Tuesday, 30 December 2014

Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Encounter Politics of Secular India

Today the “Secular Saints” of India must be having  their thumbs in the mouth and on a mourning  as Judge MB Gosavi  of special CBI court in Mumbai discharged BJP President Amit Shah  from the alleged fake encounter cases of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kauser Bi and his associate Tulsiram Prajapati.  The Special Judge observed that the evidence against Shah was “insufficient and unacceptable” to not discharge him from the case. 

Sohrabuddin Sheikh was an underworld gangster,  who had more than 60 pending criminal cases against him in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra at the time of his death in 2005, ranging from extorting protection money from marble factories in Gujarat and Rajasthan, to working with mafia dons like Dawood Ibrahim and Abdul Latif, for procuring weapons and explosives from Pakistan and supplying to various terrorist and anti-national groups in India. Sheikh was also associated with the banned global terrorist organization LeT and the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI. In a 1994 case investigated by the Ahmedabad crime branch, he was co-accused along with Dawood Ibrahim and convicted for 5 years for waging war against the Govt. of India, planning an attack on the Jagannath Rath Yatra in Orissa and other offences under the IPC, Arms Act. In 1999, he was again detained under the National Security Act by the Madhya Pradesh Govt.  Around the time he was killed, the Rajasthan Govt. had announced a reward on his head for killing Hamid Lata in broad daylight in the heart of Udaipur, on 31st Dec, 2004. To escape the police, Sheikh fled with his family from Gujarat to Hyderabad. During investigation, 24 AK-56 rifles, 27 hand grenades, 5250 cartridges, 81 magazines were seized from his family home in Madhya Pradesh.

Fake or not, encounters are welcome for killing Anti-India Terrorists.  What’s wrong in killing an arms smuggler,  who ran an extortion racket and had links with Pakistani Jihadi organizations?  Let the “Secular Saints”  of India consisting of politicians, human right activists, intellectuals and media argue and shout from the roof tops.  Who cares for them? We must kill such terrorist supporters, sympathisers and accomplices at every opportunity. Rather than police cases and investigations, people who are involved in such encounters should be rewarded. The encounter might not be completely genuine but what CBI has completely failed to explain is what was the ulterior motive of Gujarat Police to kill these people other than saving our nation and its people from terrorist attacks. The so called human rights organizations can just watch the killing of thousands of civilians by terrorists but they can't miss a chance to malign the image of our security agencies even when known terrorists are killed, who are waging war against this nation & its people. They call such killings FAKE encounters. 

While there is no denying the fact that Security Forces have to be accountable for their actions, it should also be remembered that this is an asymmetric war waged against an enemy who does not play by the rules & that nowhere in the world such organizations engaged in a shadowy war against jihadi terrorists, operate and can succeed within the rules applicable to normal security agencies dealing with common criminals. After the various jihadi terror attacks in India in public places including 2001 Parliament attack and specially the Indian airlines plan hijack incident of 1999, the security agencies had taken a decision to minimize taking such terrorists in custody. Also, if we analyse many other encounters including Batala House in Delhi, we will find that this was not the only case where some terrorists could have been taken into custody instead of killing. Jihadi terrorists should be treated as special class of criminals & enemies of the state and must be eliminated without any hesitation. Even the collateral damage, if it occurs must be overlooked for the safety of the country & its citizens. India has shed enough blood & the criminally insane agents of Pakistan/Bangladesh, who behave like bloodhounds should be shot at site as it is in the interest of the security of the masses. 

The secular politicians of the Congress variety (Congress, the UPA allies, the Janata Parivar and Left parties) and their stooge electronic media never talk  about the terrorist angle of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his accomplices because it hurts their vote bank politics of appeasement of a minority community. They conveniently forget that he was a terrorist, who was engaged in a war against our nation from within. Should the Gujarat Govt waited till he became another Dawood Ibrahim? As a next step, Amit Shah should  counter charge the CBI alongwith it’s the then political masters for dragging him to court. Let the truth be known, whether CBI was forced to drag Amit Shah into this case by the Italian maid, who even wept for the terrorists killed in Batla House encounter. These pseudo secular  political parties and intellectuals with vested interests, who earned their livelihood for decades from licking boots of  Congress regime will definitely cry today on TV debates on this development.

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

“Aman Ki Asha” in the aftermath of Peshawar killing

Since yesterday, barbaric killing of 132 school children by the Pakistani Taliban in Peshawar has created a huge sympathy wave from Indians. The “Aman Ki Asha” franchisees in India consisting of politicians (likes of Mani Shankar Aiyar), jounalists (likes of Karan Thapar, Barkha Dutta, Rajdeep Sardesai etc.), intellectuals and activists are on an overdrive to be seen “standing with Pakistan” and ‪#‎IndiaWithPakistan‬ is trending at the top of twitter as well as on various internet sites. While most Indians are eager to express sympathy and solidarity with Pakistan, Pakistanis are busy inventing theories to link this barbaric act with RAW and India. Gen Parvez Musharraf and LeT supremo Hafiz Sayed have already publicly declared that Indian Govt and RAW are behind this attack and planned & executed this from the soil of Afghanistan through a group of Pakistani Taliban. But that's how Pakistan and Pakistanis feel and behave. This is the same country where people distributed sweets and danced on the streets after 26/11 attacks on Mumbai. The casualty during the 26/11 Mumbai attack was double compared to Peshawar but Pakistanis didn't trend ‪#‎PakistanWithIndia‬ . We Indians including the “Aman Ki Asha” franchisees should realize that we are not dealing with a civilized, rational and progressive country and people. Whatever may be the situation, anti-India feeling is in the DNA of Pakistan and Pakistanis. This Islamic theocratic state and humanism don’t go together. Irrespective of whatever we offer or do, they will continue their war of bleeding India through thousand cuts. Fuelling and financing terror is their only state policy towards India.

