Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, 3 December 2013

GREAT EDITOR’S ADVOCACY FOR ISLAMISTS

TEJPAL, MULLAH ZAEEF AND SIMI
GREAT EDITOR’S ADVOCACY FOR ISLAMISTS
-Ram Kumar Ohri, IPS (Retd.)

Yesteryears Great Editor has a colourful personae and mysterious past. Historically the secularist chatterati always had a short memory and somewhat purblind vision.  It is surprising how the Indian media and charmed glitterati of the 2013 THINK festival could not decode the mystery of Tejpal’s invite to Mullah Abdul Saeed of Taliban to Goa for being counted among the galaxy of global intellectuals. According to the Raisina Hill buzz, the Great Editor worked overtime to get the clearance of intelligence agencies for the necessary visa for ensuring presence of the great Mullah of Taliban at THINK-2013. No one knows whether the city grapevine of Tarun Tejpal’s intimate proximity to Mullah Zaeef is a town gossip or ground reality.

Mullah Zaeef is a notorious misogynist believing in stoning of women, as prescribed in shariah. Tarun Tejpal is a twice-sworn secularist. What is the connection between the two fundamentalists, one a hard boiled Islamist and the other a self-annointed secularist? This question has often bothered me and some of my friends.  A friend of mine is convinced that thereby hangs a shadowy tale.

In August  2008 the so-called  Great Editor had carried out  a sustained campaign, bordering on secular morbidity, in defence of the  banned jihadi terrorist outfit, SIMI  (Students  Islamic Movement  of  India) which had  by then  already  morphed into the  notorious  kaffir-killer outfit, the Indian Mujahedeen. Being a well informed journalist Tejpal could not be ignorant of the fact that barely a few months ago in November, 2007, a menacing e-mail had been circulated to media by the radical outfit, Indian Mujahideen in proclaiming, and “The war of civilization between the Muslims and the infidels has begun in Indian territory.”

Surely the Great Editor could not be unaware of the following important facts about SIMI published from time to time in newspapers and journals and readily available in public domain:

i)                   The outfit was commissioned in Aligarh Muslim University on April 28, 1977, in Aligarh University and named the Students Islamic. Its avowed goal is to establish Muslim rule in India.
ii)                Before it was banned, the logo of SIMI flaunted a very intimidatory logo depicting a copy of the Quran spread   across the globe and two AK-47s placed astride the holy book for waging jihad against infidels.

iii)              That the single-minded goal of SIMI is to transform India into Dar-ul-Islam either by concerting everyone to Islam, and if necessary by waging Islam’s holy war for achieving its cherished goal.

iv)              SIMI does not believe in the concept of nation State, nor does it subscribe to secularism. It wants to establish an Islamic caliphate across India cast in the mould of Nizam-e-Mustafa.

Every Indian journalist knows that the most frequently flaunted slogan of SIMI has been, “Allah is our Lord, the Qur’an is our constitution, Muhammad is our leader, Jihad is our way and Shahada is our desire”.   In addition, SIMI has always praised  the Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is an outstanding example of a true Mujahid, who has undertaken Jihad  on behalf of  the 'Ummah'.

According to Yoginder Sikand, a well known scholar of Islam, SIMI considers ‘Nationalism’ as a false idol devised by the non-Muslim enemies of the faith. All non-Muslims are branded by SIMI as 'kafirs', and no distinction is made among them. Because of the Quranic belief that the enemies of Allah are likely to offer stiff resistance to Islam, SIMI has been openly preaching that violent Jihad needs to be waged against kaffirs of India (read the Hindus).

Despite all these facts known to even a ‘cub -journalist’  Tarun Tejpal   had the cheek to launch a vigorous campaign to defend SIMI in August, 2008, by publishing as  many as seventeen articles vociferously defending the radical outfit  in his liberal-left magazine, Tehelka. To quote Tejpal, a three month long investigation by Tehelka’s Editor-at-Large, Ajit Sahi, had revealed “a chilling and systematic witch-hunt against innocent Muslims”.

The following pearls of wisdom incorporated by the renowned secularist in his article titled ‘The Thin Red Line’, revealed his unwavering commitment to the cause of jihadis operating under the umbrella of SIMI and Indian Mujahideen: “The Indian state must tread carefully. The individual tragedies point to a wider psychosis. For the last many years – abetted by global trends – the state’s actions seem to be deepening a prejudice against Muslims.”

In his highly labored brief for SIMI the Great Editor pontificated that “not just the policing and the intelligence agencies that are to blame - even the judicial process is often complicit in the miscarriage of justice”.

