Amicus Curae or Assinine Opinionated?

The amicus curae report has been made public. Some of the relevant points are copy-pasted below, and some important sections are blue and our comments in green.

6. The most important allegation in the complaint, which is required to be considered in detail by this Hon'ble Court, is the allegation made against the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Shri Narendra Modi. It is alleged that, in a high-level meeting held at about 11.00 P.M. on 27.02.2002 at Mr. Narendra Modi's residence, illegal instructions were issued to senior police officers and bureaucrats "not to deal with the Hindu rioting mobs". It is also alleged that the Chief Minister had influenced the police at the time of the riots, as two of his cabinet colleagues were placed in the State Police Control Room and the Ahmedabad City Police Control Room respectively on 28.02.2002."

Against modi, mere allegations are always enough!

"16. As already stated in paragraph 6, the most serious allegation levelled by the complainant was regarding the alleged statement made by Shri Modi in the meeting convened on 27.02.2002. Therefore, an interaction with the witnesses who could throw some light on the said meeting was necessary. Similarly, witnesses relating to the positioning of the 2 Cabinet Ministers were also relevant. Accordingly, an interaction took place with the following witnesses at Gandhinagar on 18th and 19th June, 2011, namely (1) Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, (2) Smt. Swarnakanta Verma, (3) Shri K. Chakravarthi, (4) Shri G.C. Raiger, (5) Shri P.C. Upadhyaya and (6) Shri P.C. Pande, the then Commissioner of Police. (The first of whom, as already stated, claims to have been present at the meeting at the Chief Minister’s residence on 27.02.2002, and stated that the Chief Minister gave illegal instructions, while the remaining persons do not accept his presence.) "

Against modi, mere allegations are always enough!

18. It may be mentioned that Shri Bhatt brought along with himself his former driver, Shri Tarachand Yadav. He also submitted an affidavit of Shri Tarachand Yadav, sworn on 17.06.2011, stating that the same had been sent for filing in this Hon’ble Court. The said affidavit seeks to support Shri Bhatt’s assertion that he had gone to the residence of the Chief Minister on 27.02.2002. Shri Bhatt also submitted an affidavit of Shri K.D. Panth, Police Constable, affirmed on 17.06.2011, again stating that the same had been sent for filing in this Hon’ble Court. The said affidavit seeks to support Shri Bhatt’s version about going to the Chief Minister’s residence on the night of 27.02.2002. Shri Rahul Sharma submitted an analysis of the call records of senior police officers which, according to Shri Sharma, corroborates Shri Bhatt's statement. These documents were taken by me only with a view to help me in understanding the statements recorded by the SIT.

19. It is necessary to state that the interaction was in order to understand and appreciate the statements already made by the witnesses to the SIT and, therefore, no fresh statements were either recorded or got signed by me. The witnesses more or less reiterated what they had stated in their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements.

Typical pseudo-humilty and pseudo-wisdom by anti-Hindus.

 

20. The most vital material, supporting the allegation made by the Petitioner against Shri Modi, is the statement of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCP (Intelligence). The SIT has concluded that his version is not believable for various reasons, inter alia that (a) the other senior officers present in the said meeting have not supported his statement, (b) his silence for more than 9 years without any proper explanation appears to be suspicious, (c) a number of departmental and criminal proceedings have been instituted by the Government and hence, Shri Bhatt has an axe to grind with the Government of Gujarat. Therefore, the SIT opines that his statement is motivated and cannot be relied upon. The SIT also points out discrepancies in Shri Bhatt’s versions about the exact language said to have been used by the Chief Minister. The SIT also discredits Shri Bhatt by pointing out that his version about a subsequent meeting at the Chief Minister’s residence on 28.02.2002 at about 10:30 hours cannot be believed because his mobile phone records show that he was at Ahmedabad at 10:57 A.M., and therefore could not have reached Gandhinagar before 11:30 A.M.

