Decode Sickular Lies on Indian History

Marxists their fellow travellors sickulars, islamis, isais have a single agenda – use every trick under the trade to keep native Indians divided. Marxist historians encouraged by congress I (islami-isai) dispensation have thoughroughly subverted Indian history. Infamously their technique is called “Suppresio Veri, Suggestio Falsi” (suppress the truth, suggest falsehood).

Big idea of these rogues is to keep natives divided by deploying various affiliations: panthic like saivaite /vaishnavaite /saktha /jaina/buddhist /sikh/vedanti and language/jati/locational affiliation; this while uniting islamis/isais. It is a tribute to their deception skills and naivete of natives that by regurgitating canards the deceits have succeeded in their nefarious acts and have undermined Native Dharma.

The following note was prepared by Arun Shourie and team in response to marxist/sickular/islami-isai deceit. When faced with facts standard response from the above deceits is the classic “shoot the messenger” abuse the person rather than respond to facts.

Using this questionnaire note (Appendix 4 of book, Hindu Temples What Happened to Them), you can decode the lies and deceit peddled by communists (like ndtv, xinhua hindu/frontline), islamis, isais, sickulars (vir sanghvi, shekhar gupta types).

As this is a touchstone for locating truth, I would request those who care for native Indian wellbeing to mirror this information for maximum impact.

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE MARXIST PROFESSORS

We return to the Marxist professors with whom we started.

We have cited from eighty histories written by Muslims over a period of more than one thousand years. We have also cited several Islamic inscriptions which confirm what the historians say. The citations show how Hindu temples continued to be destroyed over a vast area and for a long time. We have added no editorial comments and given no communal twist? to the events that took place. All along, we have kept to the actual language used by the Muslim historians.

We wonder if the professors will dismiss as a mere listing of dates? the evidence we have presented. What we expect from the professors is that they will come forward with historical analysis and interpretations. so that the destruction of Hindu temples mentioned in the Muslim narratives gets explained in terms of economic or political or any other non-religious motives.

We stick to our position, namely, that it is the theology of Islam which offers the only straight-forward and satisfactory explanation of why Muslim conquerors and rulers did what they did to Hindu places of worship. We have provided full facts about that theology, as also about the history of how it took its final shape. It would be most welcome if the professors come out with their comments on the character and meaning of this theology. In fact, we look forward to a Marxist explanation of it. What were the concrete material conditions and objective historical forces which gave rise to this theology in Arabia at that time?

Next, we refer to the second point which the professors had made in their letter to The Times of India. They had said that acts of intolerance have been committed by followers of all religions?. A subsequent sentence clarified what they meant; they had in mind the Buddhist and Jain monuments and animist shrines destroyed by Hindus. As we have said, we do not share their philosophy of separating the Buddhists, the Jains and the Animists from the Hindus. But we agree to use their terms for the time being and request them to produce:

1. A list of epigraphs which record the destruction of Buddhist and Jain monuments and Animist shrines by any Hindu, at any time;
2. Citations from Hindu literary sources describing destruction of Buddhist and Jain monuments and Animist shrines by any Hindu, at any time;
3. The Hindu theology which says or even suggests that non-Hindu places of worship should be destroyed or desecrated or plundered, or which hails such acts as pious or meritorious;
4. A list of Hindu kings or commanders whom Hindus have hailed as heroes for desecrating or destroying or converting into Hindu places of worship any Buddhist or Jain monuments or Animist shrines;
5. A list of Buddhist and Jain monuments and Animist shrines which have been desecrated or destroyed or converted into Hindu places of worship in the remote or the recent past;
6. The names and places of Hindu monuments which stand on the sites occupied earlier by Buddhist or Jain monuments or Animist shrines, or which have materials from the latter embedded in their masonry;
7. Names of Buddhist, Jain and Animist leaders or organizations who have claimed that such and such Hindu monuments are usurpations, and demanded their restoration to the original occupants;
8. Names of Hindu leaders and organizations who have resisted any demand made by Buddhists or Jains or Animists for restoration of the latter’s places of worship, or called for legislation which will maintain the status quo, or cried Hinduism in danger, or staged street riots in support of their usurpations.

W e think that this sort of concrete evidence alone cane decide the question of the limits to the logic of restoration of religious sites?. There seems to be no other way. Sweeping generalizations based on slender or dubious evidence are no substitute for hard facts.

We hope that the professors will not resort to the hackneyed swear-words such as Hindu communalism,reactionary revivalism, and the rest. Swear-words offer no solutions. In any case, the time when swear-words carried weight has passed. It is no use inviting the other side to hit back in a similar manner.

If the professors fail to come out with answers to questions posed by us, and to present the evidence in support of their statements, we shall be forced to conclude that far from being serious academicians, they are cynical politicians hawking ad hoc or plausible explanations in the service of a party line. In fact, we shall be justified in saying that they are not Marxists but Stalinists. Marxism is a serious system of thought which offers consistent explanations. Stalinism, on the other hand, is an exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi in pursuit of a particular end.

Hindu scholars, leaders and organizations have so far ignored the loud and large-scale talk in the mass media, academia, and political circles about Hindu intolerance towards the Buddhists and the Jains and the Animists. Much damage has already been done to the image of Hinduism, and much more damage is likely to result if this talk is not challenged and stopped. How loose and irresponsible this talk can be is illustrated by the following instance.

I attended a seminar on the Mandal Commission Report held in the Gandhi Peace Foundation in October, 1990. One of the participants who spoke in support of the Report was Shri Hukam Dev Narain Singh Yadav, an MP of the Janata Dal at that time and a Minister in the Chandra Shekhar Government some time later. Speaking of Brahminical tyranny, he referred to the time ?when rivers of the blood of Buddhist monks were made to flow in the Buddhist monasteries (jab bauddha vihãroñ mêñ bauddha bhikSuoñ kê rakta kî nadiyãñ bahãî gayî thîñ).? The following dialogue took place between myself and the speaker at the end of the latters talk:

• I: Could you kindly name the Buddhist monasteries where it happened, and also the time when it happened?
• Speaker: I will not pretend that I know. I must have heard it from someone, or read it somewhere.
• I: I give you six months for finding a single instance of Hindus murdering Buddhist monks. I am demanding only one instance, not two.
• Speaker: I will try.

The speaker looked to me to be one of the finest men I had ever met. His voice had a ring of sincerity in whatever he said. His humility in presenting his point of view was more than exemplary. I expected him to remember my question and provide an answer. But two and a half years have passed and there is no word from the eminent politician occupying a high position in the public life of this country.

I know that the evidence demanded by me does not exist. It is a Big Lie being spread by Hindu-baiters. Hindus have never done what they are being accused of. My only point in mentioning the incident is that even honest people can become victims of hostile propaganda which is not countered in good time.

II

When the first edition of this book came out, I sent a copy of it to Professor Romila Thapar of the Jawaharlal Nehru University in her capacity as the doyen of the Marxist historians. I also addressed to her the following letter on 27 June, 1991:

I have posed a questionnaire for the school of historians which you lead. Please turn to pp. 438-441 of my recently published book (Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Volume II: The Islamic Evidence), a copy of which is being sent to you by registered post.

You may also read pp. 70-103 and p.i which also discuss the position of your school.

I am drawing your attention to these pages so that your school does not plead ignorance of them while maintaining silence. Of course, you are free to ignore the questionnaire as coming from a person who has had no standing in the academic world. I, however, feel that there are many people still left in this country who care for truth more than for position.

She was kind enough to reply by a letter dated 10 August 1991 which said:

Your letter of 27 June was awaiting me on my recent return to Delhi.

As regards the issues raised in the questionnaire included in your book, you are perhaps unaware of the scholarly work on the subject discussed by a variety of historians of various schools of thought. May I suggest that for a start, you might read my published lectures entitled, Cultural Transaction and Early India.

I wrote back on 31 August 1991, and stated my position as follows:

I acknowledge your letter of August 10.

I wish you had refrained from striking the pose of superiority which has been for long the hallmark of your school of historians. It does not go well with academic discipline.

For your information I have been primarily a student of ancient India’s history and culture, and gone through a good deal of source material, literary as well as archaeological. One of the reasons I have wandered into India?s medieval and modern history is that I want to know what happened to Hindu heritage at the hands of latter-day liberators?.

May I request you not to suggest any further reading of your stuff? You threaten to do so when you use the words ?for a start? while recommending your present pamphlet. I am pretty familiar with the patent lore.

I am sorry to say that your pamphlet has added nothing to my knowledge or perspective. The method of selecting facts and floating fictions is very well known to me. Christian missionaries have done far better with lesser fare.

I am not commenting on the various propositions put forward in your pamphlet. The Questionnaire which I have addressed to you was framed in a particular context. In your letter published in The Times of India dated October 2, 1986, you had stated that handing over of Sri Rama’s and Sri Krishna’s birthplaces to the Hindus, and of disused mosques to the Muslims raises the question of the limits to the logic of restoration of religious sites. How far back do we go? Can we push this to the restoration of Buddhist and Jain monuments destroyed by Hindus? Or of the pre-Hindu animist shrines? In my book I have welcomed the statement and said that the question can be answered satisfactorily only when we are prepared to face facts and a sense of proportion is restored?.

