Historians with political agenda

Taharrush, Cologne, EU – why Islamic Rights come before Women’s Rights

Posted on January 17, 2016. Filed under: Arab, Christians, Communist, Egypt, feminism, Gaza, Historians with political agenda, History, Hosni Mubarak, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Left, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Palestine, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, USA, Wahabi |

The new years eve assaults on women in Cologne,  Germany, came apparently as a shock to many [France24_report]. When the first allegations began to crop up on social media, the state bodies responded with pacifiers and reassurances. The standard state tactic of repeating “be calm, be happy, nothing is wrong, everything has been taken care of, everything is as it always has been” line whenever it deems acknowledging the reality can jeopardise its control and domination over the population [State_attempt_at_coverup]. The response to this was a flurry of accusations on social media where individual women came forward to complain of their experiences of that night.

The political authority’s response to this bypass of and challenge to the state attempt to manage social perceptions through the media, and state spokespersons, was typical. The mayor of Cologne, who happens to be a woman, urged women to keep away from men “at an arms length” in public, and not “provoke” cultural sentiments of men from “other” cultures [keep_men_at_arms_length]. State complicity in delaying, or trying to suppress news on assault was exposed in the German public broadcaster, ZDF, apologising for delays. “The news situation was clear enough. It was a mistake of the 7pm ‘heute’ show not to at least report the incidents,” wrote deputy chief editor Elmar Thevessen on the show’s Facebook page.

The common European state, party politics, position seems to be arguing that

  1. Assaults were one-off, localised, not necessarily by men from particular national and religious identities.
  2. Even if assaults took place, they were cover for theft – not sexual but economic motives.
  3. Even if sexual, it was the women’s responsibility not to “invite” such attacks, by not provoking religious cultures which saw European women’s public appearance in dress or styles as provocative and justification for such attacks.
  4. If assaults were acknowledged openly by state bodies, it would strengthen the political “far-right”. Hence they should not be acknowledged.
  5. Maximum effort to delink assaults to Islam’s core cultural attitudes towards women, and if impossible to do – then try to emphasise ethnic, or national, or country origins of assaulters, and make it country or region specific, hoping to suppress the Islamic connection.

Interestingly, each of these positions expose much more about what is really going on than their proponents would like to expose.

It seems that the assaults were reported by women specifically to be by men of particular ethnic, national identities. It seems, assaults were not one-off, with similar incidents reported from Hamburg and other German cities, as well as from Finland and Sweden and Austria [pan-European_sex_attacks] and the attacks were explicitly sexual. The testimony of women at the receiving end, shows explicitly the hostile, angry, sexual aggression [explicit_sexual_nature_of attacks]. That snatchings, lootings, muggings accompanied sexual assaults, only adds to a viewpoint that sees the woman in public as free “property” who has no right to be with any valuables of her own: that is she herself is a “property” and a possession and belongs to the strongest man or men who can possess her and everything that she carries with her.

The attempt to pass this off as just  strange new, one off, only first time this year, phenomenon – is also jeopardised by the revelations of an obvious attempt at suppression of reports of similar persistent events in Sweden in the past – actually in summer 2015 [Swedish_media_suppression_of_reports].

The Islamic connection should have been transparent even if one did not study Islamic social history in details. There were reports of women demonstrators and journalists being asexually assaulted in Tahrir square in Egypt in the heady days of “revolution”. At the time most of these reports were suppressed, and the women concerned, even if from the “west”, characteristically shut up their mouths. The majority of women in western media or women’s rights activism appear to be very outspoken and “brutally and unflinchingly honest” when reporting, or investigating sexual assaults, sex-slavery, alleged on non-Muslim cultures, but their eloquence dries up when reporting on Muslim atrocities on women. In the past the meme of Israel, “Zionism” being the bigger, badder enemy seems to have been a persistent excuse used by senior, or “powerful” female voices in the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian lobby to suppress dissemination of incidents of sexual assault, torture or slavery practised by revolutionary and heroic Palestinian society under “siege” as pointed out by Phyllis Chessler [feminism_as_protector_of_jihadi_violence_on_women’s_rights]. The following news will be sought to be dismissed as “Zionist” propaganda [Israeli_Muslim_teen_trafficked_into_sex_slavery_in_Palestine]. As Shmuley points out, western “liberal” feminism itself is often becoming an instrument for eventual ideological subversion of western women to acceptance of the attitudes encoded in Islam where a whole lot of political ideologies converge towards submission to Islam by non-Muslim societies [Shmuley_vs_Naomi]. In the words of Phyllis, [Feminist_silence_on_Islamic_assault_on_women’s_rights],

Feminists are, typically, leftists who view “Amerika” and white Christian men as their most dangerous enemies, while remaining silent about Islamist barbarians such as ISIS.

Feminists strongly criticize Christianity and Judaism, but they’re strangely reluctant to oppose Islam — as if doing so would be “racist.” They fail to understand that a religion is a belief or an ideology, not a skin color.

The new pseudo-feminists are more concerned with racism than with sexism, and disproportionately focused on Western imperialism, colonialism and capitalism than on Islam’s long and ongoing history of imperialism, colonialism, anti-black racism, slavery, forced conversion and gender and religious apartheid.

“Taharrush”, the rape-gauntlet “game”  [Taharrush_Islamic_spatial_strategy_to_isolate_and_rape_in_public] that surfaced in Tahrir square was a direct product of Muslim attitudes towards women in public, especially those less strictly dressed as per Islamic expectations and who were somehow therefore deemed to be declaring themselves as publicly sexually available women. The source of these attitudes lies in Arab Muslim ancient Islamic penchant for taking sex-slaves of women in raids, publicly strip them, rape them before husbands and male relatives to emphasise Islamic superiority even reported to be happening under the founder of Islam [surviving edited and abridged biography originally by Ishaq], and the much later codified Hidaya which stipulates the woman’s entire body and its complete use-right to have been bought either by nikaah rites or “right hand possession” war booty, or simply the woman in “hand” or possession. What happened in Cologne, was the same “Tahharush”, and both women and police would have been better equipped mentally and physically to deal with the situation had “Tahharush” – the dark side of the reality of the majority in the so-called Arab Spring was allowed to be openly discussed and noted in western media – when it happened almost 3-4 years ago.

What emerged at Tahrir square should have told the west and the world clearly, that what was being portrayed as a “revolution”, was in reality an Islamist reaction, which retained and in some sense enhanced acutely all the attitudes in classical jihadi Islam nurtured carefully over the years by the mullahcracy with whom the west compromised during the Cold War and ensured their protected continuance in preaching and preserving the jihadi core memes of Islam as an useful ally and antidote against spread of Communist ideas in Muslim world. West intervened specifically against any regime in any Muslim majority country that seemed to be incorporating deemed socialist elements in governance or society and thus made common cause with the most reactionary of elements among the mullahcracy. Each “socialist” regime experiment, however brief, in the Islamist countries did somewhat try to combat the mullah’s imposition of sex-slavery like conditions on women, tried to liberalize access to education, health, professional and economic avenues and opportunities to women. But just as now, western “political” theory of suppressing everyone else’s rights, or all humanitarian rights to the cause of defeating and crushing the “biggest/baddest” enemy – the mullahcracy and its Islam was deemed a less dangerous and less important threat – even if it was crushing women future and preparing whole generations of men in the sex-slaver mindset.