In those days of booming bomb blasts  Tejpal published under the heading, ‘the SIMI fictions’  the following pro-Islamist essays  packed with caustic diatribes against the police and the  government:

1.     The Thin Red Line, written by Tarun Tejpal himself.
2.     The Kafka Project, by Ajit Sahi.
3.     Inside The Whale: State vs Shahid Badr Falahi, by Ajit Sahi.
4.     The Good Doctor’s Complications, by Ajit Sahi.
5.     They just want Muslim boys to be always in Jail, by Ajit Sahi. 
6.     A Doubtful Crime: And years of Unfair Punishment, by Ajit Sahi.
7.     The Cry of The Beloved Country, by Ajit Sahi.
8.     The Hunt of Our Past Lives, by Ajit Sahi.
9.     SIMI Here, SIMI There, SIMI Everywhere, by Ajit Sahi.
10.            The History Appraiser Caught with His Books, by Ajit Sahi.
11.            A Man of God, Not a Man of Terror, by Ajit Sahi.
12.            Dissent or Don’t.  You Are Damned Either Way, by Ajit Sahi.
13.            The Left Hand Doesn’t Know. Or Doesn’t It?, by Ajit Sahi.
14.            The Case of Absconding Lawyer, by Ajit Sahi.
15.            A Judge Stirs a Hornet’s Nest, by Ajit Sahi.
16.            The Supreme Court’s stay is a murder of justice, by Ajit Sahi.
17.            Terror Has Two Faces, by Ajit Sahi.  

Even a cursory reading of the above mentioned seventeen articles reveals how dear have been the Islamist Jihadis to the bleeding heart liberal, Tarun Tejpal. The following narrative of the advocacy for SIMI lays bare the secret story of invitation to Mullah Zaeef and his fast-tracked visa for joining the jamboree of high profile intellectuals during Think-2013 event.

The wonder of wonders, however, was that Great Editor went ballistics to defend SIMI barely a few weeks after the Indian Mujahedeen had killed and incapacitated scores of innocents in serial bomb blasts in Bangalore, Jaipur and Ahmedabad in July, 2008. Another highly provocative and intimidator e-mail captioned, The Rise of Jihad in the land of Hind was circulated on July 26, 2008, by the Indian Mujahedeen shortly before the serial bomb blasts in Ahmedabad. In addition to hurling filthy abuses on Hindu Gods and Goddesses, the said e-mail threatened specifically to avenge the alleged atrocities committed against SIMI, the mysterious darling of the Great Editor.

In the circumstances, it is difficult to guess what motivated Tejpal to mount a three months long expensive campaign to defend SIMI has remained an unraveled mystery. Was it done free, or was it caused by the virus called “Paid News” afflicting several secular scribes across India?  No wonder, in the year 2008 there were hush-hush rumors in Lutyen’s garden city guessing the source of money spent by Tehelka in defending SIMI at a time when jihadi bomb blasts all around were causing death and destruction. 

Prima facie the Great Editor of yesteryears was more bothered about the civil rights of the bombers of SIMI and Indian Mujahedeen than the lives of innocent Indian citizens who were being incessantly slaughtered by the two radical Islamic outfits. No intelligence agency, however, dare question Tarun Tejpal because of his high- profile political connections, including the rumor about his easy access to 10 Janpath!    

After reading the difficult-to-put-down tome, The Seige, authored by Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott Clarke, I see a message in the boast of ISI’s Major Iqbal that they have a double agent code-named Honey Bee and a number of Chuhe (i.e., the mice) operating in India.  As a result of Major Iqbal’s revelation several questions have cropped up in my inquisitive mind. I am listing below some of my serious concerns:

i)                   Who is the Honey Bee on whom our intelligence agencies like Intelligence Bureau and RAW cannot lay hands?

ii)                Who all could be Major Iqbal’s Chuhe, or mice, nibbling at the tattered fabric of India’s unity and integrity?

iii)              How that is our Intelligence Bureau cannot identify and locate the Honey Bee and the ISI’s Chuhe? 

iv)              Is there any resemblance between David Headley’s pre-26/11 recee of Mumbai and the recent visit and reccee of Mullah Zaeef to Goa?

v)                Whom all did Mullah Zaeef meet during his hurried trip to Goa? The Talibani Mullah is a very combative and and complex strategeist.

vi)              Is our tourist-paradise city of Goa, vulnerably located on Konkan coast, slated to be targeted next time the way Mumbai was targeted in November, 2008?  Goa could even face the butchery and vandalism in the manner and on a scale showcased by the Al Shabab’s commandos at Westcoast Mall in Nairobi on September 27, 2013?


Being a retired police officer I often feel concerned about the next jihadi strike across my motherland.  Perhaps time has come to view with extra caution the visit of Talibani Mullah Zaeef to Goa on the pretext of joining the Think-2013 glitterati and his close association with Tejpal.

BIGOTRY CODIFIED: PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETTED VIOLENCE (ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND REPARATIONS) BILL, 2011

The Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011 is a gory, ghastly and grizzly piece of an illiberal legislation which mocks constitutionalism and justice. It banishes Hindus from the system, deprives them the benefit of law and puts them out altogether of its protection. This infliction of outlawry on Hindus is called “respect to equality before law and equal protection of laws” and upholding of “secular democracy”. Sanctioning social stratification the Bill divides the country into ethnic enclaves. Creating a dystopian society the Bill contemplates a repressive regime for Hindus where they will not be citizens but ciphers, be referred to by numbers not names and be forced to be as uniform as possible. The message is clear: get ready to be purged under a reign of terror.