21. The SIT has further pointed out that Shri Bhatt has tried to tutor witnesses (Shri Tarachand Yadav and Shri K.D. Panth) to support his version. I have also received a copy of a letter (marked confidential) dated 22.06.2011 from the Under Secretary, Home Department to the Chairman, SIT. In the said letter, the Government of Gujarat has stated that it has “retrieved” several emails of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt (I am not commenting on the legality of such “retrieval”). According to the Government of Gujarat:

“It leaves no room for doubt that it is a systematic and larger conspiracy, through Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, involving top leaders of Congress Party in Gujarat, vested interest groups surviving on anti-Gujarat campaign and electronic and print media reporters all of whom have started final efforts to keep the Godhra riot issue live based on concocted facts and Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, through all of them, is trying to build up a story at a stage when after almost 10 long years the Hon’ble Supreme Court has virtually concluded the judicial proceedings after undertaking tremendous judicial exercise as elaborately pointed out in the affidavit of the State Government.”

22. I am conscious of the fact that though Shri Bhatt has been contending that he would speak only when under a legal obligation to do so, his conduct after making his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not been that of a detached police officer who is content with giving his version. I am left with no doubt that he is actively “strategizing”, and is in touch with those who would benefit or gain mileage from his testimony. But these factors, in my view, cannot be grounds for ignoring his statement at this stage.

And despite the dubitable nature of the accuser, his accusations must be heeded to!

23. In my opinion, despite the aforesaid background, it does not appear very likely that a serving police officer would make such a serious allegation against Shri Modi, the Chief Minister of the State, without some basis. There is no documentary material of any nature whatsoever which can establish that Shri Bhatt was not present in the meeting on 27.02.2002. In the absence of the minutes of the meeting, there is again no documentary material available as to the participants in the meeting and what transpired at the said meeting. Therefore, it is the word of Shri Bhatt against the word of other officers, senior to him. The SIT has chosen to believe the word of the senior officers, i.e. senior bureaucrats and police officers. However, I find that the SIT itself, in its Preliminary Report, has observed as follows [at p.13]:-

"(3) Some of the public servants, who had retired long back, claimed loss of memory as they did not want to get involved in any controversy.

(4) The other category of public servants, who have recently retired and provided with good post-retirement assignments, felt obliged to the State Government and the present Chief Minister and therefore their testimony lacks credibility.

(5) The serving public servants, who have been empanelled for the higher posts, did not want to come into conflict with the politicians in power and incurred their wrath which affected their frank response."

And yet Bhatt's statements must be heeded!

24. I also find it difficult to accept the conclusion of the SIT that Shri Bhatt’s statement is motivated, because he has an axe to grind with the State Government over issues concerning his career. Further, in my opinion, it may not be proper to disbelieve Shri Bhatt at this stage, only because the other officers have not supported his statement. Similarly, the delay in making the statement cannot be the sole ground to disbelieve the statement at this stage, especially in view of his explanation that as an Intelligence Officer who was privy to a lot of sensitive information, he would make a statement only when he was under a legal obligation to do so.

Since it is difficult to prove that Bhatt is motivated so we must assume that he is not motivated! What inversion?

29. I reiterate here that I am fully conscious of the fact that the statement made by Shri Bhatt has possible limitations inter alia (a) the delay of 9 years in coming out with his version, and (b) the statements of other senior officers contesting his claim. I am also fully conscious of the fact that Shri Bhatt has made attempts to get other witnesses (i.e. Shri Tarachand Yadav, Shri K.D. Panth etc) to support his case, and has been part of a “strategizing” effort. However, it is ultimately for the competent court to decide whether Shri Bhatt is to be believed or not. As long as some material indicates that the allegation may be true, the case must proceed further in accordance with law.