All the above reports throws up some key common observations,

  1. not only men in authority – but women who would be considered professionally empowered, with recognised public voice, either try to shift the burden of being safe on the women. Sometimes this involves de-facto urging to submit to cultural religious norms of “outside” cultures which clash with the native one on perception of women’s rights. Sometimes this is combined and bolstered by the bogey of not strengthening the far-right.
  2. thus the underlying value system of modern Europe is exposed in its subconscious, perhaps unintended, acknowledgement that all its so-called humanitarian universalist values are subject to preference orderings. The preference orderings are unstated, to allow maximum possible flexibility in contextually and opportunistically applying the officially touted formal values.
  3. for those in power in Europe,  staying in power or preserving their peer group’s political dominance over the state and society comes above any other humanitarian values shouted about. Thus a domestic political power struggle with the “right” is justification enough to relegate women’s rights as below that of Islamic cultural rights.
  4. empowerment of women, professionally, economically, and in political ranks or positions or hierarchies has no relevance for women’s rights as a social segment. Female activists themselves have taken on the generic authority structure attitudes they lambast as patriarchal and male chauvinism, in urging women to submit to cultural values that denigrate and sexually humiliate women.
  5. Europe’s liberalism has actually protected and nurtured a submissive urge towards Islam, and protection of the image and covering up of the reality of Islam. [State_complicity_in_Islamization_in_Germany].

Making women’s rights an exclusive women-only preserve, refusing to face the reality of Islamic connection to attitudes towards women, may not only jeopardise the future liberties of women, but also subvert the wider civil liberties of the freer world. The ideological strategy in the pro-Islamic has to be fought by calling their bluff and exposing the underlying dishonesty and subversion covered up by tactical dissimulation.

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

CounterThoughts – 4: Bharatya nationhood and Yogendra Yadav’s neo-Stracheyism

Posted on March 3, 2015. Filed under: Buddhists, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Indian National Congress, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Left, neoimperialism, Pakistan, religion, Russia, terrorism, UK, Uncategorized | Tags: , |

John Strachey, the iconic colonial administrator and so-called liberal theoretician posed the question “What is India? What does the name India really signify?” and answered it as

“The answer that I have sometimes given sounds paradoxical, but it is true. There is no such country, and this is the first and most essential fact about India that can be learned….India is a name which we give to a great region…there is not, and never was an India, or even a country of India, possessing, according to European ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political, social, or religious; no Indian nation, no “people of India,” of which we hear so much” [John Strachey, India: Its Administration and Progress, 4th ed. London, 1911, 1-5.]

Yogendra Yadav, http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-is-a-statenation-not-a-nationstate-yogendra-yadav/417588-55.html uses Strachey in a dangerous game of justifying the centrifugal forces generated by persistent imperialist religions and ideologies which have remained foreign to Bharat by their own declared identification with politic-military-cultural centres of power and transnational intrigue situated outside the subcontinent’s geography.

Yadav’s article itself is a textbook illustration as to how Indian anti-Hindu humanities academics spin their fantastic narratives of Bharat’s past and even history of whatever period of whatever part of the world they cite to support their hidden political agenda. But refuting and showing up the fallacies, misrepresentations and gross suppression of historical realities in Yadav’s article will itself need another blog post. So here I will concentrate on giving the positive counter-arguments rather than the negative ones to simply refute him. During the course of these arguments one should be able to see the hilarious contradictions of Yadav’s pompous statements about India’s past, and even his lack of knowledge of the supposed “diversity-worshiper Congress leadership of the freedom movement”.

Briefly, Yadav’s tactics lies in mischievous and rather academically dubious silence on why the Brit Isles, or Spain, or Italy remained unified while Yugoslavia, USSR splintered, even though sociologically all had comparable “deep” identity diversities. Yadava’s mischief also lies in completely avoiding the role of religion behind state and unity and inter-religious rivalry in the disintegrations he blames the idea of nation-states on. However lets leave Yadav behind for a moment and look into the issues involved.

For John Seeley “the fundamental fact then is that India had no jealousy of the foreigner because India had no sense whatever of national unity, because there was no India and therefore, properly speaking, no foreigner” [John Seeley, The Expansion of England, London, 1882, 161.]

The same Seeley however saw in Brahmanism the seed of Indian nationalism ” After this victory [over Buddhism] Brahmanism had to resist the assault of another powerful aggressive religion, before which Zoroastrianism had already fallen and even Christianity… had to retreat some steps, Mohammedanism. Here again it held its own…Now religion seems to me to be the strongest and most important of all the elements which  go to constitute nationality, and this element exists in India” [Expansion of England, 1882, p.15].

However, the viewpoint of the new nationalist thinking in India was radically different with an insight either not available or unpalatable for the imperialist and racist European mind.

Gandhiji, then still in South Africa in 1909, wrote in “Hind Swaraj”: “The English have taught us that we were not a nation before and it will require centuries before we became one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation before they came to India. One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the same. It was because we were one nation that they were able to establish one kingdom.” [M. K. Gandhi-Hindu Dharma, Ahmedabad, 1950, p. 56].

The same year, Bengali historian Radha Kumud Mukerji read a paper before the Dawn Society, Calcutta, presenting his “scientific” findings on the “Fundamental Unity of India”. An expanded form of this essay was published from London in 1913. Bipin Chandra Pal wrote on his own interpretation of “nationalism” in 1912, in his monthly journal, ‘The Hindu Review’ under the title ‘Hindu Nationalism: What It Stands For’ followed by another article ‘Nationalism and Politics’ in May 1913.  His thesis was that European nationalism, being isolationist and materialist in nature was anti-humanity, while the Indian nationalism represented a higher stage of group consciousness and was a positive step towards human brotherhood and spirituality. In his own words, Hindu nationalism stood for – “God, Humanity and the Motherland” [B.C. Pal, Nationality and Empire, Calcutta, 1916.  22-48, 73-112].

For Sukumar Dutt “A mind free from western conception of nationality is absolutely necessary to comprehend the problems of Indian Nationality” (p.18) because “it is difficult for a western mind to grasp the order of the ideas, unknown in European history, which has evolved this unique conception of the spiritual unity of India.” [Sukumar Dutt, Problems of Indian Nationality, Calcutta, 1926, p.17]

For those who do not believe in the existence of any “nation” of Indians in the past and  throw all these into the “garbage heap” as “Hindu fundamentalists” living in their “dream world”, there are people who cannot fit the bill of “Hindu revivalism” by any stretch of imagination, holding similar views on nationalism.

However, already in the backdrop of experiences of WWI, in the 1920’s the three theoreticians, Ramsay Muir, G.P. Gooch, and MacDougall rejected the old definition based on five unities. MacDougall defined it as a ‘group consciousness’ [The Group Mind, London, 1920, p.100]. G.P Gooch [Nationalism, London 1920] was explicit, “The core of nationalism is group consciousness[….]. neither the occupation of a well defined area, nor community of race, language, religion, government or economic interests are indispensable to national self-consciousness” (p. 5-6). Ramsay Muir wrote “Nationality, then, is an elusive idea, difficult to define[….] Its essence is a sentiment”. [Nationalism and Internationalism, London, 1919].