Under the Bill Hindus (a “religious majority” in most states of India) cannot ever suffer from “communal and targeted violence” as the Bill defines the expression only to include acts against a religious minority under Section 3 (c), can be freely subjected to “hostile environment” as threats, boycotts and humiliation are actionable under Section 3 (f) only if committed against religious minorities, have no remedy even as an “internally displaced person” as Section 3 (g) confines the provision only to members of a religious minority who are forced to leave their home or residence and cannot ever be a “victim” of physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm as only a person belonging to a religious minority can be deemed to be victimized under Section 3 (k) of the Bill! The Bill, incidentally, does not apply to Jammu and Kashmir where the Hindus are a religious minority and from where they have been “displaced” – euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

Hindus will be denied protection even from hate speech as under Section 8 of the Bill speech can degenerate into “Hate Propaganda” only when its object is the religious minority which, alone, is considered deserving of being protected against “Sexual Assault” under Section 7 of the Bill; a Hindu cannot even complain of rape, affront or sexual indignity where an offence of communal violence is committed.

“Organized Communal and Targeted Violence” has been defined under Section 9 to exclude associations of religious minorities undertaking communal and targeted violence against Hindus; such associations of religious minorities, so the Bill presumes, cannot ever commit the offence of organized communal and targeted violence against Hindus.

Incidentally “organized communal and targeted violence”, “hate propaganda” and “sexual assault” have been legally defined by the Bill for the first time and made punishable under Chapter VIII there being no other statute defining or dealing with these offences. These offences, therefore, are wrongs which only a religious minority can seek redressal against with no similar remedy available to the religious majority. Law, thus, is separate and unequal for the Hindus and the Hindus find themselves in a situation even worse than American blacks under segregation!

In fact the Bill has provision about “presumption as to offences” under Section 72 and “organized communal and targeted violence” punishable under Section 113 with rigorous imprisonment for life (which punishment is reserved only for the religious majority) can also be presumed under Section 72(2) of the Bill; an accused (who can only be a member of the religious majority) can thus be condemned for life on a mere presumption.

Even compensation, restitution and rehabilitation under Chapter VII of the Bill (comprising of Sections 87 to 110) is confined only to the religious minority and the “duty”, under Section 89, of the Government to protect “life, liberty and property” is owed by it only to a member of the religious and linguistic minority. Life, therefore, has meaning, liberty has substance and property has value only if it belongs to the religious minority; they are otherwise bereft of worth should the claimant be a Hindu.

“Personhood” itself is recognized only in members of a religious minority as Section 95 of the Bill stipulates that they alone are the “persons” who can be injured by organized communal and targeted violence to be entitled to be registered as being so injured. The criteria, as are generally understood, for being recognized as a “person” are that he (1) is alive, (2) is aware, (3) feels positive and negative sensations, (4) has emotions, (5) has a sense of self, (6) controls its own behaviour, (7) recognises other persons and treats them appropriately, and (8) has a variety of sophisticated cognitive abilities. The Bill, thus, denies these attributes exist in the members of the majority community. The outrage in the name of such an obnoxiously malignant Bill could not have been dared had the dignity of personhood been conceded to a Hindu.

The “guarantee” to ensure “access to justice” under Section 110 of the Bill is, thus, limited by the Bill only to a member of religious and linguistic minority; this access is denied to the members of the majority community. And in assessing compensation under Sections 99 to 101 of the Bill provision is made for “moral injury” only in the context of religious minorities as if principles of morality can be invoked only if the aggrieved is a member of the religious minority.

The Bill promotes a negative stereotype about Hindus. Although the expression is not used (and is coupled with “linguistic” minority the occasions of which minority being involved being few and far-between) the intent behind the Bill is yet obvious. Allport dealt with such behavior while coining the term “antilocution” – verbal remarks against a community which are not directly addressed at the target and create an environment where discrimination is acceptable. This is the first stage in the scales of prejudice the verbal remarks aggravating first to avoidance of the community, then discrimination and physical attack against it and eventually leading to its extermination. The Bill, thus, creates an environment of hostility towards Hindus and promotes the demeaning of them under the garb of “secular democracy” preliminary to their subsequent avoidance, attack upon them and their eventual extermination. Rendered alien in their own country, Hindus will thus be made hostage to a system devised to devour them.

The Bill serves as a polarizing propaganda dividing the population between “us and them” denying the very humanity of the excluded group (read Hindus) and combines this separation with hatred towards the latter while simultaneously denying that any wrong is being committed giving discrimination itself the cloak of law. And it does this in the name of “equal protection of laws” and “upholding secular democracy” as if debasing, degrading and disparaging Hindus is the only way of upholding secular democracy and ensuring equal protection. The Bill, therefore, is manifestly arbitrary, is contrary to the principle of constitutionalism, its restrictive definitions and artificial classification revealing it as illogical, unfair and unjust piece of legislation.