I have gone ahead and compiled historical and theological data about Islamic iconoclasm from whatever Islamic sources I could lay my hands on during the last four years. More may follow as I get at more of this source material. In an earlier volume I have provided, in a preliminary survey, a list of around two thousands Muslim monuments which are known to stand on the sites of and/or have been built with the materials of Buddhist, Brahmanical and Jain temples. The list is likely to get enlarged as I continue to look into more archaeological reports.

I have also compiled a list of Buddhist and Jain monuments supposed to have been destroyed or usurped by this or that Brahmanical sect, and Jain temples functioning at what were Brahmanical places of worship at earlier dates. I am seeking your help to enlarge the list of Buddhist and Jain monuments which were destroyed by those whom you call Hindus. Your writings and statements over the years go to show that you specialize in this subject. What I am looking for in particular is the Hindu theology which inspires acts of intolerance. I expect you to guide me to it.

My Questionnaire is not at all a challenge issued in a spirit of combat. It is only an appeal that sweeping statements should now yield place to hard facts so that we know precisely as to who did what, when, where, and under what inspiration. We should be in a position to compare the record of Islamic iconoclasm with that of Hindu iconoclasm, and draw fair conclusions regarding the character and role of the two religions. I for one am not interested in the restoration of religious sites, which I leave to the politicians.

It is nobody’s case that Hindu sects (in which I include Buddhists and Jains) did not use strong language vis-a-vis each other. Every Brahmanical sect has used strong language about other Brahmanical sects. So have the Buddhist, and the Jains, not only vis-a-vis Brahmanical sects but also about one another. The situation gets much worse when it comes to the sub-sects, whether Buddhist or Brahmanical or Jain. But strong language alone, whether in words or portrayals, is no evidence in the present context, unless it is followed by overt acts of destruction or usurpation.

Secondly, I fail to understand the logic of placing Buddhists and Jains on one side of the fence, and Brahmanical sects on the other. What about Buddhists and Jains committing acts of intolerance vis-a-vis one another? For a start, I refer you to the Mahavamsa which says that the Buddhist king, Vattagamini (29-117 BC), destroyed a Jain vihara and built a Buddhist one on the same site. In the Sravana-Belgola Epitaph of Mallishena, the renowned Jain teacher, Akalanka, says that ?in the court of the glorious king Himasitala, I overcame all crowds of Bauddhas, most of whom had a shrewd mind (vidagdha-at-mano), and I broke the (image of) Sugata with my foot (padena visphotitah) ? (EI. III, 192 for Sanskrit text and 201 for English translation). The instances can be multiplied.

Thirdly, I plead that presentation of evidence should not be an exercise in suppressio veri suggestio falsi. Your one line summary (p.18) of die Saiva inscription at Ablur is a case in pint. The inscription says clearly (El.III, 255) that the dispute arose because the Jains in a body tried to prevent a Saiva from worshipping his own image, saying Jina is the (true) deity?. The Jains also undertook to pluck up our Jina and set up Siva? if the Saiva devotee performed a miracle. And the Jains went back on their plighted word when the miracle was shown. There was a quarrel and the Jina was broken by the Saivas. What is most significant, the Jain king, Bijjala, decided in favour of the Saivas when the dispute was referred to him. He dismissed the Jains, bidding them to go without saying further words?. The story ends with the Jain king showering favours on the Saivas.

Dr. Fleet who has edited and translated this inscription along with four others found at the same place, gives summaries of two Lingayat puranas and the Jain Bijjalacharitra, and points out that the story in this inscription finds no support in the literary traditions of the two sects. Bijjal?s inscription dated AD 1162 discovered at Managoli (EI. V, 9-23) also does not support the story. The fact that the Saiva inscription at Ablur bears neither a date nor relates itself definitely to the reign of a king, makes it sound fishy. Authentic inscriptions do not usually deal in miracles. Obviously, the Saivas seem to have used the endowment of a Saiva temple in the Managoli inscription for mounting on it a story which was not related to any real events but satisfied sectarian spite.

Dr. Fleet has cited from the Lingayat sources to show that there was nothing Brahmanical about the Lingayats. They harboured hostility to Brahmans? (p.239) and their doctrines ?included the persecution and extermination of all persons whose creed differed from that of the Lingayats? (p.240). Brahmanism in any shape or form should not be held responsible for the doings of this sect. There is evidence that this sect drew its inspiration directly from Muslim missionaries who abounded on the West Coast of India at the time it took shape.

Incidentally, I have not been able to find anything relevant to the context in EI. XXVIII.1 which is mentioned in footnote 14 on page 18 of your pamphlet, along with EI.V.237. Is it a printing mistake? Kindly give me the correct reference so that I may examine the incident and credit it to your account if it is not already in my list. I hope it is not a case of strong language alone.

Finally, I suggest that all cases of Brahmanical rulers building or endowing Buddhist and Jain temples, and Buddhist and Jain rulers doing the same for Brahmanical temples, should also be compiled for obtaining a total picture of the religious scene. You are very prompt in pointing out the few cases where Hindu temples were endowed or built under Muslim patronage, whenever the large-scale destruction of Hindu temples by Muslims is brought to your notice. Why do you always fail to point out the numerous cases of Brahmanical patronage of Buddhism and Jainism, while listing the few cases of Brahmanical persecution? If a few cases of Muslim patronage can atone for large-scale Islamic iconoclasm, the numerous cases of Brahmanical patronage should be able to do the same for a few cases of Brahmanical persecution. I hope I am not illogical.

I have not received even an acknowledgement of this letter from Professor Thapar, leave alone any comments on the points raised by me. Her silence has left me sad, for I was looking forward to a fruitful dialogue.

III

Lest Professor Thapar complains that in my letter to her I have not dealt with all instances of ?Hindu intolerance? mentioned in her pamphlet, I reproduce below the entire evidence she has presented. She says:

The persecution of Buddhists in Kashmir is referred to by Hsüan Tsang, but, lest it be thought that he being a Chinese Buddhist monk was prejudiced, the testimony of KalhaNa in the Rãjatarañginî should be more acceptable. Hsüan Tsang refers to the atrocities of Mihîrakula against the Buddhists both in Punjab and in Kashmir in the sixth century AD. Hsüan Tsang may well have been exaggerating when he lists the destruction of 1,600 Buddhist stûpas and sanghãramas and the killing of many thousands of Buddhist monks and lay-followers. KalhaNa gives an even fuller account of the king killing innocent people by the hundreds. This is often dismissed by attributing the anti-Buddhist actions of Mihîrakula to his being a HûNa. But it should not be forgotten that he was also an ardent Saiva and gave grants of land in the form of agrahãras to the brahmans. In the words of KalhaNa: ?Brahmans from Gandhãra resembling himself in their habits and verily themselves the lowest of the twice-born accepted agrahãras from him.? It is possible that the recently discovered stûpa at Sanghol in Punjab, where sculpted railings were found in the vicinity of a stûpa dismantled and packed away, indicates this persecution of Buddhists in Kashmir and the wilful destruction of a vihãra, again by a Saivite king. But on this occasion the king repented and built a new monastery for the Buddhist monks.

Courtly literature, particularly plays written after the seventh century AD, is replete with invective against Buddhist and Jaina monks who are depicted as morally depraved, dishonest and altogether what one might call the scum of the earth. Mahendravarman’s MaTTavilãsa, a farce, is amongst the earliest plays. In the MudrarãkSasa of Vi?ãkhadatta, a constant refrain states that it is inauspicious to see a Jaina monk. The Prabodha-candrodaya of KRSNa Mira, a drama of the eleventh century, dwells on the theme of a Kapãlika converting a Jaina and a Buddhist monk to Saivism by offering them wine and women, both of which they are said to hanker after. In the Saiva temples at Khajuraho, Jaina monks, especially of the digambara sect, are depicted in the worst possible erotic poses. Such references and depictions do not amount to persecution but reflect a contemptuous attitude towards Jaina and Buddhist monks which they would doubtless have found very galling, particularly as they occur in the literature and art of aristocratic groups. The depiction of monks and ascetics as debauched may have been due to the court’s contempt for a variety of ascetics, some of whom were associated with socially unacceptable practices. Such depictions in courtly literature may also have been an attempt to play down the authority associated with renouncers and ascetics in the popular mind. But it is significant that the Buddhists and Jainas are more commonly made the subject of attack.

Evidence on the persecution of Jainas by Saiva sects comes from a variety of sources. The earliest known cave temple originally dedicated by the Jainas in Tirunelveli district was, subsequently in the seventh century, converted into a Saiva temple. This was not a case of appropriating the temple and gradually changing it. Quite clearly, the Jaina images were either destroyed or erased, sometimes only partially, and fresh Saivite images carved in the same place. In the case of the partially erased sculpture it is possible to recognize traces of the original. Where the image is totally gouged out the desecration is visible.