Just check what the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his foreign office said - “these terrorists are enemies of Pakistan and enemies of Islam. Pakistan stands united in condemning this heinous crime and remains resolute in its commitment to eliminate terrorism from the soil of Pakistan and Afghanistan”. So it’s very clear that they want to fight “enemies of Islam” and not terrorism per se. They also want to eliminate terrorism from the soil of Pakistan and Afghanistan and not from the soil of India. Hence Pakistan’s strategic policy continues to differentiate between “good terrorists” and “bad terrorists” and it is intact even after the Peshawar attack. Pakistan’s strategic policy against India is based on using terrorists as strategic assets in their proxy war against us. The following is a quote from page 58 of “The Qur'anic Concept of War”, a strategic training manual written by Pakistani Brig. S.K. Malik for Pakistan Army, whose foreword was written by General Zia Ul Haque - "Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponents' heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him".

As long as some country and people will continue to see the world through their medieval religious eyes and refuse to respect culture & religion of non-believers, humanity will continue to suffer. Nothing can be more preposterous than we Indians saying "I stand with Pakistan". Pakistan is a perpetrator of terror and not a victim. Pakistan is as much a victim as a suicide bomber is of its own bomb. While we are saddened by the killing of the school children but can never sympathise with the terror factory named Pakistan. Pakistanis are now yelling that killing muslim school children is not jihad but terrorism. So that means if non-muslims are killed then it is jihad and they are fine with it. Rather, we need to buckle up now and get ready for more cross border terror attacks. All our energies should be focused not only on preventing such attacks but eliminating them all together.

Our “Aman Ki Asha” projects won’t change the hearts of Islamic terrorists of Pakistan. For this Pakistan has to move their education and social life away from religion based culture, value system, thinking and behaviour. Till they move to modern and progressive education and social system based on respect for all religion, human values and universal good, the scourge of terrorist mentality will remain with the Pakistanis. Today Pakistani nation state is based on hate towards other religions and culture, especially Hinduism. So those idiot Indians should stop their pipe dreams that a jihadi terrorist infested Pakistan will guarantee a safe and peaceful India. Trust Pakistan at your own peril.

Sympathy for the Peshawar victims should not blind us from our goal of defeating the state sponsored terrorist machinery emanating from Pakistan. Our policies and actions towards Pakistan should be only guided by realism and long-term strategy. We should not mix up sentimentalism with substance. In terms of the larger India-Pakistan relationship, Peshawar does not change anything. And I repeat…anything.

Friday, 12 December 2014

Mahatma Gandhi and Nationalism of Nathuram Godse

BJP MP Sakhshi Maharaj's remark a few days back has created a lot of  outrage among the “Secular Brigade” of India. They are twisting the whole statement of the BJP MP to give an impression that Nathuram Godse was an enemy of our nation and that Sakhshi Maharaj was equating him with Gandhi as well as justifying the killing of Gandhi.  But if we check the statement of Sakhshi Maharaj, we find that nowhere he justified the killing but just said that Godse was a nationalist and patriot who loved India though killing of Gandhi was wrong. His exact statement is as follows  - "Godse was a nationalist, Gandhi ji also did a lot for nation. Godse was an aggrieved person. He may have done something by mistake but was not an anti- national. He was a patriot”.

Mahatma Gandhi - the most influential Indian - Godse initially admired Gandhi but later become disillusioned with his ideas like a lot of other Indian at that time. Mahatma Gandhi who once famously said “I won't let the partition happen, if it does one must tear apart my body" was seen to be silent and inactive when the decision of partition of India was taken.  Direct Action Day, Noakhali genocide had shifted bargaining power to Jinnah from Congress and partition was becoming more inevitable by the day. Committee comprising of Mountbatten, Jinnah, Nehru and Gandhi discussed the matter. Later Gandhi left for Bengal as he feared that Hindus may resort to violence against Muslims. In his absence, Mountbatten Plan assenting partition was passed. Therefore, when it happened disillusioned Indians blamed him for inaction. Records show that Gandhi had helped Pakistan further. According to the partition plan, India owed final payment of Rs. 55 crore to the newly formed Pakistan before Indo-Pak relations on the Kashmir border deteriorated. Nehru & Patel argued that this money would help Pakistan buy weapons and froze the transaction upsetting Jinnah and Pakistani population. But in the name of humanitarian principles, Gandhi started a fast unto death till this money was released to Pakistan . He also fasted against  killing of  Muslims in Bengal and Delhi, but not even once to stop killings of Hindus in other parts. During these fasts, chants of "let Gandhi die" was heard frequently from the disillusioned and devastated Indians. It needs to be accepted that Gandhi failed to gauge the country's emotions and in an attempt to do everything righteous ended up making a big mess of the Indian state and its future. Should we blame Godse for feeling strongly about such injustice? I believe essentially Godse's action was conscious but nonetheless it was an outburst of rage that some sections of Indians felt because of Partition of India for which they held Mahatma Gandhi responsible. For them Pakistan was an illegitimate country born out of political opportunism and when Gandhi fasted  for Rs.55 Cr to be paid to this 'illegitimate' Pakistani state, it was outrageous for these sections of Indians  including Godse. Godse must have felt that Gandhi's idealism was doing much injustice to the nascent Indian state and its majority of people.