This separation of persons on the basis of religion has no objective or reasonable justification as victim of a wrong cannot denied redress merely because of his religious orientation and, similarly, a criminal act will not become less so because the religious belief of its perpetrator. Under the Bill a Hindu in most states of India even if injured abused or intimidated or forced to leave his residence because of his being a Hindu cannot ever be recognized as a victim nor be permitted to allege any physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm nor also be statutorily entitled to compensation, restitution or rehabilitation and the Government is under no obligation to guarantee him protection, prevent recurrence of violence or ensure for him access to justice. A Hindu, the Bill presumes, cannot ever be “vulnerable” to communal violence nor be subject to “an unfair or unjust investigation” into the same.

Incidentally a member of a religious minority can complain under Section 67 to the National Authority about “biased” nature of investigation and further investigation or re-investigation can then be ordered under Section 68. “Public Order” is in the exclusive domain of the State. Provisions like the ones contained in the Bill make an intrusion into a forbidden territory encroaching even upon the reserve of States violating the distribution of authority under the federal structure in an unrestrained enthusiasm for pandering to religious minorities.

The National Authority, in fact, cannot merely call for any information not only from the Central Government but even the State Government under Section 30 and recommend “initiation of proceedings for prosecution or such other action” under Section 34 and can further demand “action taken” within one month or “such further time as the National Authority may allow” there-under. This is apart from the duty not only of the Central Government but “the State Government and public servant at all levels” to take appropriate action “on all advisories and recommendations” issued by the National Authority and re-investigate where a victim is aggrieved “about any procedure of investigation including lack of impartiality and fairness.” The Authority therefore will police even the State Government. In fact Section 69 of the Bill obligates the State Government (which has no discretion but is under a duty to so do under the Bill) to “order an inquiry” into “discharge of public functions by public servants” concerning organized communal and targeted violence, the Bill thus interfering even with state public services.

The method of investigation itself is sought to be controlled through Sections 62 to 66 of the Bill which even specifies the rank of the police officer, in Section 60, who has to conduct investigation. These provisions cannot be saved by Entry 2 of List III because they are ex-facie discriminatory changing criminal procedure according to the religion of the complainant. Similarly while Special Public Prosecutors are contemplated under Section 76 of the Bill even these prosecutors can be changed merely on “information received from a victim or informant”, the State Government is being denied any choice or discretion in the matter being bound to comply under the Bill to the wishes of the victim.

The utter asymmetry of the entire mechanism is apparent from Section 83 of the Bill which states that a member of religious minority “should be treated with fairness, respect and dignity” – a right even otherwise implicit in the judicial process of India thus suggesting in a sinister fashion that express mention as a statutory right under the Bill is necessary as “fairness” is generally denied to religious minorities and the mandate of law is followed more in breach where the minorities are concerned. This is re-enforced by section 84 which makes elaborate provision for protection of “victims, informants and witnesses” all of whom can only be religious minorities.

It is thus assumed by the Bill that the system prevalent in India is biased in favour of the Hindus and special protection is necessary only for religious minorities. The utter absurdity of this position becomes apparent in the provisions dealing with the Authority for Communal Harmony Justice and Reparation created by the Bill (Chapter IV for Central Authority and Chapter V for States) to exercise the power and perform the functions assigned under the Bill; this Authority is composed of a mere seven individuals which number, so the Bill contemplates, would be able to control an entire polity of bigoted Hindus running into several crores - most of whom (so the Bill will make us believe) are volitionally disposed towards criminality and are intent upon communalizing law - and not only effectively prosecute and punish all of them unaffected by the prevalent and immanent institutional bias in their favour but have access to and use their resources (generated through taxation) to compensate the persecuted religious minorities and provide them relief and rehabilitation. If the system is so crooked and the religious majority so unprincipled, perfidious and unscrupulous to require an extraordinary piece of legislation like this Bill how can it be presumed that a body of just seven people with its secretarial staff (composed again suborned and tainted Hindus) will be able to effectively function and “implement” its provisions for the benefit of the religious minority?

This Authority, moreover, has seven members under Sections 20 and 42 of the Bill. The majority of its seven members have to belong to the religious or linguistic minority under Section 20(3) and 42(3). Its Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson must also belong to the said minority the Bill presuming that a member of the religious majority (read Hindus) cannot be trusted with such responsibility. The religious orientation of members of religious majority is deemed by the Bill to disincline them from being right or fair and render them incapable of ensuring communal harmony. This approach is akin to racial profiling and entails denial of dignity to the religious majority, stigmatizing the community as a whole and without any individualized suspicion against any of its members excluding him from consideration altogether.

Bigotry and intolerance stands codified in the Bill. This sectarian and dogmatic Authority can, paradoxically, undertake any function “it may consider necessary for prevention of communal and targeted violence” and towards that end “monitor and review performance of duties by public servants” in Sections 30 and 52 of the Bill.