The Saivite saint Jñãna Sambander is attributed with having converted the PãNDya ruler from Jainism to Saivism, whereupon it is said that eight thousand Jainas were impaled by the king. This episode is represented in painting and sculpture in medieval temples and is enacted to this day in some Siva temples during their annual festival. In later times, attempts were made to appease the Jainas by royal patrons building Jaina, Saiva and VaiSNava temples in close proximity. But in these areas the Jaina temples soon fell into disrepair whilst the others flourished.  Tamil Scholar V K Kalyanasundaram highlighted that the old Siddha Marga of native Indian tradition split to jaina and saiva ways.

Such activities were not restricted to a particular area. The Jaina temples of Karnataka went through a traumatic experience at the hands of the Lingãyatas or VîraSaivas in the early second millennium AD. This would explain in part why some Jaina texts have pejorative references to Basava, who founded the Vîrasaiva sect. The Jaina temples at LakkuNDi were located in the proximity of an affluent agrahãra and the VaiSNava brahmans accepted Mahãvîra as an incarnation of Brahma. Later, however, one of the temples was converted into a Saiva temple. At Huli, the temple of the five Jinas was converted into a pañcaliñgesvara Saivite temple, the five liñgas replacing the five Jina images in the sancta. Some other Jaina temples suffered the same fate. An inscription at Ablur in Dharwar eulogizes attacks on Jaina temples as retaliation for Jaina opposition to ?aivite worship. Sculpted panels at this site depict the smashing of Jaina images. In the fourteenth century the harassment of Jainas was so acute that they had to appeal for protection to the ruling power at Vijayanagara.

Inscriptions of the sixteenth century from the Srisailam area of Andhra Pradesh record the pride taken by Vîrasaiva chiefs in beheading svetãmbara Jainas. The local records of this area refer to the frequent persecution of the Jainas. In Gujarat, Jainism flourished during the reign of Kumãrapãla, but his successor persecuted the Jainas and destroyed their temples. However, Jainism was so well-established here that periodical persecution did not really shake it? (1)

She sums up: It is historically important to know why this persecution of the Buddhists and Jainas occurred in particular by the Saivas. I can only offer a few comments. At the religious level, it may have had to do with asceticism. Was Siva seen as the ascetic par excellence and the patron deity of ascetics, and were Buddhist and Jaina monks seen as imposters? Did Buddhist and Jaina monks find the worship of the lingam offensive owing to the puritanism inherent in both these systems? Yet the Tantric versions of these systems conceded to practices and ideas which were opposed to puritanism. If the hostility related only to religious differences, then it should have surfaced earlier in time. It is interesting that it begins about the middle of the first millennium AD and gains force through the centuries until Buddhism eventually fled the country and Jainism was effectively limited to a few pockets. The persecution predates the coming of Islam to these areas, so that the convenient excuse that Islamic persecution caused the decline of these religions is not applicable.(2)

Interestingly, she has refrained from mentioning the persecution of Buddhists by Pusyamitra Sunga and SaSãñka of GauDa, and the melting of idols by king Harsha of Kashmir, which had so far figured most prominently in the writings of her school. I wonder whether she has realized that those allegations have no legs to stand upon, even though others of her school continue to harp on them. In any case, it may be assumed that her present list has exhausted the entire stock-in-trade in the Marxist shop on the subject of Hindu intolerance?. I will deal with these instances, one by one.

1. She has suppressed the fact, stated by Huen Tsang, that Mihîrakula had requested the Buddhist Sangha to teach him the tenets of Buddhism. The Sangha did not assign the task to a qualified teacher but sent a monk who had the rank of a servant. Mihîrakula felt outraged at this insult and persecuted the Buddhists. It is highly doubtful if this HûNa tyrant had become a Saiva. KalhaNa sees him only as a HûNa extending patronage to bad BrãhmaNas. But even if he had, his fury had nothing to do with ?aivism. On the contrary, it was the fury of a tyrant whose ego had been hurt. Kashmir had known many Saiva kings before Mihîrakula as well as after him. None of them is known to have persecuted the Buddhists. In fact, most of them are known to have been patrons of Buddhism. The only instance she cites is that of a king who repented and rebuilt the vihãra which he had pulled down in a fit of anger. We should welcome a similar instance of some Muslim ruler who repented and rebuilt the temple he had demolished. The difference arises because while it was a temporary lapse on the part of the Kashmiran king, Muslim rulers were inspired by a permanently prescribed theology.

2. Dragging in the unfinished stûpa at Sangol in this context is totally unwarranted. No archaeologist has said that the stûpa was dismantled and packed away?. All that is known is that many stones had been finished, and were meant to be parts of a stûpa. But no one knows for sure why they were left in pits and trenches. It is no more than a speculation that perhaps a HûNa invasion was feared. No other archaeologist or historian has surmised that Mihîrakula was leading this invasion, and that he inspired fear as a ?aiva. In any case, Professor Thapar is the first to say that this represents a case of persecution of the Buddhists by a Saiva king. Her obssession has scored over her scruples.

3. The instances of Buddhist and Jain monks being made the subject of invectives in Sanskrit literature does not prove anything. Professor Thapar has herself stated in her present pamphlet that the Jain book Paumacarya denounces the BrãhmaNas as heretics and preachers of false doctrines who acquired their status through fraud (3). Shall we say that the Paumacarya invites the Jains to persecute the BrãhmaNas? I can cite many instances where the BrãhmaNas have been abused in Buddhist and Jain literature in worse language. But I will not accuse the Buddhists and Jains of persecution of the BrãhmaNas. And what about Buddhists and Jains hurling invectives on one another? Shall we say that Buddhists persecuted the Jains, and vice versa.

4. The persecution of Jains in the PãNDya country by some Saivas had nothing to do with Saivism as such, but was an expression of a nationalist conflict which I will relate shortly. What I want to point out first is that most of the royal dynasties which ruled in India, after the breakdown of the Gupta Empire and before the advent of Islamic invaders, were Saiva-Maukharîs, PuSyabhûtis, Gurjara-Pratihãras, and GãhaDavãDs of Kãnyakubja; Vãkãtakas of Nãndîvardhana and Vatsagulma; Pallavas of Kãñchipuram; Cholas of Tanjore; Chãlukyas of Vãtãpî, KalyãNa, and Veñgî; PãNDuvaM?îs of Kosala and Mekala; Kalachurîs of MãhiSmatî and Tripurî; RãshtrakûTas of MãnyakheTa; Maitrakas of Valabhi; Guhilots of Mewar; ChãhmãNas of Sãkambharî, NaDDula and Jalor; Turkî and Hindû Shãhîs of Kabul, Zabul and UdbhãNDapura; KãrkoTas and Utpalas of Kashmir; Tomaras of Haryana and Delhi; Parmãras of Malwa and Abu; Chaulukyas of Gujarat; Yãdvas of Maharashtra; Kãkatîyas of Andhra Pradesh; HoySalas of Karnataka; Chandellas of Kalinjara – to recount only the most prominent of them. The Jains are known to have flourished everywhere; not a single instance of the Jains being persecuted under any of these dynasties is known. The instance she mentions from Gujarat was only the righting of a wrong which the Jains had committed under Kumãrapala. Professor Thapar does not mention the Jain high-handedness which had preceded.

The conflict between the Jains and the Saivas in the PãNDya country has been dealt with in detail by M. Arunachalam in a monograph published eight years before Professor Thapar delivered the lectures which comprise her pamphlet(4). He has proved conclusively, with the help of epigraphic and literary evidence, that the Kalabhara invaders from Karnataka had occupied Tamil Nadu for 300 years (between AD 250 and 550), and that they subscribed to the Digambara sect of Jainism.(5) It so happened that some of the Kalabhara princes were guided by a few narrow-minded Jain ascetics, and inflicted injuries on some Saiva and VaiSNava saints and places of worship. They also took away the agrahãras which BrãhmaNas had enjoyed in earlier times.(6) And a reaction set in when the Kalabharas were overthrown. The new rulers who rose subscribed to Savisim. It was then that the Jains were persecuted in some places, and some Jain places to worship were taken over by the Saivas under the plea that these were Saiva places in the earlier period.

But the reaction was confined to the PaNDya country. Jainism continued to flourish in northern Tamil Nadu which also had been invaded by the Kalabharas, where also the Saivas and VaiSNavas had been molested by the Jains, and where also the Saivas had come to power once again. It is significant that though Buddhists also invite invectives in the same Saiva literature, no instance of Buddhists being persecuted is recorded. That was because Buddhists had never harmed the Saivas. It is also significant that the VaiSNavas of Tamil Nadu show no bitterness against the Jains though they had also suffered under Kalabhara rule.