35. The next question which arises is that, if the statement of Shri Bhatt is to be believed, then what offence(s) are made out against Shri Modi. The direct role of Shri Modi is limited to allegedly making this statement on 27.02.2002. Though it is alleged that, with a view to ensuring that his instructions were carried out by the Police Department, Shri Modi had positioned 2 of his cabinet colleagues at the State Police Control Room and the Ahmedabad City Police Control Room respectively, the SIT has come to the conclusion that the Ministers did not interfere in any manner with the functioning of the Police. The material collected by the SIT does not indicate that these 2 ministers interfered with the working of the police department at the time the riots were taking place. However, there is the possibility that the very presence of these 2 Ministers had a dampening effect on the senior police officials, i.e. the DGP and the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, if indeed Shri Modi had made a statement (as alleged) the previous night. This is again one of the circumstances which can be taken into account and examined during the course of trial.

39. If Shri Sanjiv Bhatt is to be believed, the message conveyed by the Chief Minister (at the meeting held at his residence on 27.02.2002), was further conveyed by the very stationing of the 2 Ministers in the Police Control Rooms. While there is no direct material to show how and when the message of the Chief Minister was conveyed to the 2 Ministers, the very presence of political personalities unconnected with the Home Portfolio at the Police Control Rooms is circumstantial evidence of the Chief Minister directing, requesting or allowing them to be present. As already noted, the Chairman, SIT himself has found that their positioning in the Police Control Rooms had, at least, the Chief Minister’s “tacit approval”.



40. However, there is no material to show that the Ministers interfered with the functioning of the Police Department or gave any instructions to the senior police officers. Even Shri Bhatt, who claims to have been present in the Police headquarters at that time, says that Shri Jadeja did not remain in the office of the DGP for a very long time. There is an absence of material to indicate that the statement of Shri Modi, allegedly made in the meeting on 27.02.2002, had been actively implemented by the Ministers or the 2 police officials who participated in the said meeting.


Thus the amicus curae goes on and on to tell us why we must still keep investigating against Modi. Why? Because, Modi is assumed to be guilty and so investigation must continue until some evidence however much doctored comes out!

We are reminded of an extremely contrasting case: famous OJ Simpson Murder Case. OJS was alleged to have murdered his girl-friend. OJS is Black and his girl-friend was White. There were two gloves which were allegedly used by OJS. At the height of the case, the question was "Did the gloves fit?". Despite the preponderance of other evidences including DNA, OJS was acquitted on the flimsiest of doubts. OJS was more than ninety nine percent guilty and yet was acquitted owing to less then one percent doubt.

In the present case of Bhatt, the relevant questions are:

Was Sanjiv Bhatt present in the alleged meeting, if it was held, that is?

And if so, did Modi utter what Bhatt alleges he did.

We do not know what evidence can be brought to establish these, and whether Bhatt's testimony is to be taken as reliable.

Yet, the amicus curae recommends prosecution!

The main argument used by amicus curae to ask initiation of investigation against Mr. Modi is that the affidavit submitted by Sanjiv Bhatt must be given due credence given his seniority and given the sensitivity and the seriousness of the allegations and the case.

 

Subramanian Swamy has held positions more respectable than Sanjiv Bhatt and he is on record saying that Sonia Gandhi has been involved in various scams.

Thus before one even contemplates whether there is a case for investigating Modi, there is ample case to initiate investigation against Sonia Gandhi.

Further Modi allegedly headed the meeting. Manmohan Singh has been heading this corrupt government for past ten years and yet he is clean!

 

Similarly regarding Sajjan Kumar etc.

However, everybody, including the likes of Sajjan Kumar (1984 riots infamy), Quattrocchi (Bofors infamy) are taken to be innocent even when proven guilty; while Modi is treated guilty even if proven innocent. This is the level to which the anti-Hindu ethos has stooped to in this country.

We demand that if there has to be any investigation or prosecution, it has to be against: First Sonia, Sajjan Kumar, Chidambaram, ... and after that first Sanjiv Bhatt and only after that, let there be even a debate if there needs to be any further investigation against Modi.