The Authority, therefore, has been given absolute power to hold any official to account on standards which it will subjectively decide and claim the right to interfere on perceived harm to a religious minority and likely impact of any action. This committee or junta of political elite is allowed by the Bill to monopolize power and penetrate the deepest reaches of the political system and impose the authoritarian regime of a chauvinistic ideology on members of the Hindu community.

The very basis of the Bill is therefore flawed. Thus under the Bill a public servant who inflicts cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on a person belonging to the majority community is not guilty of “torture” as Section 12 limits it to a person “inflicting pain and suffering” on a person belonging to a religious minority alone, nor can he be ever guilty of “dereliction of duty” under Section 13 as omission or abuse of authority is actionable only if it impacts a person belonging to a religious minority. Incidentally, under the sections aforementioned, a religious minority can allege torture for any kind of “pain or suffering” (which expression is not defined in the Bill) and can hold any public servant to account even for an act “likely to lead” to communal and targeted violence. Innocent acts can thus be criminalized on the mere feeling of a victim!

And as if this was not enough a mutation is made by the Bill in concepts and this miscegenation is shameless presented as law. Thus “Command Responsibility” has been introduced under Sections 14 and 15 of the Bill for the exclusive benefit of a religious minority. It is significant to note that this is a doctrine of hierarchical accountability in cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity during armed conflict. It was applied in World War II prosecutions in Nuremberg and Tokyo and again by the International Criminal Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia and Rawanda. International Criminal Law extends the doctrine to armed groups operating under sophisticated command structures aside from military forces in conflicts where militarized forces are either attacking the army of a recognized state or fighting with each other. In its applying “Command Responsibility” to communal and targeted violence the Bill is truly unique extending the doctrine to a situation to which it has never been applied.

The Bill is like the notorious “Jim Crow Laws” which sanctioned racial segregation in the United States of America between 1876 and 1965. These laws systematized advantages to white Americans and subjected the black Americans to inferior treatment. The laws institutionalized racism and sanctioned discrimination in policing and criminal justice. And the laws were justified as being necessary for the protection of the blacks themselves as allowing them in places where the whites frequent would mean "constantly subjecting them to adverse feeling and opinion", which might lead to "a morbid race consciousness". The Bill puts the Hindus in the same position of disability as Jim Crow Laws put the blacks denying them the same rights and subjecting them to greater disabilities and paradoxically suggesting, much in the same manner as the white supremacists that the Bill is necessary for them as otherwise they will be lead to “a morbid sense of Hindu consciousness”. The only difference is that the Bill is the first instance of such a discriminatory law being drafted to the detriment not of any helpless minority but of the majority community.

Leading criminal law philosophers have argued that conduct should only be criminalized when it is fair to do so. In particular, such theorists assert that objective reasons are needed to demonstrate that it is fair to criminalize conduct in any given case. Having criminal remedies in place is seen as a "last resort" since such actions often infringe personal liberties. Far from transforming behavior into crime on any objective considerations the Bill allows prejudice to criminalize an act.

Judenhass or Jew Hatred is a well documented phenomenon. Helen Fein defines it as "a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions – social or legal discrimination, political mobilization against the Jews, and collective or state violence – which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews." Helen Fein could well have been talking of Ant-Hinduism! His definition of anti-semitism can well apply to negative perception and religious intolerance to Hindus. Anti-Hindu bigotry, of which this Bill is an example, is no less vicious though yet not as well documented. The Bill is enacted in the tradition of Indophobes who berated Hindus as blasphemers and denigrated them as demonic. It would do Christian missionaries like Francis Xavier and Muslim clerics like Ziauddin Barrani proud. While the Jews got their Israel the Bill is symbolic of Hindus losing their Bharat!

AMAN LEKHI
SENIOR ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Sunday, 22 September 2013

PM TO FOCUS ON COMMUNAL VIOLENCE AT NIC MEET MONDAY

Monday, 9 September 2013

Islam and Religious Riots, A Case Study: Riots & Wrongs

Riots & Wrongs
Book : Hard Bound, 364 page, second edition-2012
Author : R.N.P. Singh
Publisher : CARRIED - A Unit of Samarth - a trust,
Bay Online: http://goo.gl/uvAvFD
Post Box No. 7312, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi: 110065
+91-99100-19770, +91-11-29842070
carried.publication@samarth.co.in
Price for India : ` 250.00 + Postal Expenditure
Price for Overseas : US $ 25.00 + Postal Expenditure

What M V Kamath says about the book (Madhav Vittal Kamath is an Indian Journalist. He was the former Chairman of Prasar Bharti. He worked as the editor of The Sunday Times (India) for two years during 1967-69 and as Washington Correspondent of Times of India during 1969-78. He has also served as editor of The Illustrated Weekly of India. He has also authored over 40 books on various topics. He was awarded Padma Bhushan in 2004.)