In any case, Professor Thapar should have mentioned the persecution of Saivas practised earlier by the PaNDya king who was a Jain to start with, and who later on converted to ?aivism and persecuted the Jains. This is another instance of suppressio vari suggestio falsi practised very often by her school. Obviously, these persecutions had nothing to do with either Jainism or Saivism, and were no more than the expressions of a king’s personal predisposition.

Interestingly, the Persecution of Jains in the PaNDya country finds mention only in Saiva literature, and is not corroborated by Jain literature of the same or subsequent period. Specialists of South India?s history such as K.A.N. Sastri have dismissed the whole story as a Saiva braggadocio without any basis in fact. The atrocities of the Islamic invaders, on the other hand, find mention not only in Muslim histories but also in contemporary Hindu literature. At any rate, these few instances cannot overshadow the fact that Jains and Saivas have lived in perfect amity for a very long time, and over large areas. What is more important, neither Jains nor Saivas have any theology sanctioning persecution of people belonging to other religious persuasions. Aberrations should be seen as aberrations, unless we are out to make mountains out of molehills.

5. As regards her statement that Buddhism eventually fled the country and Jainism was effectively confined to few pockets? as a result of Hindu persecution in pre-Islamic days, one simply feels flabbergasted in the face of such colossal ignorance on the part of a professor of history. As regards Buddhism, we are quoting what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has to say on the subject. After observing that the Persian word ‘but’ meaning ‘idol’ is derived from Buddha, He writes: Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the Muslim mind idol worship had come to be identified with the religion of Buddha. To the Muslims they were one and the same thing. The mission to break idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhara and Chinese Turkestan in all these countries Islam destroyed Buddhism.(7) More precisely: The Muslim invaders sacked the Buddhist universities of Nalanda [etc.] They razed to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders.(8) D.D. Kosambi, a historian of her own Marxist school, confirms that Nalanda was sacked by a handful of Muslim raiders under Mohammed bin Bakhtyar Khalji about AD 1200 and that the tremendous complex at Sarnath which had grown up on the site of the first Buddhist sermon was wrecked beyond recovery, thus ending a continuous tradition of refuge and meeting-place for ascetics which went back to the centuries before Buddha.(9)

She would do well to read some histories of Buddhism and Jainism in this country to know that 1) Buddhism was flourishing all over the country when the Islamic invaders arrived on the scene; 2) both Buddhism and Jainism were being patronised by kings whom the Marxist lable as Hindus; 3) Buddhist monks fled to Nepal and Tibet only after thousands of them were massacred, and their monasteries destroyed by the Islamic marauders; 4) Buddhism continued to flourish all over Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Karnataka till attacked by the armies of Islam in the fourteenth century; 5) Buddhism did not survive the Islamic assault because, unlike Brahmanism and Jainism, it was centred round monasteries and monks; 6) Jainism has continued to flourish till today all over north India, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat as it did in the pre-Islamic period, in spite of prolonged Islamic persecution; and 7) there is evidence of a large number of Jain temples being destroyed in the Muslim invasions of southern Bihar and Jharkhand as well as of western and northern Bengal, during the thirteenth and subsequent centuries.

It is nobody’s case that there was never any conflict among the sects and sub-sects of Sanãtana Dharma. Some instances of persecution were indeed there. Our plea is that they should be seen in a proper perspective, and not exaggerated in order to whitewash or counter-balance the record of Islamic intolerance. Firstly, the instances are few and far between when compared to those listed in Islamic annals. Secondly, those instances are spread over several millennia while the fourteen centuries of Islam stand crowded with religious crimes of all sorts. Thirdly, none of those instances were inspired by a theology, while in the case of Islam a theology of intolerance has continued to question the character of Muslim kings who happened to be tolerant. Fourthly, Jains were not always the victims of persecution; they were persecutors as well once in a while. Lastly, no king or commander or saint who showed intolerance has been a Hindu hero, while Islam has hailed as heroes only those characters who excelled in intolerance.

It is not an accident that Professor Thapar’s pamphlet consists of I. H. Qureishi Memorial Lecture, 1987, delivered in the St. Stephen’s College, Delhi. Ishdaq Husain Qureishi was a professor of medieval Indian history in this college when I was a student in another college of the same university. He was a well-known intellectual of the Muslim League and famous for floating the proposition that Hindus were far better off under Muslim rule than they were under that of their own princes in pre-Islamic India. He migrated to Pakistan after Partition, and was that country’s Minister of Education for a term. He functioned, to the end of his life, as an apologist of Islamic imperialism as is evident from the numerous works of research he wrote or guided. One can hardly expect proper knowledge or perspective from professors who are patronized by such platforms.

Footnotes:

1 Cultural Transaction and Early India: Tradition and Patronage, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1987, pp. 16-18.

2 Ibid., p. 19.

3 Ibid., P. 15.

4 The Kalabharas in the Pandiya country and their Impact on the Life and Letters there, University of Madras, 1979.

5 Ibid., pp. 29-34.

6 Ibid., pp. 95-100.

7 Writings and Speeches, published by the Government of Maharashtra, Volume 3. p. 229 (in the Chapter ?The Decline and Fall of Buddhism.?)

8 Ibid., pp. 229-30.

9 The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India, New Delhi, 1984, p. 18.

(For a more detailed information on marxist rogues like romila thapar, one can read Arun Shourie’s book eminent historians, where Arun Shourie meticulously documented the deceit techniques of these  so called historians and their loot)

BJP’s Next President – Letter to Sarsanghchalak Shri Mohan Bhagwat

Poojaneeya Sarasanghachalakji

Pranaam

BJP’s president race is important because it will provide contours of post LK Advani BJP. Among other it will indicate who will be the top gun.

BJP and the wider Sangh Parivar suffer from serious ailments which ZIM had covered in election analysis LS 2009.  Its  serious situation is an outcome for which essentially intent to placate congentially hostile elements, lack of discipline, poor understanding of money power and its influence on media are responsible. Above has resulted in among others perceived loss of credibility – serious handicap in electoral arena. As was pointed, rapid reorganization rollout is what will revive BJP rather than piecemeal approach.

ZIM believes that the thinking that a single person as president, even if fully empowered will be panacea for BJP ills is short sighted. What BJP needs is a triumvirate:

• Public face – potential PM candidate
• Organizations lead – someone that can crank up the organization
• Alliances Lead – who can convince alliance partner

These three roles call for differing focus and teams. Its better for BJP if all the three are announced one shot in umambiguous terms – persons capable enough to pull the organization as a team. New President may be the person who is first among the equals.

While there is clamor among some well meaning individuals for organization elections culminating in new leadership, present situation in BJP precludes rigorous US type primaries. In the short term we have to live with a well thought out decision. It can be said with good confidence that potential BJP voter (not just the core) would prefer NaMo should he put his hat in the ring. BJP and the wider Sangh Parivar would be fool hardy to ignore what its followers think. Among the names that did/are doing rounds, Manohar Parrikar too has quality backing.

Among Advani acolytes, Arun Jaitley has some credentials, but his credentials appear weaker compared to NaMo’s/Manohar Parrikar’s. (See below for why). AJ does have his strengths.

Nitin Gadkari, whose name is doing rounds in Delhi seems rather weak on the credentials.

Proposal: ZIM believes NaMo alone has the gravitas to be first among equals. Potential BJP face for PMship.  Manohar Parikkar can be the organization man and Arun Jaitley – lead for Alliances.

Other important aspects include following:

• Visible female faces:  In Vasundara Raje, Kiron Kher, Smriti Irani, Sushma Swaraj and prospective Uma Bharati, BJP can proffer a galaxy of competent women. Vasu’s imperiousness and her caste background are serious assets and unless there are compelling reasons publically articulated, she should remain the face of Rajasthan BJP and the leading BJP female light. Deploying Smriti Irani or Kiron Kher on media would be wiser than Prakash Javdekars.
• Uttar Pradesh: Swinging UP is crucial for BJP. A strong and charismatic leader who can pull BJP on a strong development agenda is important.
• Inorganic Growth: Integrating synergistic entities.

What to look for when top job is decided:

1. Credibility
2. Tack record
3. Ability to inspire
4. Decisionmaking
5. Managing disagreements

Parivar should be mindful that ‘Good consensus’ person as leader may turn out to be ‘good for nothing’ person. When I analysed credentials of the short listed candidates, it looked something like this:

CREDENTIALS:

Arun Jaitley: 57 years old, Delhi based, old ABVP hand is a seasoned BJP hand involved in strategising victories in many state elections. His weakness is he has not seen failures unless one attributes 2004/09 LS failures to him. He is also perceived as a factional player and there are allegations of his using media plants to undermine some of his party colleagues. He is a top lawyer, extremely articulate, well networked.

Manohar Parikkar: 54 year old RSS Man and IIT Mumbai alumnus, Manohar Parrikar has outstanding credentials – leading BJP to victory in Goa in the face of hostile islami-isai forces. Goa is a state where BJP was absent. Though a small state, politics there is complex. Manohar was responsible for enhancing Goa’s infrastructure remarkably.