In “Nationalism: A religion” [C.J.H Hayes, New York, 1960], Carlton Hayes concludes  “In simplest terms nationalism may be defined as a fusion of patriotism with a consciousness of nationality” (p. 2) and that “A nationality receives its impress, its character, its individuality from cultural and historical forces (p. 3)….historical tradition means an accumulation of remembered or imagined experiences of the past” (p. 4). Hayes defines patriotism “as a peoples’ territorial past, its ancestral soil, involving a popular, sentimental regard for a homeland where one’s forefathers lived and are buried or cremated” (p. 4).

Rejecting the nineteenth Century belief that nationalism was a political phenomenon and the existence of State was a prerequisite in nation-formation, Hayes writes, “If we are to grasp what a nationality is, we must avoid confusing it with state or nation” (p. 6). Accepting the idea of cultural nationalism, Hayes writes, “Cultural nationalism may exist with or without political nationalism. For, nationalities can do and exist for fairly long periods without political unity and independence.”

Hans Kohn, [The Idea of Nationalism, 1944] concludes that the nature of the processes of nation formation in Europe and Asia was not the same. In Europe ‘state’ was mainly instrumental in nation formation, while in Asia nationalism had cultural origins. Even political unity of Germany and Italy was preceded by vigorous intellectual and cultural movements led by Herder, Goethe and Kant, and Mazzini. Regarding patriotism, Hayes writes, “Loyalty to familiar places is relatively natural, but it requires artificial effort-purposeful conscious education and training to render men loyal to the sum total of places unfamiliar as well as familiar in an entire country inhabited by his nationality” (p. 9). That means that the spirit of patriotism and national consciousness does not permeate all sections of the population in the same degree at a given point of time. To quote Hayes again, “only through an intensive and extensive educational process will a local group of people become thoroughly aware of their entire nationality and supremely loyal to it” (p. 10).

Every Purana text contains a section called Bhuvan Kosh, in which the boundaries of the land called Bharatavarsha are clearly defined and its progeny is given a common name Bharati. A list of all the Janapadas scattered all over the country is given along with the lists of rivers and mountains. A smaller list of seven holy rivers, mountains and cities symbolizing the unity of the land are given there. These slokas were meant for daily recital. List of “punyasthan” or tirthas are explicitly given in the Puranas as well as Mahabharata. These pilgrim centers cover the whole land.

This devotion to the land is not confined to its physical or material aspect only. Vishnu Purana states that the gods in heaven also feel envious of those who are born in the land of Bharatavarsha because the gods after the expiry of their merits will have to take rebirth on the earth while those born in Bharata will be able to transcend the cycle of rebirth. Chapter 9 of the Bhishmaparva in Mahabharata describes Bharatavarsha. While describing the greatness of Bharatavarsha the narrator gives a long list of ancient kings who loved this land – combining the very modern elements of “patriotism, love of the land”.

Thus, we find that all the ingredients of the group consciousness called nationalism are present here. This consciousness of the geographical unity exists in the Samkalpa mantra meant to be part of daily prayers and was recited at the beginning of every sacred act or ritual. Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji goes to the extent “India was preaching the gospel of nationalism when Europe was passing through what has been aptly called the Dark Age of her history, and was labouring under the travails of a new birth”. [Nationalism in Hindu Culture, London 1921, 2nd Edition 1957, p. 47]

Asokan inscriptions use a common dialect and script with minor regional variations addressed to the subjects. They use the term Jambudvipa. The Samkalpa mantra treats Bharat Khande or Varsh as a part of Jambudvipa. Kautilya’s Arthashastra, usually thought to be composed in the 4th Century B.C., in defining the territory to be conquered by a Chakravarti King defines it as the land between the Himalayas and the ocean from north to south and equivalent in span of eight thousand miles from east to west. [Book 9, Chapter 1, Prakarana 135-136 -R.D.Shyamasastry]. Mukherji was of the opinion that the conception of a single power dominating the whole country had not originated with Chandragupta Maurya or Kautilya but must have preexisted. Aitreya Brahmana (VIII 15) repeats the dictum that there should be only one ruler of this Prithvi up to the ocean.

In both the above references the word Prithvi has been used as the name of the country. In Mahagovindsutta of Diggha Nikaya (currently held to be the oldest portion of Buddhist Tripitakakas) “Maha Prithvi” name has been given to the land whose shape has been compared with that of a bullock cart which happens to be rectangular in the north and conical in the south. (Rahul Sankrityayana identifies this with Bharat). Therefore the word Prithvi could not have been used for the whole earth beyond Bharatavarsha.

The Prithvi Sukta of Atharva Veda (XII.I) uses the common word Bhumi for land, but uses Prithvi for that particular territory which was later called Jambudivpa or Bharatavarsha. Here, Prithvi is clearly identified with the Vedic history and culture. This Sukta states that this is the land where our ancestors displayed their valour, where gods defeated the Asuras; where our gods Ashwinis, Vishnu and Indra, the husband of Sachi performed their divine feats; it is the land where sacrifices are performed, for them altars are established, where our sacrificial posts stand erect where five classes of men (four varnas and fifth the Nishad) live; this land which is sustained by Dharma where we are protected by god Indra himself; where we offer ghee to the Agni, who acts as our messenger to the gods. It is the land where men offer their oblations to the gods in sacrifices and relish the remains of the sacrificial offerings. Here Indra destroys the enemies of gods, the Asuras and the demon Vrtra. This is the land where pillars (Yupas) are erected for the Sacrifices and where the Rishis chant the mantras of Rigveda Samaveda and Yajurveda, where Indra is offered Somarasa. The land, where ancient Rishis sang divine songs, where they performed seven sattras with Yajnas and Tapas. This is the land where men move in their chariots and bullock carts on the roads where Sabhas and Samitis function in the villages.

Although the Prithvi Sukta does not give exact boundaries of the land, but its citing Himalayas, Sindhu, the six seasons, the flora and fauna, agriculture and crafts all point to a geographical  entity identified as “Bharatavarsha”. Prithvi Sukta uses the word “bhumi” to denote ‘land’ while the word Prithvi denotes its name and expresses a deep sense of affiliation and identification with all the living and non-living attributes of this “land”. It repeatedly reminds us that this “motherland” sustains, feeds and gives refuge even after death. Therefore, this land is our mother and “we are her sons” (12th stanza), because it feeds us just like a “mother” (10-th stanza). Prithvi Sukta acknowledges different dialects and different norms of behaviour according to their own regions, but this motherland just like a “cow”, “feeds them all with her milk without any distinction” (45-th stanza).

The opening verse of the Prithvi Sukta mentions those values and ideals which sustain this land called Prithvi : Truth, Cosmic Law, Initiation, Penance, Veda and Sacrifice. The name Prithvi, itself could have originated from king Prithu (supposed to have started agriculture on the land) indicating a conscious connection of civilization and culture.

Was there a concept of early geographical core? Manu Smriti gives four increasing spheres of influence. As the core, Manu Smriti (II. 18-19) states that the land between the divine rivers Saraswati and Drishadvati was created by the gods themselves and was known by the name Brahmavarta. In this land the code of conduct transmitted by the tradition in regular succession from generation to generation was seen as the noble code of conduct for all varnas”.

As the next circle of expansion, Manusmriti mentions (II. 20-21) the name of Brahmarshi Desh which included the Janapadas of Matsya, Kurukshetra, Panchala and Shurasena. Manusmriti declares that the people born in this land were the torch bearers in the realm of human conduct and therefore all the inhabitants of Prithvi should learn the lessons in character and conduct from them (Manu II. 20-21).