 “... Singh’s (R.N.P. Singh) book has a sub title: “Riots & Wrong” which tells it all. Singh incidently, is not just anybody. If he speaks with authority, it is because he is an ex-Officer of the Intelligence Bureau, has been the recipient of the President’s Police Medal and the Indian Police Medal. Just as importantly, this book carries a foreword by K P S Gill, former DGP of Punjab.  Gill is very forthright in his comments. He writes “Much of the secular discourse in India has been based on a politically correct refusal to confront the nature of religious communities and institutions and their past and present activities, and the fiction that ‘all religions are equal’ and that their inherent message is the same. The truth is, unless communities acknowledge reality warts and all and recognise the transgressions of their own history within a constructive context, no real solution to the issue of communal polarisation and violence in India can be brought about.”

“This is telling truth ...Singh’s case study of religious riots in India is comprehensive and is probably the first book of its kind, at least in recent times. It is divided into four parts.

“Part I take a fresh look at Islam and conflicts. Part II makes an enquiry into why Hindu-Muslim synthesis has failed and studies why peaceful co-existence with other communities is anathema to Islam. Part III deals with communalism and communal riots and what the author calls ‘single dimensional approach to riots’. It also makes an effort at taking a realistic perspective of communal riots. Part IV consists of chronological overview of all communal riots in India for over two centuries beginning at a time when there was no BJP, no VHP, no RSS and no Narendra Modi.


“Unless one studies this background to communal violence he will never be able to understand contemporary life in India. Then of course, there are appendices and tables in connection with communal riots. This is the work of a scholar and expert. The accompanying bibliography clearly indicates that Singh has taken his job seriously and read widely.

“... Conventional wisdom attributes the malaise, says Singh, to the British strategy of ‘divide and rule’ implemented in the wake of first struggle for freedom in 1857. That is partly true. Yes, the British did attempt to separate Hindus and Muslims to keep both under subjugation but there have been riots in India even before the British consolidation of their power in this country. It is interesting to learn that the “first communal riot” took place in Ahmedabad in 1713. That by itself calls for further study. Gujarat, it seems has been peculiarly susceptible to communal riots and there have been riots in Ahmedabad in 1730, in 1737, and some other times. But Hindu-Muslim riots have had an all India character,  riots having taken place in 1806, 1809, 1813, 1820, 1833, 1837, 1850,  1853 and so right upto 1897.

“Singh believes that the post- independence riots were “perhaps due to the Hindus heightened distrust towards Muslims and vice versa” and that “typical Muslims outlook towards nationality, nationalism and a soft corner for the partitioned part that is Pakistan, further fuelled it. And he adds “The Muslims who stayed back in India were perhaps hopeful of further partition of India if the situation so demanded”. To buttress this point Singh adds “shortly after partition, the views of one Qamaruddin Khan Spokesperson of Aligarh Muslim University, appears in ‘Light’ of Lahore. He advised the Indian Muslims to lie low for some time owing to tactical reasons and that soon they should stand up for a similar cause, that is to demand partition of Muslim majority areas of India”. Wrote Qamaruddin Khan “the five crore Muslims who were compelled to stay back in India would have to fight for another freedom struggle. The fight would be mainly fought on the eastern end and the western areas bordering Pakistan did not mean that the Indian Muslims would invite Pakistan for help. However, it was certain that Pakistan’s presence in the neighbourhood would embolden the Muslims. The Indian Muslims have won half of the battle and for total victory they will have to scheme out another plan.

“Further Qamaruddin Khan wrote “At the moment, the Muslims should refrain from politically confronting Hindus. After a while the Indian Muslims should try to develop concentrated pockets. The Indian Muslims should maintain close relations with Pakistan and for running organisations; they should take help from them”. Can this possibly be one explanation why there have been too many communal riots in Gujarat, which incidentally is geographically close to Pakistan and our secularists and liberals must study this further.

“Singh’s book is an excellent introduction to the subject. He refers to the Khalistani movement in Punjab, Pakistan’s support to it and the involvement of the ISI in Indian affairs. This is a book for our editors to read and digest...”
*********************************

Friday, 6 September 2013

INTELLECTUAL POLICING OF ISLAM - Dr. Babu Suseelan

Since independence from British Christian Colonialists, a number of developments have occurred in India that played an important part in shaping Hindu life. In the first place, India was divided by Isalamists and bogus secular political leaders. There has been an increased recognition that all Muslims will go to PAKISTAN, an Islamic country. We have elected an atheist and anti-Hindu man Jawaharlal Nehru as the Prime Minister of India. Nehru believed in Islam, and his beliefs, thinking and action encouraged Muslims in India remain in India and to preach Islamic hatred and indulge in violence as prescribed in the Koran. Nehru and the anti-national Congress party have opened up the appeasement policy and special reservation and quota systems for Muslims. The activities the Nehru dynasty has in subsequent years have resulted in the demographic increase of Muslims. Subsequent Prime Ministers like Indira Gandhi, V.P.Singh, Deva Gowda, Man Mohan Singh etc, continued pro-Islamic policies and programs. The ruling parties increased Hajj subsidy and pseudo secular Hindus never criticized pro-Islamist policies and or unwilling to let the majority HINDUS STUDY THE Contemporary issues created by Islamic terrorists. Indian intellectuals, leftist liberals and pseudo secular Hindus never studied India beset by problems which are universally ascribed to inept handling of Islamic terrorism. Indian intellectuals, leftist academicians, and corrupt political leaders and phony secular leaders were reluctant to study the vital current Indian problems. What are the reasons for this?