Narendabhai Modi: 59 year old RSS man is a cult hero for native Indians. Someone known for cutting islamic extremism and evangelical deceit in Gujarat and making it the unofficial Hindu Rashtra. His contribution on development – infrastructure, job creation, social initiatives have resulted in native Indians across the spectrum backing him as India’s future Prime Minister. He has an added advantage of being from politically decisive middle castes of India. His weakness shared to an extent by both Manoar Parrikar and Jaitley’s is that he has not seen many failures.

Nitin Gadkari: 52 year Nitin Gadkari is known for improving road infrastructure in Maharashtra: through bridge constructions in Mumbai, Mumbai-Pune highway and initiating worli-bandra link. His inability to deliver Maharashtra to NDA despite woeful governance by UPA, known MNS factor, 26 November islamic terror attack remain serious albatross across his neck.

What will Revive BJP

1. Coherent definition of Ideology elements such as Hindutva, Big Ideas that will have resonance in minds of voters.
2. Social Engineering to expand its voter base on social and economic criteria. Execution done by enabling the Organization machinary, effectively synergising with like minded organization/groups/opinion makers.
3. Inspiring and credible leadership of a proven performer like Modi who can bring in the incremental votes (something that Advani 2009 could not achieve on account of compromised credibility post 1998). Credibility of leadership is important. Image should match reality. (Sickular muck throwing if effectively countered on ground will help shape ecosystem, aid BJP credibility, help potential BJP voter mobilisation)

Above three conditions in conjunction are necessary. A two legged or a one legged seat is never stable and unlikely to sustain BJP.

Vote:

Sarsanghschalak Interview

Transcript Excerpts of Interview of RSS chief Mohan Rao Bhagwat to India Today (Source: Shri Rajagopalan, Delhi based Senior Journalist)

At a time when the bjp is going through its worst existential crisis, the man with the walrus moustache and a mischievous glint in his eyes has become the most sought-after oracle in town. Mohanrao Bhagwat, the 59-year-old boss of the rss, plays the role to perfection, and every word of his continues to be worthy of Page 1 nowadays. The media savvy Bhagwat’s ascension as the head of the House of Saffron has marked a generational as well as cultural shift in the organisation. He is the moderniser, the 21st century face of the rss. As the bjp seems to have abandoned its core ideology for the sake of coalition politics, Bhagwat has brought Hindutva back to the national agenda. As the bjp suffers from the absence of a leader who can take the party out of the wreckage of defeat, the sixth sarsanghchalak has become the supreme guide and the wise counsellor. As the party retreats from the national mindspace, he styles himself as the last apostle of the nationalist cause. As its ambitious but discredited leaders struggle for the spoils of a lost war, he tells them: behave or be damned. Still, the Brahmin bachelor from Chandrapur in Maharashtra finds time to read the new Dan Brown. Like the symbologist hero in The Lost Symbol, Bhagwat too has to think smart and act fast to save the Parivar he heads. In a candid conversation with Editor prabhu chawla for the Seedhi Baat show on Aaj Tak channel at the rss office in Jhandewalan in Delhi, Bhagwat talks about subjects ranging from the future leadership of the bjp to Vande Mataram, from Chidambaram to Modi, from Pakistan to China—and more. Excerpts.

Q. What do you think about the Deoband reaction against Vande Mataram?

A. Vande Mataram is for all Indians. It was part of our freedom movement and history. There was a time when both Hindus and Muslims sang it.

Q. The Muslims say it is against their religion.

A. I don’t think any religion is against desh bhakti. To say Bharat Mata ki Jai and Vande Mataram is not like a religious puja or idol worship.

Q. What is the Sangh’s view?

A. (Thumps the table) Vande Mataram kehna hoga (Everyone in India will have to say Vande Mataram).

Q. Do you think the minorities felt threatened after the Masjid fell?

A. I would say that the wishes of the Hindu samaj were ignored by the government. The anger against the system was taken out on the structure.

Q. But your strong take on the Babri Masjid, the Uniform Civil Code and Article 370 makes minorities insecure.

A. Just tell me why is there no rational dialogue regarding such matters. For 90 years there has been no court judgement (on the Ram Mandir). And when nothing happens, the average man loses his balance.

Q. V.P. Singh had a formula to build both mandir and masjid at Ayodhya. As a responsible organisation why don’t you show some magnanimity?

A. This will not create unity. If a Ram Mandir is built peacefully, it will end Hindu-Muslim fighting. A mosque can’t be constructed at the same site. Let them construct another mosque at some other place and the Hindus will extend all possible help.

Q. The Congress apologised for the anti-Sikh riots and Advani said the demolition was a national shame.

A. The Sangh did not say “demolish the structure” but the court’s delay on the verdict angered the people.

Q. Do you agree with Advani that it was a national shame?

A. I don’t agree with Advani on this issue. Why didn’t they give legal permission for kar seva when so many people had collected for it?

Q. Why is the Sangh unwilling to do something which makes minorities feel safe? Whatever happened in Gujarat also added to the gap between the Sangh and the minorities.

A. Violence is wrong wherever it happens. Don’t just look at one side. What happened in Godhra should not have happened. No one talks about the killings at Godhra.

Q. Should Narendra Modi apologise for the Gujarat carnage?

A. He is the head of a state, he has full knowledge of what happened and is capable of giving his reaction. If he thinks that something that needs an apology has taken place, then he will apologise. I am sure. I have also been told the speed with which the riots in Gujarat were controlled is commendable. Why should he apologise if he has done no wrong? That is not the way.

Q. Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh were not responsible for the 1984 riots but have apologised. It increases their stature. If Modi or the rss do the same, they will stand to gain.

A. At that time there was a comment, ‘When a big tree falls, some things are bound to happen.’ No such statement was made in Gujarat.

Q. Does it mean the rss will never compromise on its core issues?

A. India’s unity and integrity is non-negotiable. So is the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya and a Uniform Civil Code.

Q. If I understand correctly, you still believe in Akhand Bharat and not in the two-nation theory.

A. It is all part of India. Pakistan is transitory and will become part of India sooner or later.

Q. What about Afghanistan?

A. Pakistan and Afghanistan are a part of us and will return one day.

Q. You claim that the rss has no direct control over the bjp. But it sent 35 pracharaks to the bjp and they report to you.

A. It is not compulsory that they report to us. We only want them to stick to their principles. We don’t interfere in their work.

Q. There have been reports of rss  pressure on the bjp, that Vasundhara Raje was removed because of pressure from the rss.

A. The rss had nothing to do with it. This is an internal matter of the bjp.

Q. Four months ago you talked about a change in the bjp leadership. The bjp lost three state elections and no change seems forthcoming.

A. Change will happen but at its own time. I only said what I have been told (by the bjp), they have a plan in mind and it is rolling on.

Q. There is a strong feeling that the rss is intervening and imposing itself on the bjp.

A. The rss never intervenes, only gives advice when asked.

Q. But you have said that the new leadership will be someone other than these four (Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley, Venkaiah Naidu and Ananth Kumar).

A. Yes the new leadership will be someone other than these four. This is what I have been told. That is what has been agreed on and I believe the process has begun.

Q. You will get someone from outside Delhi between 50 and 55 years of age?

A. They will get someone from outside Delhi.

Q. In the last five-six years, several people who are media creations with no affiliation to the Sangh have come into prominence in the bjp. Has this lead to a dilution in ideology?

A. The Sangh is not against anyone, we don’t look at anyone whether he is a swayamsevak or not.

Q. Are you worried about an image of corruption amongst the swayamsevaks who have joined the bjp?

A. Politics is a slippery ground but still we don’t want to see one of our swayamsevaks slipping. We talk to them but it is up to the bjp to take action against them.

Q. The bjp is a visible face of the Sangh Parivar. Are you worried when you send workers to the party? They also get affected by the personality cult and the individual becomes more important than the organisation.

A. Yes we are worried and we do talk to them about it.

Q. Would you prefer that the party is led by someone who believes in the rss ideology?

A. Who will lead the party is something they will decide. What we want is someone who articulates our ideology, believes in teamwork, encourages the younger generation and the difference in ‘a party with a difference’ should be visible to all.

Q. There are some outfits that are not part of the Sangh, yet there is a perception that they belong—like the Sri Ram Sene of Karnataka… Pragya Thakur. Why don’t you disassociate the rss from them?

A. I have already said that I have nothing to do with the Sri Ram Sene. There is no such thing as Hindu terrorism. No Hindu will support terrorism.

Q. Yet you supported Pragya Thakur.

A. No, all we said is that don’t do a media trial. Let the courts decide.

Q. I saw a recent statement by the Sangh saying that P. Chidambaram is doing good work.

A. He is saying a lot of good things, but if he delivers on these, we will definitely praise him.

Q. Are we soft on China?

A. I have my doubts if the Government is alert on China. It has a well-defined strategy of encircling India. China has surrounded us by wooing our neighbouring countries from Maldives to Pakistan. We have to liberate our neighbours from the clutches of China.