The next expansion circle is named Madhyadesa in Manusmriti (II. 22), covering the land between Himalaya and Vindhya mountains from north to south and to the west of Prayag in the east and to the east of Vinsana in the west, (the place where river Saraswati is believed to have disappeared).

The fourth and the last expansion circle mentioned by Manu Smriti was called Aryavarta, i.e. the land of the Aryas. It was spread from eastern sea to the western sea and from Himalaya Mountain in the north upto river Narmada in the south. This pure land is worthy of performing sacrifices (yajna) and the black antelope, the symbol of sacrifice, could roam there freely. The lands beyond Aryavarta are impure, i.e. not yet part of the cultural stream. (Manu II. 22-23).

The etymology of the word Arya also includes the meaning ‘agriculture’ as well as its use as a qualitative meaning “noble, respectable, higher” in classical Sanskrit and Praakrit texts. Rigvedic “Aryanise the whole world”, could there have meant a civilizational process leading to the spread of an advanced culture and this is also reflected in the early Buddhist and Jain texts. The story of Mathav Videgh following the march of Sacrificial fire from the bank of the river Saraswati to the banks of the river Sadanira (Satapath Brahman) also indicates that it was a cultural process and not a racial one.

Gandhiji wrote in Hind Swaraj (1909). “Our leading men traveled throughout India either on foot or in bullock-carts………. what do you think could have been the intention of those farseeing ancestors of ours who established Setuabandh  in the south, Jagannath in the East and Hardwar in the North as places of pilgrimage? You will admit they were no fools. They knew that worship of God could have been performed just as well at home. They taught us that those whose hearts were aglow with righteousness had the Ganga in their own homes….But they saw that India was one undivided land so made by nature. They, therefore, argued that it must be one nation. Arguing thus, they established holy places in various parts of India, and fired the people with idea of nationality in a manner unknown in other parts of the world”. (M.K. Gandhi. Hind Swaraj, Chap. 9, Hindu Dharma, Ahmedabad 1950, p. 56).

If we are looking for “historical awareness of the need to defend borders as sign of awareness of nationhood” we are looking for something that will be hard to find not only in India but even across the world.

Start with UK. Apparently one tribal king invited the Romans in, and even left his inheritance to them, while his queen led other tribes against the Romans. Lots of English Breton tribal chiefs joined in with the Romans, and “aristocracy’s” habits were “Romanized”. But then, Hadrian built a wall cutting off Scots and Picts. When Saxons came in, they had been invited in as mercenaries by English kings who had risen up after the departure of the Romans. When they took land for themselves and tried to expand, the Welsh – predominantly perhaps Romano-Breton tried to fight them at their border – which was where Wales ended. And the distinction of Welsh, Scottish and Irish identities continued with bloody fanfare well into the early modern. So parts of UK were not conscious of their modern “borders” well into the early modern. But do we find strands of commonality – yes, starting from Bede’s narrative – monks and Christianity crossed “borders”, and were accepted as part of a “national” awareness distinguishing the “islanders” from that of the mainland or from the “Irish”.

Think of the Germans. At least six different tribes are mentioned by Tacitus, and we know mostly of their early history from their “enemies”. We have explicit references to sections of German tribes collaborating with the Romans against other German tribes, and not always defending their modern “borders”. Until modern German unification, the constituents of “German nation” existed in “elusive” mistiness of literature, myth and legends.

All through Europe, even in the Russia under the Golden Horde and then under the early Tsars, we do not always see a consciousness of “borders to be defended” in the modern sense. Whole groups, fought to defend themselves and survive, or migrated en-masse to preserve themselves. What was more important was survival of their “way of life”, their culture, and their “civilization” – whatever that “civilization” could be.

We dont even see that “defending the border” as part of “national/civilizational” awareness even in the Islamic regimes of Arabia, Iraq and Iran.

What is today our official “border” need not be our border in the future. If in the past that “border” had shrunk inwards, in the future it can expand. The crucial point was preservation of the core in times of adversity and expansion in favourable times – or when situation could be made “favourable”.

When hard-pressed in the north, it became a choice of “fight/flight”, and at some point they had to decide painfully what took priority – pride and annihilation, or “slinking away” to preserve your texts and the best continuing mechanism of “culture” – living, practicing humans. No wonder, so many of the Sanskrit texts were recovered from the “South”.

Borders should be taken as temporary compromises in space-time, to keep identities in equilibrium. When needed “borders” should be changed, even expanded – not “identities”.

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

On academics and their open letters : neo-imperialism from afar

Posted on April 22, 2014. Filed under: Bangladesh, China, Christians, Communist, diaspora, economics, economy, Egypt, financial crisis, Gaza, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Indian National Congress, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, Shia, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, Turkey, UK, USA, Wahabi |

 

A group of sixty odd academics in various UK institutions have decided to join the Indian electoral fray by posting an open letter to the “left” leaning Independent under the headline:

Letters: The idea of Modi in power fills us with dread

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-the-idea-of-modi-in-power-fills-us-with-dread-9273298.html

“As the people of India vote to elect their next government, we are deeply concerned at the implications of a Narendra Modi-led BJP government for democracy, pluralism and human rights in India.”

Concern is always nice. Concern about democracy, pluralism, and human rights are particularly nice to hear about. But when these concerns are raised by voice which are only selectively concerned, that troubles us. These academics are not concerned about continued Saudi rule and its impact on the middle East’s prospects for democracy, pluralism and human rights. They are completely silent about Palestinian ruling junta (that is what it is – because each one of them come solidly from military outfits, and once-dubbed-terrorist groups), or for China, or for Pakistan, or Afghanistan. But more of this at the end.

“Narendra Modi is embedded in the Hindu Nationalist movement, namely the RSS and other Sangh Parivar groups, with their history of inciting violence against minorities. Some of these groups stand accused in recent terrorist attacks against civilians.”

The slyness of academic evasiveness starts to reveal itself now. It is the same method by which so-called professional historians create new impressions of truth by weaving propositions into a narrative and creating a new narrative where propositions become blended into certainties. Note the smooth blending of “some” “stand accused”. At one smooth stroke, these academics of high integrity have made an “accusation” appear as “convicted”, and “some” is used to taint the “whole”.

By their logic, the Congress parivar (family) is embedded in a politics which has had very dubious roles, and sometimes outright bias in defacto protecting Muslim violence from Nehru’s time at power during the Partition, with selective targeting of alleged Hindu violence. Usually the Congress hides behind the legalistic excuse – again first used by Nehru to allow the Islamic violence in Noakhali, Bengal to continue while he personally and immediately intervened in Bihar where Muslims were at the receiving end – that when the Congress sees the victims as non-Muslim, non-Christians, it mumbles about law and order being a state prerogative. Whereas, when Muslims appear to be the target, Congress sees it as a union/federal/central issue. This was the cover under which Congress did not intervene in the genocide of Hindus of Jammu and Kashmir in the late 80’s because in this case it was the Muslims who were the perpetrators. The helplessness of the Hindu surviving refugees, was perhaps the root cause of the revival of the Hindutva” movement these academics so lambast – because many Hindus in the wider arena of India began to realize the selective bias of the Indian state under the Nehrus and the Congress in favour of whitewashing and allowing Islamist violence to thrive, especially if such violence was directed against Hindus.