In the first place,  many pseudo secular Hindus think that Sana than Dharma is eternal and have the attitude that “all religions are the same” and special study of Islam is unnecessary.  Almost every political leaders, businessmen, military leaders, criminal justice administrators, religious leaders, and journalists, consider themselves as good Hindu and believes that they already know the ethical facts and principles of Hinduism on the basis of their own experience in dealing with Muslims. Unquestionably, these individuals, and other Hindus are responsible for the current predicaments and many of the social problems. But it is just as obviously true that they do not know enough to deal with some of the most significant social problems created my Islamists. Despite the vast erroneous knowledge and irrational information, they will find among good men the world over like Indian culture.  India’s intellectuals, Marxist academicians and the media pundits in India lack the knowledge how to handle problems created by Islamists. Industrial and social unrest, hate, prejudice, crime, violence, Islamic terrorism, corruption and love jihad continue to be major problems in India. But everywhere practical knowledge is lacking to problems created by Islamists. It must be pointed out that Indian administrators and criminal politicians lack the knowledge how to prevent the Islamic savages who succeed in killing Hindus.

The lack of understanding of Islam and Jihad results in failure to contain savage behavior of Muslims. Hindus are under constant threats from Islamists and in many states; Hindus are living in a prison of Islamic terror. And where are the bogus secularists, Indian liberals, Communist academicians and leftist intellectuals to educate the majority when they fear Islamic terror. It does not take a lot of imagination to understand how people behave when they are discriminated by the government and surrounded and attacked by Islamic savages.

In Kashmir all Hindus are killed. Some Hindus and other infidels or driven out, and they are living in refugee camps in their own country. Kerala, the land of Snakaracharya, Muslims will outnumber Hindus in few years. What does it say about the states of truth about Jihad, when the mainstream Indian media joins with corrupt politicians and Islamists? We can predict the outcome. Indian media, owned and operated by our enemies blame Hindus for their suffering by Islamic terrorists. Hindu women are raped; business attacked yet, the media blame the myopic Hindus. Good information is easily accessible and easily available on the atrocious behavior of Islamic criminals committed against innocent citizens. If the government administrators and Indian educated elites and leftist academicians want to eliminate full Jihad in India it is still possible. In India, there is a vacuum on the pseudo secular left, and Jihadist knows how to take full advantage.

Rather than seek to cultivate a united ideological font against Islam,  jihadi terrorist’s ideological roots, government of India, and Indian intellectuals did in fact did unilateral and emotionally irrelevant appeasement policy and played Islamic vote bank politics. It was like a hydra growing new heads.

However, the distinction between Islam (a closed desert Dogma) and open ended, systemic, pluralistic, Hinduism simply should not be pushed aside without an attempt to diagnose and exorcise some of the social, psychological, criminal problems created by Islamists by Indian intellectuals. And it is now a question of trying to find why Indian intellectuals, educated elites, and our politicians refuse to see the stereotypical presentation of Hinduism and Hindus in India and abroad. Are they suffering from a virulent form of cognitive disorder, unable to see the reality? “Cognitive Nihilism” hit them? Indian intellectual’s ideological prejudice shared with pseudo secular Hindus who are in deep denial, apathetic and indifferent. It would not take a genius to realize that there are distinction between Islam and Hinduism. Hinduism is highly eclectic, systemic, pluralistic, and open-ended and provides liberty to individuals. One wonders, why India’s intellectuals refuse to see the difference between a closed dogma and open ended Hindu philosophy. Although Islam is often powerfully associated with state and central government in India, how can we deny the fact that Muslims have killed more than 80 million Hindus, and is associated with mass killing and violence and terrorism? Hinduism is peaceful, analytic, and methodological. Very few Islamic theologians or Mullahs will admit that Islam is extremely parochial and encourage its followers to annihilate all infidels from the world (Umwelt) and create dar-l-islam. They are not interested in philosophical analysis. Muslims are clever in al-taquiea (lying) and disguises and disarms a more profound and interesting possible about the intentions of jihadi terrorists in India.  Like caged parrots, Muslims are still singing that “Islam is peace”. It is clear, that the truthfulness of Islam is questionable. There is something intellectually cowardly about their claims. AS closed dogmatic and aggressive fundamentalists, Islamic theologians and Mullahs refuse to face intellectual challenges and dialogue.  

Many phony secular Hindus, corrupt politician, Islamic religious leaders and corrupt bureaucrats have the attitude that Hindu values and life principles are unnecessary. Every criminal politician in India thinks that they know Hinduism and already know the essential facts about Islam, Maoism, and Marxism. On the basis of their own experience in dealing with Marxists, Maoists, and Islamists.

