and the participants wooden dolls? Well, RS does deserve such shocks once in a while though it is debatable whether it is he or it is AG who deserves it more. However, in the present context, the question is why RS who attempts to behave as if he were a lion while he argues against Hindu viewpoints turns to such a pussy before MSA. This MSA is so horrible that even the devil - for instance the commie devil Mukul Sinha in fact did -  would sympathize with RS in the episode.

In the discussion we are alluding to (see here), the representative of the BJP, Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi was distancing herself and her party away from Maya Kodnani and Babu Bajrangi. If the BJP thinks that it can sacrifice low-end Hindus so that Hindutva-toting high-end Hindus can return to power as 'leader of the NDA', then it will remain a pipe-dream, and that would be better as well. This 'distancing act' was very much like the blabberer (see here and here) Advani who was apologizing all over the place after the disputed structure at Ayodhya was demolished and has gone on to term the eventful day as the saddest day of his life. With such a BJP and such Hindutva, what can be expected other than True-Secularism?  Hindus will do much better to junk such a BJP and make newer parties.

The old man understood it much better. Whether it was Babar (in the sixteenth century) or the Godhra-Jihadis (in the twenty-first century) who burned the travellers at Godhra - and we assure you that they had the moral-emotional support of the 'largely peaceful' among the Muslims - were displaying contempt for what Hindus consider as sacred. Babar did it as a 'conqueror' and the Jihadis did it as wannabe 'conquerors'. If we overlook this simple fact then we miss the whole point, no matter how many times self-appointed-intellectuals invoke fashionable European terms.

Now, the other important fact of the matter is, as the same old man conjectured, that there is a continuous awakening among the Hindus. This awakening makes them want to know their own history. And the more they investigate, the more they realize how Islam (and Muslim Invaders) destroyed Hindu history by destroying sacred objects of the Hindus, and how Macaulay (and his intellectual progeny) and educationists from the Commie-brigade (Romila Thapar and her ilk) denied them the knowledge of such history by Anglicising and Secularising history (read doctoring and reinterpreting history) in the text books. Such monumental destruction would naturally bring about reaction. To condemn the reaction, or to term it demoniac is to misunderstand it. Why is it that the intellectuals are so wont to appreciate and adore the artificial and fake Dalit-renaissance but they diabolize Hindu-renaissance?

Islamic hatred and contempt of the other (non-Muslims and their traditions) - history as well as present is replete with it - can not be endlessly justified and explained away using fake Marxist terms for long without a strong counter reaction emerging. Kodnani, Bajrangi, post-Godhra, etc., are merely the expressions of a deeper passion, the passion that stands up against anti-Hindu tyranny.

The urgent need is not to diabolize or explain away Hindu-renaissance; the need is to harness the energy behind the passion. The need is not to portray Muslims as victims of Hindu majority; the need is to tell them the truth that they are victims of Islam, and that they need to be saved from Islam. The Muslims who are crying hoarse claiming to be victims must be told that their eternal role model did much much worse than what Kodnani and Bajrangi did and yet is called a prophet who they are yearning to emulate!

Coming back to Megadeth lyrics, the tragic analogy is, The Jihadis who killed many view themselves as 'conquerors'. Kodnani and Bajrangi are called murderers because the killings with which they are alleged to be associated with was killing of only a few.  Had it been like what Muhammad did - Killing whole tribes, taking their women as hostages to be used as sex-slaves with the choicest ones by Muhammad himself - they would be called 'prophets' and founders of 'religions of peace'!

Whatever the letter of the 'law' as it is in today's India may say about Kodnani, Bajrangi, etc., in the eyes of many, they are Victims of Perception!