But that doesn't mean I support what Godse did. Which patriotic person would like his motherland to be split? The motherland is bigger than any individual or apostle. India was not Gandhi's “Jagir” for him to decide if partition should have happened. He had all rights to fight for freedom and lead the freedom struggle, but he had no right to give consent to divide the nation. The nation was not his alone but belonged to all Indians. The magnitude of Godse's contribution to the freedom struggle may be miniscule compared to that of Gandhi, but his angst was justified. Though Gandhi might be the greatest leader that India has had in recent history, there is no point in being in denial about the blunders committed by him and its consequences. Godse once said "Gandhiji may be a saint, but he's not a politician". However I feel, Gandhi was indeed a politician portrayed as a saint.

Nathuram Godse did not try to escape after assassinating Gandhi and was arrested immediately. The trial, which was held in camera, began on May 27, 1948 and concluded on February 10, 1949. He was sentenced to death.  Godse made his last statement before the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, on 5th May, 1949. Such was the power and eloquence of his last statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla, later wrote in his book  named “Murder of the Mahatma” - “I have, however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought a verdict of ‘not Guilty’ by an overwhelming majority”.

I think Godse was a Nationalist, who loved his country to the core of his heart, who needs to be seen and understood in the right context. Following is the complete text of Godse’s last statement and I request all to read it fully (though it’s quite long) and then comment if you think Godse was an enemy of our nation.

WHY I KILLED GANDHI  - By Nathuram Vinayak Godse (19 May 1910 – 15 November 1949)

Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession.

I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Ravana, Chanakiya, Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England , France , America and Russia . Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.

All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India , one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan , my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.

Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji’s influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them.. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day.

In fact, honour, duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita.. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.

In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India . It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history’s towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to them.

The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way.

Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma’s infallibility. ‘A Satyagrahi can never fail’ was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible.

Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. Gandhi’s pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India . It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India , Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani.. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma’s sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India . His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.

Thursday, 11 December 2014

The Politics of Conversion

The Indian “Secularists” (these include politicians, historians, intellectuals, journalists etc.) and the “liberal elite class” despise everything Hindu or Hindutava. These creatures get offended when any references to Hindu Gods or customs are made but they merrily quote Biblical or Koranic references. I am not surprised that these Hindu haters and their pimps in the media always tirade at anything and everything Hindu - be it Sanskrit, Gita or Ghar Wapasi. They have no problem with large scale conversions by the Christians and Muslims but are outraged when Hindus do the same. These 'secularists' frothing from their mouth now over the reconversions by some Hindu groups, never felt outraged all these decades when Missionaries and Moulavis were converting the poor and illiterate Hindu population of India by allurement, deceit or force. They never show outpouring of such anguish when Christians convert by sermons or cajoling (jobs, house, education, treating disease etc.) and Muslims convert by coercion (terror, jihad, killing the males, raping the females etc.). But never fail to express their righteous indignation when Hindus reconvert by bathing, sitting in front of havan, chanting mantras and no such lucrative offers or fear of rape or killing.


Earlier, when the Hindu groups were demanding ban on “forced” conversions, the “secular” political parties dismissed these demands as communal in nature. Muslim and Christian evangelists have always been opposed to laws that ban or restrain conversions in the name of “freedom of religion”. Only Hindu organisations have supported such laws. The truth these secularists have been unwilling to face or discuss seriously is that religious conversion has largely been a one-way traffic so far in India– away from Hinduism. Also these secularists try to defend the conversions by Missionaries and Moulavis from Hinduism as being the result of the Hindu caste system, even though there is no conclusive evidence that caste alone plays a part in such conversions. It is equally obvious that converting out of Hinduism has not ended caste inequalities for the converts as else Dalit Christians and Muslims would not been clamouring for SC/ST and OBC status. Conversions away from Hinduism are very systematically planned over a long period and heavily funded internationally by Gulf petro-dollars or rich evangelical Christian churches in North America and Europe. If the Agra conversions are generating communal feelings and hatred, by what logic can these secularists claim that conversions away from Hinduism are immune from it? Let there be laws preventing all forms of conversion. There should also be a judicial inquiry to unearth the truth relating to conversion so far happened and still happening in the country. But do these secularists have the guts to investigate, discuss and also implement a ban on all conversions?