The Congress is therefore imbedded in a movement, that has always protected Islamism and Islamist pretensions, and have at various times carried elements in its governments who are connected to or stand accused of rioting and communal hatred which amount to acts of terrorism.

“We recall the extreme violence by the Hindu Right in Gujarat in 2002 which resulted in the deaths of at least 1,000 people, mostly Muslims. This violence occurred under Modi’s rule, and senior government and police officials have provided testimony of his alleged role in encouraging or permitting it to occur.”

Recalling is a good thing, but if what happened before under a regime historically is proof of repeating the same then the Congress should be even more in the dock – for the Partition riots happened under the government of Jawaharlal Nehru, and ant-Sikh pogroms happened under Rajiv-Gandhi/Congress, and all the riots that happened before the BJP came first to power, with such spectacular ones as in Bhagalpur, were also under various Congress governments.

The academics think that by adding the word “extreme” to “violence” they can make a special case against Modi -as they perhaps feel, and rightly so, that “violence” has been the norm for anti-Hindu attacks by Islamists or Christianists too. Maybe for them those “other” violence are genuine expressions of grievances,

“Some of his close aides have been convicted for their involvement, and legal proceedings are ongoing in the Gujarat High Court which may result in Modi being indicted for his role. He has never apologised for hate speech or contemptuous comments about various groups – including Muslims, Christians, women and Dalits. His closest aide has been censured recently by India’s Election Commission for hate speech used in this election campaign.

“There is widespread agreement about the authoritarian nature of Modi’s rule in Gujarat, further evidenced by the recent sidelining of other senior figures within the BJP. This style of governance can only weaken Indian democracy. “

Different groups of people agree among themselves about different things. Concepts like “authoritarian” are so abstract, and inconcretizable, that tons of academic papers have tried to make academic careers out of hair-splitting over the very definition of “authoritarian”. Many communists are still dewy eyed over Stalin or Mao, and have “widespread agreement” among themselves over their most fortunate appearance on earth. Same goes for Hitler. Jews have “widespread agreement” in spite of a portion of Jewish origin academics hosted by various UK universities to the contrary – that existence of Israel is perfectly justified even at the cost of Palestinians. There is widespread agreement among large swathes of Muslims about the necessity and justifiability of historical violent genocidic jihad, and significant groups have “widespread agreement” among themselves about the benevolence of sex-slavery of the non-Muslim as part of jihad.

Typically when groups do not want to spell out the membership of the group, or are unsure about their numerical strength in proportion to the wider population – they turn to vagueness, or unpinnable conjectures -so that they can never be called out for lying or pretending, and claiming “widespread agreement” is one way of doing that.

The “widespread agreement” is among this tiny coterie of Indian origin academics – probably groomed and selected in the early days of their studenthood and careers by previous generations and peer groups of British interest serving academics, like the Marxist academics who desperately denied any role of triangular Atlantic slave trade in the kickstart of the British industrial revolution.

The curious bit is about somehow Modi being guilty of sidelining “senior” party members as proof of exceptional authoritarianism. All the Nehru-family members have sidelined senior party members to come to power. Does it not make them even more authoritarian already?

“Additionally, the Modi-BJP model of economic growth involves close linking of government with big business, generous transfer of public resources to the wealthy and powerful, and measures harmful to the poor.”

This is actually hilarious. For this is what actually has been happening since Margaret Thatcher in Britain, happened too even under Tony Blair, and has accelerated under Cameron. Do they want to say that all that has led UK down the drain? Or do they have not the courage to spell out those pearls of wisdom to the masters of their souls? It happens at even grander scale in China, where party-apparatchiks and their minions or progeny ruling over millions in their regional satrapys hog investments from a financial sector which is still centrally and nationally owned as well as managed. No, these academic’s can only open their mouth against the “Hindu” India, and the BJP and Narendra Modi. They have not open lettered even on the very entertaining case of Ukraine, where “right wing nationalists” have been on the rampage with alleged support of big biz and oligarchs who grew into tycoons with diversion of state investments. Naturally – since doing so is not in the current interests of the British ruling interests.

“A Modi victory would likely mean greater moral policing, especially of women, increased censorship and vigilantism, and more tensions with India’s neighbours.”

These academics never protested Muslim censorship, moral policing of women, vigilanteism in Indian Kerala, or Uttar Pradesh, or Bihar, or West Bengal, or Assam, or Christians doing exactly the same in Nagaland and Mizoram, and attempting to do the same in Manipur. They cannot mention anything about those other communities or religions or states, because they cannot afford to show these other ones in the same or worse light than the “Hindus” – then they lose the affection of the system.

Overall, then what does it show about such concerted concerns from such groups?

Let us go back to the very beginning again of their open letter. They are claiming that democracy, pluralism, human rights in a one specific distant nation, is going to be trumped if one man and his party or political alliance gets elected in a plural democracy which as yet respects human rights. One can see why they have been allowed to succeed as academics, because they can pretend an intellect which can be used to legitimize the complete lack of any logical capacity on issues that are of interest to a post-imperialist neo-imperialist state.

The west-European political dogma of the political class has now run into a fatal dilemma. They either have to accept that democracy and pluralism can be used, to subvert, overturn, or cover anti-democracy and non-pluralism – which makes themselves open to analysis as tow whether they had been doing and continue to do so themselves.

Or they have to find escape clauses that can be used selectively to target nations and regimes that they see as obstacles in the way of their agenda of global domination, within their dogma that still allows some mantle of legitimacy for their own systems.

The method being tried out in general for a couple of decades, is trying to enforce a so-called consensus or “widespread agreement”, on very vague and often duplicitous or contradictory criteria to judge if the “consensus” value system is being subverted or not. The west-European dogma thinks it has found an escape clause that can cover their selective neo-imperialist agenda – claim that a certain vague outline of democracy, pluralism and human rights exists – whose identification and verification lies solely in their own hands, which then justifies imperialist intervention in other nations, to overturn regimes, assassinate significant individuals, or economically and militarily destroy the fundamentals of that nation.

In order to find out in whose interests any self-proclaimed group of experts, academics, humanitarians, activists actually are acting for – we just need to check out what they remain silent on in contrast to what they choose to pick on. These open-letter academics do not criticize Hamas or Palestinian authority parts for their Jew-cleansing hate campaigns, torture, rape, murder, or that by the so-called freedom-fighters in Syria, or those in Kosovo and Croatia against Serbs in the 90’s, or the Bahraini state, or the Saudis, or Pakistan, or China, or western Ukraine, or Turkey, or Egypt, or even in their own backyard where the state ruthlessly cracks down with full state violence on peaceful protesters against economic destruction of the commoner.

Just compare their stances on these “other” stuff – and you can identify whom they work for, in whose interests.

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Studying Priyamvada Gopal : how to promote imperialism under an anti-fascist mask.

Posted on April 21, 2014. Filed under: Antisemitism, Arab, Buddhists, Christians, Communist, diaspora, Gaza, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Indian National Congress, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Macaulay, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, slavery, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, UK, Uncategorized, USA, Wahabi |

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/narendra-modi-extremism-india

Priymavada Gopal’s opening piece in Guardian runs as follows:

Imagine this. A pogrom takes place in a foreign country targeting a minority group, say Christians, with hundreds brutally killed by rampaging mobs, many mutilated and raped, and foetuses removed from pregnant women. Thousands flee destroyed homes. The provincial leader on whose watch these events take place is a politician with open links to extremist Islamist organisations. Three holidaying British citizens are among the massacred. Allegations emerge that this politician’s language helped foment the massacres. With one of his cabinet jailed for her role in the pogroms he becomes the frontrunner to lead this increasingly powerful country. Would you worry?