The division between Santana Dharma and Islam is the expression of a commitment o Mohammad and freedom of thought. And more over it is an eternal conflict of differing and opposed habit of thought. The deeper point is that the philosophical and cultural truth matters. Whatever they might be, we have to take sides, and there by become a part of sane world. Islamists claim that their Saudi Arabian Islam is perfect and is a perfected and closed and the Koran which contains traditional Saudi Arabian culture, absurdities and irrational ideas for aggression and violence against infidels needs no renaissance, revision or reformation. What Muslims have to understand, then is the broadmindedness and tolerance of Hindus.

Indian intellectuals, Politicians and Hindus must exhibit a commitment to neutralize Islam and Muslim Jihadis. Incorrect, intellectually dishonest and phony statements that “all religions are the same” simply serve to perpetuate Islamic terrorism against Hindus.
Hinduism is no longer confines to India. As an NRI Hindu, I feel that Hinduism has so much to offer to the world beset by Islamic terrorists, coercive religious conversion and interpersonal problems. As responsible citizens of a democratic world, NRI Hindus and Indian intellectuals must apply the science of Hindutva to problems created by the desert dogma called Islam. India will prosper if Indian citizens can understand the current division in culture. It is extremely impossible for India to avoid corruption, Jihadi terrorism, criminal behavior of Maoists, and Muslims unless Indian intellectuals come to the view that Islam is cruel, rude, closed, nasty, and brutish.

In my view the cultural pathology of Muslim Jihadist must be stopped.  As a final thought, we might consider that there are two cultures-one humanistic, pluralistic, systemic, rationalistic, peaceful and tolerant. The other (ISLAM) is against democracy, human rights, pluralism, peace, and co-existence and even distorts humanist modernity. Muslims are brutal, intolerant, and aggressive.  Hinduism is truth and meaning, knowledge and wisdom. Islam is opposed to harmony, religious tolerance, and not in favor of social progress, science, technology and modern industry.

Islamists are probably the absolute worse human right violators of Hindus in the world. Since the Indian media and the Sonia administration have in varying degrees decided to ignore or whitewash this otherwise growing epidemic of human pain and suffering of Hindus. Muslims are conditioned to believe that Hindus are hypocrites, fanatical, intolerant and the source of the world’ vows. In fact, Hindus are the by far the most persecuted religious groups around the world.

The situation has gone from bad to worse, politically in the light of the fact that there is no intellectual policing of Islam. The so Called anti-Hindu Indian Intellectuals are cohort with Islamic theologians and Mullahs and refuse to take intellectual challenges to Islam. It is very unfortunate that Indian academicians are unable or unwilling to an intellectual/philosophical challenge to Islam. Indian Intellectual elites are unable or unwilling to develop a consensus that the Islamic threat is significant.

I wish, pro-Islamist corrupt politicians, leftist academicians, and elite pseudo secular Indian intellectuals read all the passages in the Koran which promote, instigate and motivate Muslims for violence against infidels.

Intellectual policing of Islam and continued dialogue on the philosophy of Mohamed may reduce antagonism and mutual misrepresentation between the closed Islam and open ended Hinduism.


Intellectual policing of Islam must be an essential part of in the life Hindu culture.

Reserve Bank of India Eyes Temple Gold? - Ram Kumar Ohri, IPS (Retd)

No one knows what is cooking in the cook-house of our flambuoyant Finance Minister, P. Chidambram.  The truth perhaps is known only to the ruling Trimurti of Sonia Gandhi, Ahmed Patel and Dr. Manmohan Singh. The Finance Minister, too, is a bit-player in the ongoing gold-game!

Despite an official denial in the Parliament that the central government has no intention of grabbing temple gold to tide over the looming monetary crisis and freefall of Indian Rupee, a number of temples in Kerala are reported to have received letters from the Reserve Bank of India seeking details about the quantum and value of gold held by them. This has caused a fresh wave of panic among Hindu worshippers, not only in Kerala but several parts of south India because a majority of temples in south India are managed by Devasthan Boards controlled by respective State governments. The Regional Director of of RBI, Gangadharan is reported to have confirmed to IANS that such a communication has been sent to the temple authorities. 

Ever since July 2011 when a Supreme Court appointed Committee stumbled upon six vaults of  the famous  Sri Padmanabhaswamy temple of Thiruvananthapuram the treasures worth several lakh crores have received the attention of the financially- stressed central government, despite official denials notwithstanding. The common refrain in whisper-tones across Lutyen’s New Delhi is under whose orders the Reserve Bank of India has asked for this gilt-edged information totally beyond the role assigned to the central bank!  


The Reserve Bank of India is the central bank of India. Its functions and role in managing the monetary system has been elaborated in the RBI Act, 1934.  But the aforesaid legislation does not authorize the central bank to quantify and oversee the gold held by Hindu temples. Then why and how this letter has been addressed to temples of Hindu community alone!