An in-principle Acceptance of Legitimacy of Modi's Candidature as PM Must Be the Litmus Test for a Least-Anti-Hindu Partnership.

Elections may happen anytime between now and 2014. The Congress is prepared to lose, but it is striving hard to ensure its priorities. In our opinion the priorities of the Congress are:

1. A non-BJP government, preferably third front (third-rate front) at the center with a Mohandasian Jawaharian PM.

2. Even if NDA forms a government, Modi must not be the PM.

The tactical maneuver of the Socialist Secular politicians have all been aligned with the same goal. On opposition to Modi; Lalu and Nitish are united, Akhilesh and Mayawati are united, the Congress, the CPM and even the Maosists are united; Why?

Is it because Modi orchestrated the subdued response to the dastardly carnage in Sabarmati Express by Muslim Extremists? Is it because Modi is accused of being dictatorial? Is it because Modi blah blah blah? Should we believe that Modi will be accepted as not-guilty if the courts exonerated him?

The answer to each of these is an unequivocal NO.

The Congress orchestrated anti-Sikh riots in 1984, falsely called them Hindu-Sikh riots, and yet is a Secular Party. While Modi, even if he gets exonerated by the courts will be held morally-guilty. Congress breathed in and out under the thumb of Jawahar (post China-war defeat the backside licking of Jawahar continued), Indira (Devkant Barua an erstwhile Congress President stated that India is Indira and Indira is India), and  does so now under Sonia, but Jawahar, Indira or Sonia are never called dictators, rather they are termed beloved leaders. Lalu owns his RJD, Mulayam owns his SP, Mayawati owns her BSP, Mamata owns her TMC, and they too are not dictators. But Modi is a dictator! Whose standards and what morals are these? 

Why is it that anti-Hindu terror is seen in Secular terms while even a mere questioning of this is considered Hindu-Communalism? Why is it that whether it is Mamata or Mayawati, Navin or Nitish, Akhilesh Yadav or Lalu Yadav, they boldly and shamelessly unite for Secularism (against the putative Hindu-Communalism), boldly and shamelessly unite for Social-Justice (against putative Hindu-Casteism); but they never ever display even an iota of interest for Hindu interests and safety? Do we need complex theories to understand this? No. At worst it is anti-Hindu unjust mind-set and at best it is anti-Hindu appeasement for political opportunism. Every political outfit exhibits this crass behavior. At the first opportunity to form a government the wind-bag Vajpeyee led BJP compromised on Hindutva. This is why we term that political outfits in India are not Secular or pseudo-Secular; they are either anti-Hindu or pseudo-Hindu. This has to change.

There are a few individuals who display from time to time a somewhat Hindu-sympathetic behavior. Bal Thackeray, Subramanian Swamy and Narendra Modi being some of them. And recall that they do it only occasionally while their opponents display anti-Hindu ethos contiuously. For example Bal Thackeray played a vital role in the release of Sanjay Dutt who had committed grossly anti-Hindu crime. Swamy has once called RSS evil. And Modi underplays Hindu causes. But for the presence of Modi administration, the understandable reaction to the evil and unprovoked Godhra carnage would have been much bigger. Thus the supposed pro-Hindu stance of these leaders is intermittant at best. And yet, merely for an occasional inclination towards Hindu-sympathy, the ubiquitous partners in anti-Hindu alliance hate them and demonize them. This shows the depth of the vile hatred the Jawaharian Socialists and Seculars have against the Hindus.

Bal Thackeray, Subramanian Swamy and Narendra Modi must be supported and encouraged not because they are pro-Hindu, which they are not; but because they are the least anti-Hindu among the current politicians. And we need to use Narendra Modi as the litmus test because the anti-Hindu alliance of the Jawaharian Socialists and Secularists hates him the most. Thus, for the forthcoming election (in 2014 or earlier) anyone who is opposed to Modi's candidature as PM must be rejected as Jawaharian anti-Hindu. The formation of any alliance that is not anti-Hindu, the litmus test must be the in-principle acceptance of Modi's candidature for PM. The main question is not about who is to be projected as PM. The main point is that those who oppose the candidature of a person merely because he is perceived as pro-Hindu must surely be squarely rejected.