Yes, is the likely answer, and so you should. In reality, the country is India, the extremists are Hindus, the 2002 Gujarat pogroms targeted Muslims, and the leader in question is Narendra Modi.

It is highly revealing to see how Gopal’s use of English carefully transforms, transmutes and transfers guilt and horror from a widely obvious violent religious movement to another with which she would otherwise have failed to establish any comparative basis. The violent scenario becomes her equation between two religious communities by which she can serve her dual purpose of reducing Jihadi guilt and responsibility on one hand, and raise the other community to the same violent status. “Removing foetuses” is an allegation that is typically dismissed by Indian “Thaparite” historians when they appear historically, as being carried out by Islamist mobs – as in the Moplah rebellion of the 1920’s or thr Partition riots.

In her hypothetical Islamic scenario, she does not equate “muslim” with “extremist”. In her follow on comment she makes that jump, subtly, and glibly – casually bracketing “Hindu” with “extremist”. But the most insidious and devious part of her argument lies in noting that she paints the “victim” in her scenario – as “Christian minority”. She did not say just any minority – for example Buddhist minorities, Sikh minorities and Hindu minorities are – and continue to be targets of Islamist attacks. But Gopal must only mention “Christian minorities”. She knows she is actually appealing to the Christian majoritarian audience of UK, trying to tickle their own underlying religiosity and religious anger and transfer it against the “Hindu”.

“As the candidate of the far-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), in current elections he does not dispute his or its links to the extremist Hindu network known as the Sangh Parivar.”

It is interesting to note the casual application of adjectives, which do not need to be, and are never qualified. Gopal thinks that extremist is such a well-defined term, that mere slapping it on anyone from such a high and undisputed authority as herself – is enough. Extremist in one school, one religion, one nation – become moderates, average, centrist in another school, religion, nation. Again Gopal is very careful in disjuncting “Muslim” from “extremist” – she reserves such joining to Muslim only by adding an “ist”, creating the linguistic illusion of the two being separate. No such kindnesses for the “Hindu” though. In the eyes of enemies of the Hindu, any assertiveness or protest or attempt at defining itself independently of self-appointed experts form outside – who however carry their own hidden religious agenda by criticizing religions/cultures selectively – is a criminal offense.

“Modi was a leading activist for its secretive and militaristic arm, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – whose founder expressed admiration for Hitler, ideologies of racial purity and the virtues of fascism. It is an organisation that, on a good day, looks like the British National party but can operate more like Nazi militias. Known for an authoritarian leadership style, Modi’s only expression of regret for the pogroms compared them to a car running over a puppy, while he labelled Muslim relief camps “baby-making factories”.”

Interestingly, the roots of the current Palestinian movement against Israel, and Jews – has its roots in a certain Grand Mufti of Palestine, who became a close associate, admirer of Hitler, and collaborator of the Nazis. This Grand Mufti had however been helped to get selected to his post by the dubious role of the then British administrator of Palestine. Does this make the British, Christians, current Palestinian movements, any better than the RSS? The Palestinian groups still express admiration for Hitler, for example  http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=655

“Hitler awaited me. I said, ‘You’re the one who killed the Jews?’
He [Hitler] said: ‘Yes. I killed them so you would all know that they are a nation which spreads destruction all over the world. And what I ask of you is to be resilient and patient, concerning the suffering that Palestine is experiencing at their hands.’
I said [to Hitler]: ‘Thanks for the advice.’ “ http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=655&doc_id=6029

“Had Hitler won, Nazism would be an honor that people would be competing to belong to, and not a disgrace punishable by law. Churchill and Roosevelt were alcoholics, and in their youth were questioned more than once about brawls they started in bars, while Hitler hated alcohol and was not addicted to it. He used to go to sleep early and wake up early, and was very organized. These facts have been turned upside down as well, and Satan has been dressed with angels’ wings…”

“Palestinians whose first name is “Hitler”: Hitler Salah [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 28, 2005], Hitler Abu-Alrab [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 27, 2005], Hitler Mahmud Abu-Libda [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec.18, 2000.] Articles reflecting admiration for Hitler have appeared in both Fatah and Hamas newspapers.”

Millions go as aid and funds diverted for Palestinian movements from UK. Does Gopal lambast them similarly? no. Why not? Because doing so would not be in the interests of the core of the British establishment thinking– which still has its pro-Sunni, Wahabi, anti-Semitic bent of the early 20th century.

“Hindu extremism is rooted in a macho 20th-century response to British colonialism which mocked Hindu “effeminacy”. It is rarely scrutinised in the west, partly because Hinduism is stereotyped as gentle and non-violent in the image of Gandhi – who, ironically, was assassinated by an RSS activist – and benefits from the disproportionate attention given to Islamist violence, which enables other pernicious extremisms to slip under the radar.”

Gopal obviosuly covers up her glee at supposed “hindu effiminacy” just as newly enslaved woman in Islamic hands were often reported to be over-zealous to show her devotion to new masters by sharing in the mocking or humiliation of her own kin. Actually, Gopal’s shoddy scholarship and very poor or rather dishonest understanding of colonial history shows in her lack of reference to studies of militancy within the Hindu long before the British arrived, as in Warrior Ascetics and Indian Empires By William R. Pinch published from within the very Cambridge that Gopal struts about.

“For all its anti-British rhetoric, Hindu nationalism played no significant role in either the freedom struggle or in creating the secular constitution of independent India. But over recent decades, the notion of Hindutva (Hindu-ness) has grown in force along with the unfettered capitalism it espouses: it is responsible for vicious attacks on Christians, murdering missionaries and calling for Muslims to choose between Pakistan and the graveyard. And any victory for a proponent of a nuclearised Hindu India where homosexuality remains criminalised will have consequences that will be felt well beyond the subcontinent, not least in multicultural Britain.”

As for pontificating on who played no significant role in freedom struggle : Gopal follows the cue of Congress favoured so-called professional historians who see political agenda in everyone else other than themselves. The latter served the dual purpose of reassuring the British that the threat of militancy or militancy itself among the Hindu having any role in the removal of the Brits – because the Brits have always been mortally scared of appearing to have been militarily or violently thrashed. It fed into their ancient paranoia of appearing weak before continental brothers. The other purpose was legitimizing the dynastic continuity of British Raj through the Nehruvian one, by projecting Nehru and Gandhi as the sole harbingers of Indian freedom – erasing and denigrating all other threads of Indian freedom struggle and its success. Such an agitprop and construction of the colonial-anti-colonial story served the purposes of all three players in that game – British imperialism, the north-Indian mullah-Hindu-elite collaborator class developing within the Sultanate-Mughal spectrum represented by Motilal and Jawaharlal, and the mercantile fledgling capitalists of India. Making Gandhi the sole victor, then was strategy of redefining the Hindu as passively accepting of all that is thrown against, tolerant of everything and everyone so that the extreme exclusivism, culture erasure memes of Christianity and Islam could continue unhindered even after their British patrons were gone from direct power. Gopal simply parrots the line.