Q. Have the Chinese defeated us at diplomacy?

A. Overtaken, not defeated. We can still do something.

Q. Regarding Pakistan, the bjp seems confused. What is the rss view?

A. Pakistan exists on the premise of being anti-India. Pakistan needs to be given a decisive reply for all its mischievous actions, we need another  military victory over Pakistan. That is perhaps the only way by which we can prevent a 26/11 and terror attacks.

Q. Have we lost an opportunity to score a military victory?

A. When Parliament was attacked and then after 26/11. Our government failed us then. We lacked the will.

Q. Do you agree that a strong and stable Pakistan is good for India?

A. If Pakistan is mentally healthy and gives up anti-India sentiments only then it’s good for India.

Vande Mataram and Indian Muslims

Vande Mataram from Bankim Chandra Chattopadyaya’s “Anand Mutt” is India’s national song.

The Song sung by Lata Mangeshkar (Music Director Hemant Kumar Mukhopadyaya)  is captured here:

“Vande Mataram” was the Mantra, reciting which numerous Indians from Punjab to Tamilnadu braved death and fought the British occupation. Composed in simple Sanskrit, this is a national song of India and any day most nationalist Indians rate this song above “Jana Gana Mana”, a song penned by Tagore welcoming British King George as “Bharata Bhagya Vidhaata-Arbitrator of India’s Destiny”.

The Islamist veto and the nehruvian appeasement of islamism prevented “Vande Matharam” from becoming the National Anthem of India. And in a remarkable parody of History, Indians have a song, sung first welcoming a foreign dignitary, as the national anthem. nehru as the first prime minister of India did enormous damage to the soul of India. nehru’s foot prints can be seen in most of India’s social, economic, defence and foreign affairs problems.

One can not help noticing the superiority of this composition of “Vande Mataram”, the complete one, to the subsequent subversion efforts (subverted islamised one) by the likes of Slumdog A R Rehman, which in comparison to the original version appear trite. Later compositions on account of composer’s poor knowledge of Sanskrit and Indian culture could never reproduce the spirit and magic of Bankimda’s immortal work.

Why Islamists oppose the song?

Yesterday Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind resolution endorsed Deoband, Dar-ul-Uloom’s fatwa against  singing Vande Mataram, India’s national song.

Central reason of muslim hostility to the song is islamist opposition to blend with natives,  islamist hatred of native Indian traditons.

One may notice that islamists dont seem to have qualms at all on Jana Gana Mana, where English Emperor George V is addressed as Bharata Bhagya Vidata (Arbitrator of India’s destiny). So the issue is as much political as it is an assertion of islamist exclusivity.

One need not blame Maulana Madani, Jamaat leader, who is straight with his position unlike the sickular crowd.  Madani referred explicitly to Indian muslims following mohummad’s Hudaibiya precedent. (islam’s founder mohommad led a strategic retreat in Mecca without integrating with native Quresh, who were stronger, and waited for an appropriate moment to strike for islam and extinguish native Arab beliefs). Sickularism in India is a tool for islamists to persist with Hudabiya type strategy.

Those who eulogise so called muslim moderates like Syed Ahmed Khan, Maulana Mohummad Ali, and Jamaat as a moderate organizations are guilty of deliberate deceit.

Above assertion holds as Syed ahmed khan indeed peddled deceit – asserting that he belonged to two equal circles – one Indian, one islamic, and then collaborated with the British for waxing of one (islam) and waning the second (native indian); just as muslims today collaborate with sickular/communist deceits.

Jamaat, Maulana Maududi and others similarly opposed partition not because of nationalist credentials, as Congress I (islami-isai) deceits would have one believe, but because of the concern that division of India, would slow down the wider islamist millennium old project to take over India, cut down native beliefs/traditions.

What should be done?

Unfortunately there are no easy solutions.

It is quite clear that coercive dogmatic islamist undermining of national unity can be faced only by coercive efforts by the state. Sarcozy was left with no option but to ban burqa in the interest of French society, its native tradition, their well being.

In India, articles 25-30 which have been used to empower totalitarian xianity/islam have to go. In India, we have a situation wherein all the rights, privileges and prerogatives belong to the minorities and the native Indians are left holding the duties, responsibilities and obligations. Natives as we know in India cant set up education institutions to propagate their values/heritage. And native places of worship alone get regulated by the hostile government, their resources abused/looted. This perverse situation does not exist anywhere else in the world.

Conclusion:

Failure to address islamist vote bank politics, encouraged and nurtured by congress I (islami-isai), communist boot leggers will have enormous costs for India, its unity and in specific for followers of native Indian faiths – Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists.

Tailpiece 1:

Some Tagorists are in a state of denial that Tagore did not  eulogise George V thru Jana Gana Mana. Evidence is too strong on the context of Jana Gana Mana creation as eulogy to King George; and its timing – it was first publically sung welcoming british emperor; media carried reports to that effect (see next para); Tagore as long as he lived, never publically denied these reports show the correct position. ZIM believes that Tagore’s greatness as a poet is in no way diminished by the evidence that Jana Gana Mana was created by him as a eulogy to King George. Those were perceived by many as the halcyon days of the Raj. Another give away is that in native Indian tradition, Nation is looked at as a mother that nurtures. Tagore himself in Amar Sonar Bangla, refers to Bengal as Nurturing Mother.

(-Statesman, Dec.28, 1911)’Jana Gana Mana’ was composed and Sung on December 1911, precisely at the time of the Coronation Durbar of George V, and Statesman of those days called it a paean in praise of “the overlord of India’s destiny”. “The Bengali poet Babu Rabindranath Tagore, British Indian subject, sang a song composed by him specially to welcome the Emperor.”)

Those interested in traditional vande mataram versions can listen to (1) Hemant Kumar singing Vande Mataram (2) Child singing Vande Mataram in Desh Raag

IBN Lies Live

Foreign funded IBN Lies Live has a history of undermining native Indians. A section from their news program is provided here.

Take the polls that follow

The interplay of connections, by no means exhaustive that monopolise mass manufacturing falsehood is presented here.

Interplay of IBN Lies Live, Editor Sagarika Ghose’s connections is provided here. It appears that family connections rather than merit propelled Sagarika Ghose to the editorship of IBN Lies Live.

And we will see Rajdeep Sardesai with a straight face claiming his channel is unbiased and will talk about the propriety of dynasty politics. Touche! Joke is on us, those who watch manufactured deceit from IBN Lies Live!

BJP: Vasu Cut Down – Is Kamaraj Type Plan the Way Out?

BJP/RSS is showing poor understanding of how perceptions are formed. Perceptions are important in democratic polity. BJP

should know that it is operating in a hostile environment where its positive points will be under reported and its weaknesses

amplified.

Perceptions over a period of time shape credibilty and credibility is an important ingredient in electoral market place.

The way in which Vasu’s resignation was played out shows that either or both LKA/MB are making serious errors of judgement.

But for backing from LKA/MB, it seems unlikely that adhoc and arbitrary decisions’ll be continuously taken. RSS too cant wash

their hands off from these happenings as they unfold.

Despite Vasu’s mistakes, it is not untrue that the likes of Jaswant Singh undermined Vasu during her tenure. Vasu’s

accusations are a mere paraphrasing of what Arun Shourie highlighted in an even more damning terms – existence of double

standards. Vasu/Gen Khanduri might have failed to deliver. But so did Arun Jaitley(AJ)/Raj Nath Singh(RNS) in UP.

While failure in itself should not be a disqualification, as failures often result in learning key lessons, repeated failures

is a disqualification. From this perspective, Raj Nath Singh much more than Vasu/Khanduri should have been shown the door

first. The argument that RNS is anyway on the way out is specious.

Bleed an enemy by thousand cuts is something delivered on hostile elements. Not on oneself. Protracted bleeding that is being

manifest in BJP’s transition, reflects serious mistakes that BJP/RSS leadership is making.

When drastic changes to the organization are being carried out, it is better if it is done fast as a surgical strike. If

there is a bloodbath, so be it. Its better than protracted bleeding (factional shenanigans) that will impact BJP perception

in the minds of its prospective voters. A rapid strike also helps set the rules of the game – cut down factionalism. Events

if allowed to drift can impact credibility of Sangh.

One way to effect quick transition is through BJP’s own version of Kamaraj Plan. BJP can of course can call it “Vajpayee

Plan” or “Advani Plan”. More than semantics what is important is person/team arbitrating the plan execution should be

competent and perceived by most sections as genuinely neutral. People holding central party leadership positions, should be

asked to quit.

Let redeployments be representative, based primarily on capabilities/performance rather than solely on loyalties/Sangh

legacy. While importance of loyalty/trust cant be underplayed, deployments should be based primarily on potential for showing

positive results.