Let the UPA, the Third Front (third rate front) and even the NDA go to dogs. What we Hindus must desire and work for, to begin with, in the forthcoming general elections, is a Least Anti-Hindu Alliance. And none who refuses even the legitimacy of Bal Thackeray's Ram-Temple stance, Subramanian Swamy's anti-Islamic-Terror-solution, and Modi's merely perceptible pro-Hindutva, to be included in the political discourse, must be comprehensivley rejected. We have had enough of anti-Hindu Jawaharism. We may be far from pro-Hindu mind-set. But we must begin by building the Least anti-Hindu mind-set. And for that, in-principle Acceptance of Legitimacy of Modi's Candidature as PM Must Be the Litmus Test.

Lots of Hullabaloo over a Useless though Very Expensive Post: The President

If Pratibha Patil could become the president of India, then barring possibly Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru, just about anybody is fit to become the president. But then why all this fuss over the coming presidential elections? Since independence India has been electing president as beauty contests elect winners. This may not necessarily be wrong, except that such winners should not luxuriate at tax-payers' expense. Now, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and possibly Dr. Radhakrishnan surely did not luxuriate, however, after that the rot set in. It is almost like saying that Marilyn Monroe was truly beautiful but that modern beauty pageants do not necessarily select the most beautiful person. To be more accurate the measure of beauty has undergone tremendous change under the combined onslaught of Gender Feminism, Multi-Culturalism, Social Justice, and so on and so forth. Not so curiously the same family of ideas dominate the election of the president as well.

Thus, sometimes the electorate want a Sikh president, sometimes a Muslim president, sometimes a Woman president, sometimes a Dalit president, and so on and on and boringly on. Nobody asks the question: What is the President there for? A ceremonial monarch? A all-expense-paid foreign dignitaries receiver-at-the-airport? What the bloody hell is the President there for? Why do we never ask, who will make a Deserving President? And what makes for deserving the post?

Again, not so curiously the title Bharat Ratna is also conferred likewise, the only difference being that unlike the President who drains the exchequer for 5 long years, Bharat Ratna is largely a one-time leak. Recall that a person like M G Ramachandran was deemed fit for the award.

The same goes for the post of Governor! Recently Sachin Tendulkar has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha. It looks as if our system of governance is looking for all qualities except the ability to govern in all election and selection processes.

To top it all, we keep patting ourselves on our butts claiming ourselves to be the largest, a vibrant and all such empty adjectives, democracy. Phew. Democracy our number eleven foot.

Be that as it may, the current conundrum before the low-intelligence-party (the one and only BJP!) has been: how to elect a non-Congress candidate for the President. And they have got a kick in the face and a bloody nose. If there is one party which loves being humiliated by its allies, it is the BJP. Following its own mentally negligible leaders, it keeps committing suicidal acts one after the other and then tries to paint it as sacrifices it made in the National Interest.

Presently it is busy cajoling Nitish Kumar, the man who should be shown the door for all the tantrums that he has shown. Further another kick is expected from Akali Dal and then possibly another from Mamata. However, the BJP has such abysmal lack of self-esteem and such insatiable greed for kicks by the allies that time and again it indulges in this self debasing acts. Of course its motives are to stand for what it terms true-Secularism, and Hindutva; while the fact of the matter is that it has become the electoral prostitute of opportunist mercenaries who use it and then kick it. Navin Patnayak did it, and Nitish will do it.