Interestingly, and expectedly, Gopal shows her lack of integrity by not mentioning that the anti-homosexual laws were actually British laws imposed on Hindus – in deference to Islamic and Christian demands when the laws were being formalized for the Raj, and that the current strongest opposition against decriminalizing homosexuality comes from Muslim leadership in India. It is Hindus who have some traditional space for the third “gender”, not Muslims – some of whose voice have already promised alternatives under Islamic law for India. Gopal slyly makes an Islamic and Christian problem into a Hindu one, and then pitched it on her chosen target. When mentioning “vicious attacks” on Christian missionaries, she quietly avoids the role and effect of such missionaries on simple believing communities, the fraud and financial promises used to manipulate and win converts, and the attacks on and exclusion of Hindus by missionaries. When Hindu “missionaries” go for similar work – they are murdered too, and their activity is touted by the likes of Gopal as disruptive and therefore their murder somehow legitimate. Gopal has absorbed British ruling classes’ traditional duplicity rather well.

“The Gujarat pogroms took place after an unexplained fire on a train, which killed Hindu activists and was swiftly attributed by Modi to Islamic forces and Pakistan. Allegations remain that he deliberately prevented authorities from intervening. Contrary to claims, India’s supreme court has not issued him a “clean chit” but criticised him as a “modern-day Nero”.”

For Gopal – the “fire” is “unexplained”, not even unfortunate – or no commiseration expressed for those burned. Notwithstanding that the commission reports did not declare the fire “unexplained”, but rather suspicious. However, the suspicious reports were generated to make it appear that the burned passengers set fire to themselves – so that arson was so strongly suspected and secretly acknowledged by the anti-Hindu forces in the country and abroad – that they swung into action to pitch the blame on the “hindu” themselves. Gopal mentions allegations in a neat weave to create the impression that they were somehow not mere allegations but truths.

“Modi’s moral culpability was recognised by both Britain and the US in denying him a travel visa for several years. Britain has also been attempting, without success, to get justice for the three Britons – Saeed and Sakil Dawood, and Mohammed Aswat – who were chased, cornered and brutally killed, their bodies burned beyond recognition. Now, disgracefully, trumped by British corporate interests in India, many owned by British Indians, governmental links with Modi have been re-established. This rehabilitation is the result of hard lobbying by some Hindutva-friendly politicians and the many front organisations that operate in Britain. We are urged to focus on corporate-friendly Modi, the pogroms being a little mishap to be shrugged off.”

Gopal is at her ridiculous shamelessness best : the US/UK’s rejection of Modi somehow reinforces the guilt of Modi. Is she prepared to do the same for US/UK’s virtual rejection of Palestinian demands and accept that it proves Palestinian guilt? Or UK’s virtual clean chit to allow South American genocide criminals to move freely in UK shows their lack of guilt? Gopal claims to have been at the forefront of fighting fascism – but fails to recognize the reach, spread and power of fascism in the form of Islamism. She want to equate Islamism with Hindu reassertion – and this is where she reveals her secret agenda.

“We should note with concern that some charitable funds raised in Britain, including for the 2001 Gujarat earthquake, went to charities run by Hindu extremists who systematically foment hate. So too must we care about the “saffron pound” sent by long-distance Hindu “patriots” to fund extremism. But investigating Britain’s Hindu zealots doesn’t have the same political currency as pronouncements about getting “tough” on Islamic extremism.

A Modi victory will strengthen the arm of chauvinist forces in Britain, which have already had successes such as shutting down exhibitions, quashing caste discrimination laws, and withdrawing Royal Mail stamps. Under Modi there will be no progress on Kashmir, which will also have far-reaching violent consequences. In the face of a global resurgence of the right we must be alert to all its extremist forms. Britons committed to anti-fascism must not allow their country to abdicate morality.”

The weakest part of Gopals’ argument is however her failure to establish any strong connection between a Modi victory and negative consequences for UK home territories. Shutting down of exhibitions and withdrawal of stamps is far behind the political exigencies by which the London series bombings are related to the global fascist Islamist agenda. Hindu India has little to gain out of blackmailing a puny world player like the UK whose only influence can be exercised through its big-brother the USA. Islamists on the other hand have a lot depending on the UK and vice versa. Her most concrete argument is that of Modi will stall progress on “Kashmir”. Interestingly again, Gopal shows her real affiliations and commitments by dropping the word Jammu – and making one cause with the Islamist agenda of erasing the reality of Hindu and Buddhist Jammu and Ladakh. Since she thinks “Hindu” is against “Kashmir” she is already subscribed to the idea of an Islamist Kashmir – the dream of islamists, many of whom find a niche in her very UK – and against whom she has nothing to say. Not to speak of no Guardian article from her pen about the fascism unleashed by the valley Muslims on Hindu “Kashmiris”.

Gopals’ anti-fascism is very very selective – it only finds it in Hindu reassertion, not in Islamics, or christians, or in the actions of states in the west and its Islamist allies like the Saudis, around the globe and sometimes on their own home territories – which have amounted to and continue to be so – as fascist. So at the end of the day, her shrill cry of sky-is-falling and frantic appeal to the UK to intervene in Indian politics reveals her real motivations – serve the cause of imperialism under cover of anti-fascism – the same face used in Europe and the world since the end of WWII.

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

The riots in Uttar Pradesh, India : Islamist provocation backfires.

Posted on September 14, 2013. Filed under: Arab, Ayodhya, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Maoism, Muslims, Ottoman, Pakistan, rape, religion, Salafi, Saudi, Sunni, Uncategorized, USA, Wahabi |

In Uttar Pradesh, two Hindu brothers were killed because they beat up a Muslim man harassing their sister persistently for some time – and a result of this “roughing up” the Muslim boy died. A Muslim mob gathered, brutally beating them and killing them. Typically, the pious media and judiciary and the state would solemnly shake their head and denounce the two brothers for taking up the law into their own hands – and that no one has the right to kill another however grievous the perception of injury – for only the state has monopoly over personal violence. However in case of Muslim violence on non-Muslims, the tenor typically becomes that yes it is “unfortunate” and “sad” and “we grieve for the loss” “but” we have to “look at root causes” – which can range from anything and everything including “hurt religious sentiments”, “lack of development”, “poverty”, “deprivation”. In some sense, as if such claimed factors then become ameliorating factors in fixing guilt. The solemn injunctions of “law should not be taken into own hands” do not apply for Muslims in the Indian public game of condemnation and apportioning of guilt and responsibility.

Was this a one-off reaction? A sign of “Hindu” intolerance for innocent Muslim teasing and roughing up of Hindu girls? Mullah inspired and textually encouraged predation on kafir women is now a well-established phenomenon all over the world. With the emergence and exposure of Islam’s core deceptive strategy of expansion at all possible levels on the most primitive and biological of human thought processes – after the same-side goal scored by Islamists on their patrons the Anglo-Saxon axis of global division of power – the hitherto suppressed information on Islam’s consistent record over the centuries and the core doctrines as maintained in the texts have come increasingly into public domain. In particular focus is the so-called “love jihad” – the deliberate targeting of non-Muslim women and girls for sexual predation and violence, under various guises in societies where the Muslim is not yet in state power – and openly and overtly in rape/abduction/forced-marriages/sex-slavery in nations where Muslims are the majority or manage to get near-majority influence and protection out of complicated historical misfortunes for humanity like the British empire with its love for violently jihadi Sunni Wahabis as tools against rival Ottomans, as in India.