(This section making a pitch for re-susticating BJP is part of an extensive analysis that was done earlier post 2009 LS

Elections; addressing both strategic and tactical aspects)

BJP/RSS is showing poor understanding of how perceptions are formed, credibility built. Perceptions are important in democratic polity. BJP should know that it is operating in a hostile environment where its positive points will be under reported and its weaknesses amplified.

Perceptions over a period of time shape credibilty and credibility is a key ingredient in electoral market place.

The way in which Vasu’s resignation was played out shows that either or both LKA/MB are making serious errors of judgement.

But for backing from LKA/MB, it seems unlikely that adhoc and arbitrary decisions’ll be continuously taken. Sangh cant wash its hands off from the events as they unfold. It appears Mohan Bhagwat’s message on transition is being undermined.

Despite Vasu’s mistakes, it is not untrue that the likes of Jaswant Singh undermined Vasu during her tenure. Vasu’s accusations are a mere paraphrasing of what Arun Shourie highlighted in an even more damning terms – existence of double standards. Vasu/Gen Khanduri might have failed to deliver. But so did Arun Jaitley(AJ)/Raj Nath Singh(RNS) in UP.

While failure in itself should not be a disqualification, as failures often result in learning key lessons, repeated failures, is a disqualification. From this perspective, Raj Nath Singh much more than Vasu/Khanduri should have been asked to resign first.  The argument that RNS is anyway on the way out is specious. Buck rests at the top.

Bleed an enemy by thousand cuts is something delivered on hostile elements. Not on oneself. Protracted bleeding that is being manifest in BJP’s transition, and they reflect serious mistakes that BJP/RSS leadership appear to be making.

When drastic changes to the organization are being carried out, it is better if it is done fast as a surgical strike. If there is a bloodbath, so be it. Such a course is better than protracted bleeding (factional shenanigans) that will impact BJP perception in the minds of its prospective voter base. A rapid strike also helps set the rules of the game – cut down factionalism. Events if allowed to drift can impact credibility of Sangh.

One way to effect quick transition is through BJP’s own version of Kamaraj Plan. BJP can of course can call it “Vajpayee Plan” or “Advani Plan”. More than semantics what is important is person/team arbitrating the plan execution should be competent and perceived by most sections as genuinely neutral. People holding central party leadership positions, should be asked to quit.

Let redeployments be representative, based primarily on capabilities/performance rather than solely on loyalty/Sangh legacy. While importance of loyalty/trust cant be underplayed, deployments should be based primarily on potential for showing, sustaining positive results.

(This section making a pitch for re-susticating BJP is part of an extensive analysis that was done earlier post 2009 LS Elections; addressing both strategic and tactical aspects)

Tailpiece: Post this blogpost, Sarsangchalak of RSS, Shri MB openly alluded to serious nature of BJP’s problems. Contrary to inspired media leaks, central problem seems to lie with the BJP top brass.

Maharashtra Defeat: Lessons for BJP

BJP, if it has to get out of its morass of the past decade, will need following:

1. Coherent definition of Ideology elements such as Hindutva, Big Ideas that will have resonance in minds of voters.
2. Social Engineering to expand its voter base on social and economic criteria. Execution done by enabling the Organization machinary, effectively synergising with like minded organization/groups/opinion makers.
3. Inspiring and credible leadership of a proven performer like Modi who can bring in the incremental votes (something that Advani 2009 could not achieve). Credibility of leadership is important. Image should match reality. (Sickular muck throwing if effectively countered on ground will help potential BJP voter mobilisation)

Above three conditions in conjunction are necessary. A two legged or a one legged seat is never stable.

A committed dharmic battle fought in the mindspace, resolutely over a period of time is the way to go. There should be a will to win backed by killer instinct (Krishna Neethi) to win. Perseverence will be the key. While the election campaign is culmination of the fight, the war to root out totalitarian dynastic evil congress I (islami-isai) is continuous and it should continue with full vigor.

(This section is from more extensive analysis that was done earlier post 2009 LS Elections)

Ram Punyani’s Clever By Half Cunningness in Muslim India

Rogue professor Ram Punyani is back with his Goebellsian lies and shibboleths fittingly this time in Muslim India. 

Punyani cites what he calls Hindu mal-treatment of women. Censors the fact that in native Hinduism alone feminine as divine is accepted and celebrated, so unlike islam. 

It is indeed laughable that Punyani’s vehicle for feminst stand is an islamic medium. In every sense Hindu women in India are better empowered than islamic women. 

Punyani pretends as if in islam, Talibs alone are anti-women. Typical of leftist deceit, he censors islam’s position on women: quran/mohummad institutionalized inferior status of women. Quran, Verse 4:34 howsoever muslims spin it, is quite categorical on this count. Watch the video below for elaboration on quran’s position on status of woman – property of man, fit to be beaten up.

Native Indian beliefs are essentially non dogmatic. Manu Smriti hardly has the dogmatic perception Hindu’s mind unlike the position koran has in a common muslim’s. Punyani of course tries to do better than Don Quixote. He regurgates the nonsense on slavery of Shudras. He surely cant be ignorant of the historical fact that Shudras like Shivaji, Narendrabhai Modi, Sanghi have been in the fore front defending native Indians and their traditions. And the so called upper caste Hindus never have any problem being led by Shudra leaders like NaMo, Shivraj Chauhan. 

Contrast this with institutionalised tribal heirarchies and approval of tribal incompatibility as valid reason for divorce in islamic law – shariah. Islamic equality indeed! Far from equality, Inequality is institutionalised in islam. 

With their chosen red fundamentalist friends like Ram Punyani, muslim Indians dont need enemies. After working to undermine native Indians, their beliefs, their unity, muslim victimhood cries will be hollow, if their actions similar to the ones in Godhra, result in hostile native responses.  Muslim hypocritical cries will be rejected with the disdain with which native Indian Gujaratis have been rejecting them.

Some Gyaan for Ram Puniyani and fundoos of muslim India: 

• Rashtriya Sevika Samiti is an autonomous organisation with a separate charter which includes inculcating leadership in women. Sangh does not micromanage it. 
• Unlike muslims and communists, Sanghis worship Indian Nation as a Feminine Manifestation, Bharat Mata. 
• Sangh Recently awarded Guruji Award to Ms Kom, India’s boxing champion. 

Ms. Kom India’s Boxing Champion being Feted by Sangh’s Guruji Award

Arun Shourie at Harvard

Arun Shourie Shares His Take on India’s bogus secularism, leftist canards, NaMo’s performance & prospective role in BJP, MF Hussein’s islamist hypocrisy, corruption, pernicious influence of money in electoral politics.

Arun Shourie shares his take on India’s bogus secularism, leftist canards, NaMo’s performance & prospective role in BJP, MF Hussein’s islamist hypocrisy, corruption, pernicious influence of money in electoral politics.

Some key points:

1. Moderator seems a leftie, an Amartya Sen acolyte. Arun makes the leftie eat his words after leftie sites what he calls powerful example.

2. Makes pieces of leftist shibboleths by citing facts and reality. Blasts India’s perverted secularism, divisive politics.

3. Ascribes BJP’s organisation weakness for its election loss in 2004 and onwards.

4. Describes NaMo’s remarkable performance in Gujarat and how he  can electrify BJP’s moribund electoral organisation.

5. Says it is OK if communal minded muslims dont vote BJP. Alludes to BJP working on native consolidation.

Arun says much more. Listening to audio alone will provide

(Any blog volunteer should he be interested can prepare the transcript and shareon India’s bogus secularism, leftist canards, NaMo’s performance & prospective role in BJP, MF Hussein’s islamist hypocrisy, corruption, pernicious influence of money in electoral politics.

Key Points:

1. Moderator seems a leftie, an Amartya Sen acolyte. Arun makes the leftie eat his words after leftie refers to what he calls powerful example. Leftie refers to Hindutva, but has trouble defining it.
2. Makes pieces of leftist shibboleths by citing facts and reality. Blasts India’s perverted secularism, divisive politics.
3. Ascribes BJP’s organisation weakness for its election loss in 2004 and onwards.
4. Describes NaMo’s remarkable performance in Gujarat and how he  can electrify BJP’s moribund electoral organisation.
5. Says it is OK if communal minded muslims dont vote BJP. Alludes to BJP working on native consolidation.

Arun says much more. Listening to audio alone will do justice to the perspectives he brings out. It is unfortunate that Indian journalism with men like Shourie in Mainstream, that took on corruption in the establishment has degraded to a state where deceits like Shekhar Gupta and NDTV-Barkha Dutt collude in the sly with corrupt Government.

SHORT TRANSCRIPT OF THE SESSION:

(Captured by Offstumped Yossarin)

Long introduction by the master of ceremonies refers to Arun Shourie’s recent pieces critical of the state of affairs in the BJP, doesnt miss an opportunity to recall “Alice in Blunderland” wisecrack at Rajnath Singh.

First question is on soul searching by Arun Shourie.

Arun Shourie starts with attributing the confusion in the Party and the defeat of the Party feeding on each other.