We Hindus must realize that there is a need for a pro-Hindu stand in the political discourse. All anti-Hindu scumbags whether of the pseudo-Hindutva/true-Secular kind or of the anti-Hindu/Secular kind must be rejected completely. Further notice the shamelessness in the pride with which the Congress is pressing for Pranab (the only old man who might oppose Rahul G becoming PM), Samajwadi Party's support for Hamid Ansari (who is just retiring from vice-Presidentship after a five-year-luxury at tax-payers' expense!), and Nitish's fretting at BJP's unilaterally declared opposition to these two. In light of this and the fact that our self appointed intelligentsia is not averse to have politicians donning the hat of the president (Pranab M.), not averse to Cartoons becoming the president; why is there nobody supporting the candidature of a decent Cartoonist, Bal Thackeray?

The Congress wants to reward the backside lickers of the dynastic family, the Seculars want to reward Muslims, The Socialists want to reward anti-Hindus; why can't the BJP have the courage to think of rewarding someone who has stood by their Hindutva agenda (however pseudo the agenda may have been) through the thick and thin? Barring a little amount of Marathi Manoos obsession - which is not so bad in itself given the fact that those in Delhi think that Delhi is India and India is Delhi - Ba Thackeray has been an OK man. If they think that a Marathi Cartoonist is too small a fry and a person (just like Pratibha Patil) of international intellectual repute (as if it means anything at all, when will this perpetual inferiority complex end?) is a must, then Dr. Subramanian Swamy is no less deserving!

Any aspiring pro-Hindutva party must understand one thing very very clearly. They must learn the perseverance and determination to go alone. If they have the strength and courage to go alone, allies will join (and become fellow travelers); otherwise the allies will enjoin (and become kicking dictators, as they have already become to the nightmare of the BJP!).

Morality vs. Moral High-Ground; Dharma vs. DharmAbhAsa

In Sanatana Dharma Avataratas (incarnations) of Ishwara descend to re-establish Dharma. This is enunciated by the couplets:

यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत अभ्युत्थानंधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहं ... (गीता ४.७)

विप्र धेनु सुर संत हित लीन्ह मनुज अवतार. (रामचरितमानस) 

Even saints and devotees perform similar feat, albeit they might focus somewhat on Social-Reform over Moral-Reform. And yet, most of them have been accused of errors ranging from mistakes to blunders. If Bhagwan Rama is accused of killing Vali by shooting him from behind a tree and Bhagwan Krishna has been accused of being manipulative during Mahabharata war; the others have also had their fair share of vociferous critics.

However these Mahajanas (महाजनो येन गतः स पन्थाः) while duly clarifying their actions were never unduly perturbed by these allegations; for they were clear about their goals and went about achieving the same, that is re-establishing Dharma.

Modern life, and even more so modern political and celebrity life is filled with a fake or counterfeit version of this concept, and that is Dharmabhasa or Moral High Ground! Singhvi sleaze is an exemplary case in point.

A video recording of a prominent politician (Abhishek Manu Singhvi) indulging in sex in his chambers located within the precincts of the Supreme Court is uploaded on the Social media; and the most important question that everyone is asking is not if the video is true; but rather if showing the video amounts to a breach in privacy of the politician. All parliamentarians are hush hush.

Those who were questioning Baba Ramdev on escaping wearing a woman's dress (the fecal matter disgorger Lalu) were mum as if they were hell bent upon swallowing the turd.

Those who sling mud on Anna (even if he deserves so) have been hiding behind or underneath the skirts of those with whom their videos may make it to Social media anytime!

In the meantime, the politician himself settles the case out of court and resigns from his posts establishing moral-high-standards! This is a great example of Dharmabhasa or Moral-High-Ground. The act would have (and possibly is going on) gone on unhindered; but now that it was caught, not only was it shamelessly denied, the case was put a lid on by the resignation.

So our leaders are not interested in even arresting the decline of morality (whatever that may be), let alone attempting to re-establish it; rather they are busy establishing Moral-High-Ground.