Arun Shourie On Soul Searching

never a good time to do it in hierarchical organisations

Organization should be current not just an electoral machine

conduct of individuals must be exemplary

greater need for soul searching within RSS than in the BJP

decision making in all political parties has been reduced to a small privileged clique

small privileged cliques resist soul searching

Second question is on winning confidence of Indian Muslims

BJP should stand for true secularism

Individual should be the Unit of State Policy

Rejects Communal or Caste based Group Entitlements Policymaking

We should not give to a Communal group what we would deny to a Secular group

Shourie on Affirmative action and caste based reservations

Absurd levels of reservations with sub-castes within sub-castes

Points to absurd promotions in government to fill up quota vacancies

Disputes the label “backwardness” being applied to groups like Jats,Rajputs, Vokkaligas, Lingayats etc.. which are politically so “forward” they are able to force the hand of the State to be labelled backward. Political strength rather than social standing decides who is backward. Shourie refers to his work “Falling over Backwards”

Cant believe that a man like Manmohan Singh could have issued a directive from the Prime Minister’s Office to Nationalised Banks on maintaining records of loans given to Muslims

Asserts that in the long run BJP stands to gain by standing for True Secularism

Next question is on whether BJP should dilute its policies to gain Muslim Votes

believes that Muslims themselves will see credibility in BJP if it sticks by its beliefs and doesnt succumb to temptation of appeasement

If we can identify BPL for PDS why not for targetting socio-economic backwardness in Muslims

Next question is on need for Affirmative Action to address exclusions due to discrimination. Refers to study by Carla Hoff World Bank economist on Caste exclusion.

Shourie questions the wisdom of reinforcing Caste prejudices by asking for Caste to be identified in employment and other State services

Asserts the wrong lessons being inferred from this World Bank example

Questions the use of “criteria” that reinforce the prejudices in State Policy

Next question is on whether Caste neutral policies can deliver on Social Justice

points to notings by British census officers till 1930 on why caste should not be used an enumeration since it is “meaningless and fluid”

refers to an example of a Caste’s population dwindling from 800k to 100k between 2 Census cycles because a certain caste got elevated to a higher caste. Shows that ‘caste’ traditionally was a dynamic rather than static entity.

Points that with Caste based politics we have a race to backwardness to the bottom of the pit to be the most depressed weak caste

Makes a plea against regurgitating cliches on Caste prejudices that have been internalised in Indian public discourse

What are the most important legitimate and serious criticisms of the BJP

1. We have to find a way of relating advancement within the party to performance. Confident that its how things will evolve in the future

2. There has to be an Institutionalized and Objective framework for leadership to evaluate performance

3. Greater clarity on Economic Issues. In Mr. Vajpayee’s Cabinet many leaders mutated into Nehruvian Statists. There has to be a deeper reflection and study of Economic issues. All debate is reduced to one-liners. There has to be deep study and deeper reflection to arrive at a considered view rather than reduce to evening news headlines.

4. Stop reacting to what Governments are doing. Stop reducing all politics to merely agitations on people’s problems. We have to convince people about solutions. We have to convince people we have better ideas and better credibility on execution.

5. On BJP being inclusive it should be a True Secular Party and not one that appeases Muslims. BJP should have a pan-India ideology and appeal that doesnt exclude anyone

For those who are less familiar with Indian politics, explain what Hindutva means in terms of Hindu religion

That question is best addressed to those who use the word Hindutva and like to describe themselves as Hindu Nationalists, I dont know.

As a word everybody keeps using it but I have not got a coherent reply on what it means, even Islam is a way of life.

Is there anything special about Hindutva and BJP

BJP has essentially taken up issues on rebound.

BJP has been unique in taking up issues that were peddled in the name of Muslims if not actually in their interests

Bending to religious fundamentalists like Bhindranwale

More specifically on Congress bending to pressures from those claim to speak on behalf of religions

It was these issues that got BJP the label

I still maintain these are not primary ways to convince voters

BJP has to convince voters by delivering on Governance – superior policies and implementation

Who is most responsible for rot in BJP ?

Those outside BJP who use these characterisations, those who drifted state policy towards appeasing groups

Several of the Hindu values not very different from buddhist values were evident in the personal lives of RSS leaders, previous generation BJP leaders – austerity, pride in native traditions, and its relevance, are no longer evident in BJP

On changing levels of tolerance and openness in Indian Society – Mangalore pub incident, cases against M.F. Hussain, Raj Thackeray etc.. was India more tolerant in 1960s 1970s than now

India is an ocean, these incidents are deplorable they have nothing to do with religion or tradition, these are fringe individuals and groups

Mangalore incident was stage managed. Ready presence of TV camera crews at the site of incident is a give away.

On MF Hussain absolutely no justification whatsoever for him to be in exile for him to be berated or attacked

How is it that MF Hussain that with his great skill has never felt an urge to paint the face of the Muslim Prophet but has always found the inspiration to paint Indian Gods without any hesitation ?

It is a double standard, it  reflects the selective way in which critics on both sides frame issues draws attention to paintings showing Sita deriving erotic pleasure from Hanuman’s tail while no paintings on Prophet’s wives

On vegetarianism and buildings brilliant Market based solution – let us build more buildings so there are many alternatives and those who are exclusionary are passed over

On Narendra Modi – should he be projected as a future Prime Minister or should that be off the table to build a winning BJP

1. This is a question that requires an extended answer

2. We should not underwhelm or trivialize his Development track record and on Governance

3. His work on development is exemplary

4. When he brings water to Kutch or Saurashtra its not that water is only to Hindus and discriminating against Muslims same goes for fruits of development from Roads and Power. Why dont we see that track record  ?

5. His critics have made him a national figure today. I personally saw this.

6. One day I was travelling from Delhi to Manipal in Karnataka. It happened by coincidence when assembly election results from Gujarat came out. I was in the Plane and I was working the election was out of my mind. In the middle of the plane the Air Hostess comes to tell me that the Captain sends you a message that Narendra Modi is doing well in Gujarat. In the airport the porters came to congratulate that Modi was winning. Many hours later in Mumbai people in the airport came to me to congratulate. The baggage handlers in Mangalore airport embraced me when Modi’s tally in Gujarat crossed 121 seats.

7. Can he be the future of the winning party – he will immediately electrify the party if he comes to Delhi but there will also be deep divisions in the country. He will have to overcome those divisions if he has to make it a winning Party. But no doubt he will immideately electrify the Party.

We should not under-estimate his potential to be elected to High Office if the current trend of religion based entitlements continues

Open House questions followed.

What should BJP’s future economic policies be  India versus Bharat ?

Yashwant Sinha gave a very good answer to this.

How is it that in Punjab those economic reforms got the BJP seats but in Haruyana BJP got wiped out. That they lost in Maharashtra gained in Gujarat. Lost in Andhra won in Karnataka.

The cliche of India Shining versus Aam Admi is a media inspired cliche

Tail Piece:

Indian Secularism is Sick

Congress I (islami-isai) supported by communist elements have foisted an ugly perversion of secularism on native Indians.

Secularism in the West was conceived to keep in check totalitarian dogmatic church, a known institution of deceit and perversion. Since Islam too is dogmatic and totalitarian, Secularism in India would have made sense if it helps keep these beliefs under check.

On account of perversion by Congress I (islami-isai) and communists, secularism was used to undermine native Hinduism, a decentralised faith, a faith where experience is central, skepticism is integral, belief voluntary and text subservient.

Articles 26 to 30 have been used to empower totalitarian xianity/islam. In India, we have a situation wherein all the rights, privileges and prerogatives belong to the minorities and the native Indians are left holding the duties, responsibilities and obligations.

Natives as we know in India cant set up education institutions to propagate their values/heritage. And native places of worship alone get regulated by the hostile government, their resources abused/looted.

All this happens while followers of totalitarian dogmas propogate their hateful beliefs unrestrained and actively encouraged by government and corrupt media.

In India’s perverse electoral environment native icons/beliefs can be abused without any costs while totalitarian beliefs get noting but eulogies. And the forced eulogy of totalitarian beliefs are underwritten by violence. All hell breaks lose when xian/muslim idols like jesus/koran are critically examined.

Moral equivalence between  Native Indian Hinduism, a decentralised faith, a faith where experience is central, skepticism is integral, belief voluntary and text subservient and dogmatic totalitarian beliefs like islam and christianity remains an egregious error. Islam and christianity remain beliefs pushing its followers towards medieval dark ages and barbarianism. This perversion of secularism can be rightly called as sickularism.

One such example of this perversion is presented below as a Congress candidate argues Hinduon Ka Shahr Se Naamon Nishaan Mitaanaa Hai:

Congress leader Syed Abdul Quadir Amir (Quadir Maulana) candidate for Aurangabad during elections, extorts that native Indians/their parties should be obliterated and Aurangabad islamised.

Native Indians have been historically naive and charitable towards followers foreign totalitarian beliefs that seek to uproot native Indian heritage and culture using all possible. It is time to call their bluff.