To the meanest intelligence it is clear that if Morality is for the honest, Moral-High-Ground is for the hypocrites, which is what most of our politicians are. Thus their modus operandi is "When caught deny and resign", while "the show must go on"!

There is yet another use for the moral-high-ground strategy. Keeping the Hindus under perpetual guilt. Thus, no matter how much violence and terror anti-Hindus inflict on the Hindus, the Hindus must always show restraint and non-violence. This was the suicidal prescription given by Mohandas, and used by Jawahar and his anti-Hindu comrades.

Morality is there to be upheld, however Moral-High-Ground is used only to put an opponent down. We Hindus must learn to differentiate between the two and reject the latter. It is Dharma which is to be upheld and not Dharmabhasa!

Is the right to use Terror as a Weapon reserved only for non-Hindus (read Muslims, Maoists and Missionaries)?

Global History:

The global history of Islam, Communism and even early Christianity is replete with mass killings.

Local History:

About 80 million civilian Hindus were killed between 1000 A.D. and 1500 A.D. alone by the Muslim invaders merely because they were Hindus (non-Muslims idol worshippers) and possibly a larger number of Women and Children taken as slaves.

Naxalwadis (ancestors of the present day Maoists) killed a large number of civilians.

Goan Inquisition was a dark period in the history of Goa.

Even the great Bengal Famine was a human made (The British Rulers and their Indian backside lickers) disaster which led to the death of a large number of people.

For example, see here, here, here, and here.

Recent Past:

Godhra carnage of Sabarmati Express, Mumbai attacks, on going bomb blasts are the gifts of Islamic Terror.

The LTTE was largely run by Christians (Prabhakaran and many of LTTE leaders were Christians, etc.) and the LTTE also betrayed the IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Force).

Maoists (read Socialists in a Hurry) have killed hundreds of civilians, and are continuing to kill civilians in India (and possibly elsewhere as well).

None of these have been termed a religion-inspired, ideology-inspired or race-induced hate crimes. Our self-appointed leading intellectuals always have a secular and social-injustice explanation for all these mass-killings, and in a completely indefensible situation these wise (read anti-Hindu venom-spitting evil beings) men blame human follies (another route for the secularization of the explanation).

Of course, when there is not even a whiff of a hint of a shred of a trace of a clue, the same wise men ascribe any deaths of Muslims, Poors or Christians to the Nazi-like hate practised by Hindu-right-wing and Hindu-casteists. Why? On one hand Jawaharian gene-line (Rahul Gandhi) and meme-line (Dogvijay Singh) consider Saffron-Terror (with unproven killings less than a hundred?) more dangerous than Islamic Terror or Mao Terror which has maimed and massacred millions! And the Jawaharians want to continuously keep the Hindu-Society guilt ridden. And on the other hand, since Hindus are peace-loving and docile these scheming criminals, the Jawaharians, have no fear of them. The only thing that they fear is Islam and Maoism, for there are Islamic terrorism and Mao-terrorism.  In contrast, since there is no Hindu-terror, Hindus are not heeded at all. To this fact if we apply age old wisdom that Actions lead to Reactions, it becomes obvious that if these Jawaharian political elites continue madly to tolerate and facilitate jihadism and Maoism in India, and to prohibit all truthful criticism of and opposition to the spread of jihadism and Maoism, then counter-jihad extremism or counter-mao-extremism, will inevitably emerge. One could go to the extent of saying that it should emerge. 

Thus the truth is the exact opposite of what Jawaharians (anti-Hindus) believe and profess. If the supposed Saffron Terror (hitherto non-existent) ever happens and grows, that will neither be Nazi nor insane. Rather the chest-beating and anti-Hindu hate-filled surprise that many profess at  even the  possibility of Reaction that is insane and evil. The same insane evil which has accorded the right to use Terror as a Weapon only to non-Hindus (often anti-Hindus). It is this insane and evil hatred of the Hindus that will engender the inevitable. Those who live by Terror will and must die by it!