The way Islamist shenanigans In India are condoned is by fixing the violence by Muslims as a “reaction” against Hindu provocation or violence. But the possibility of an original Muslim provocation to which the Hindus “reacted” to which the Muslims then again reacted – is never explored. Thus we always get the refrain of the Gujarat riots of the early 2000’s without often even a murmur about the Islamic mob burning a whole train carriage load of Hindu pilgrims that started off the riots in reaction. The Islamic mob that burned Hindu pilgrims were reacting against supposed revival of the Hindu interest for reconstructing their claimed holy temple for their divinity -Rama – at a spot where Islamics had destroyed Hindu structures in the 16th century and put up a mosque of their own. This was in turn a continuation of incidents of a sequence of very public bombings by Islamists in 1993, in turn supposedly a reaction to events in 1992 when Hindu groups destroyed the mosque. But before the 1992 incident, there had been increasing violence by Islamists in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir – intensifying from late 80’s and intensifying into early 90’s – with rapes, abductions, massacres and large scale enforced migrations of ethnic Kashmiri Hindus out of the state. No media, no western sympathizers of Muslims, no “deprivation” and “reaction only” theorists will ever connect the rise of Hindu assertiveness to the unchecked and well-protected violence by Islamists in the Kashmir valley and the literal genocide that Muslims of the valley undertook or allowed their ummah brethren to continue unopposed in undertaking –  in sharp contrast to the violent mob reactions they show on international or foreign Islamic interests on the streets of India, as in demanding expulsion of Tasleema Nasreen or the head of Salman Rushdie.

This case was no exception either. Because international or Indian media suppress the ground realities of islamist expansionism, and the grotesque and medieval Middle Eastern methods or tactics employed – when large scale retribution or reactions from non-Muslims happen – they appear surprising or shocking.
Initial source : http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/warning-very-graphic-the-2-hindu-jat-brothers-killed-in-muzaffarnagar/

This link claims to provide pictures of the bodies of the two brothers lynched by the Islamist mob for roughing up the Muslim boy who had been persistently teasing their sister. The report also provides clues to a persistent Islamist campaign of harassing, and teasing or abduction – effectively a kind of generic sexual predatory behaviour unleashed on the Hindus of the area, for many years now.

[1] 30/08/2013 MUZAFFARNAGAR Muslim cleric arrested for abducting 11-year-old girl http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-30/lucknow/41617399_1_11-year-old-girl-muslim-cleric-muzaffarnagar

[2] 29/12/2012 Muzaffarnagar Girl raped in Panchayat premises (accused Shauqueen and Rahil) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-29/lucknow/36050717_1_sexual-assault-muzaffarnagar-police-station

[3] 18/02/2013 Woman gang-raped by four men, filmed in Muzaffarnagar (rapists Naushad, Pravaiz, Kamal Hasan and Nazar ) http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1801209/report-woman-gang-raped-by-four-men-filmed-in-muzaffarnagar

[4] 24/08/13 Class IX student raped by youth (Dilshad) in Muzaffarnagar http://zeenews.india.com/news/uttar-pradesh/class-ix-student-raped-by-youth-in-muzaffarnagar_871331.html

[5] 23/08/12 Muzaffarnagar: Schoolgirl gangraped by 5 youths in Muzaffarnagar (Main accused Salman other names suppressed) http://www.financialexpress.com/news/schoolgirl-gangraped-by-5-youths-in-muzaffarnagar/992134

[6] Islamic Justice as practiced in Muzaffaranagar: Brothers-in-law mercilessly gangrape woman with consent of panchayat http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/24-year-old-woman-gangraped-panchayat-orders-gangrape-uttar-pradesh-revenge-by-in-laws/1/296827.html

[7] 21/12/2012 Muzaffarnagar panchayat offers rape victim Rs 1.5 lakh to keep quiet (accused Tasavvur) http://ibnlive.in.com/news/up-muzaffarnagar-panchayat-offers-rape-victim-rs-15-lakh-to-keep-quiet/311629-3-242.html?utm_source=ref_articlehttp://ibnlive.in.com/news/up-muzaffarnagar-panchayat-offers-rape-victim-rs-15-lakh-to-keep-quiet/311629-3-242.html?utm_source=ref_article

[8] 24/06/2011 Muzaffarnagar Rape Case Mayawati suspends MLA Shahnawaz Rana on rape charge (then joined RLD) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-24/india/29698747_1_bsp-mla-bsp-leaders-intikhab-rana

Satyender Kumar Baliyan 24, was among a group of 2,000 villagers returning home after attending the Mahapanchayat [“Grand Assembly” – a traditional ancient Hindu ethnic parliament summoned to settle issues of importance to the community] hosted by several Jat communities of western Uttar Pradesh in nearby Kawal village, when they were ambushed by a mob, armed with assault rifles and other sophisticated weapons leading to a bloody   massacre at Gang Nahar, popularly known as Jolly canal, last Saturday. [Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1888043/report-dna-special-jolly-canal-killings-triggered-the-muzaffarnagar-riots ]

“Since, I was with the NCC for more than three years during my school days, I could easily tell that our assailants were using AK47 rifles and other weapons,” he told dna at the site of the massacre. The mob set on fire 18 tractor trollies and three motorbikes of the villagers. Local people say the Jolly canal massacre turned into the communal riots of Muzaffarnagar, in which the official death toll is 45. But local people say the number is much higher.

Eyewitnesses say after the mass killings, the attackers dumped the bodies in the canal, which meets the Ganges river in adjoining Haridwar district. So far, six bodies have been fished out.  “We were unarmed. And they(attackers) ambushed us like Naxals. They started firing indiscriminately,” Baliyan said. Omkar Singh Rana of Baseda village, cannot find his elder brother Brijpal Singh Rana since the attack on Saturday. “It is not only my elder brother… there are hundreds of people who have gone missing after the massacre. Though six bodies have been found, we are sure there will be many more,” Rana told dna.

The villagers accused the local administration of not acting swiftly and of the police allowing the attackers to escape after the carnage. “The district administration has not made any effort to track the missing persons or find the bodies. Even the water flow in the canal was not controlled; it was deliberately increased to sweep away the dumped bodies,” said Bhanwar Singh, pradhan [“chief”] of Baseda village.

The district administration has registered 40 missing complaints till Wednesday. But apparently often cases are not registered because officials decide that people might have “migrated” to other parts of the state. District magistrate Kaushal Raj Sharma admitted that the number of missing persons is more than the registered cases. “In case of the Jolly canal, we have recovered six bodies so far. Work is on to trace others, if any,”  he said. “But in some cases people have migrated to other places. And since there is no contact with family members, they lodge missing complaints.” It is interesting to note that even in the backdrop of unnatural conditions and violence, the official Indian state and government functionaries “think” that missing people are simply “migrating” – which is a longer term phenomenon – and not necessarily trying to temporarily flee from massacres or are simply dead/killed/abducted.

A dozen daily wage farm workers and ordinary villages were travelling in a tractor as usual from Mod Khurd village to Munjhera in search of work. At the entrance to Munjhera is a mosque on the roadside which everyone has to pass through to enter the village. Hiding within the mosque were some 50-60 heavily armed men waiting in darkness to pounce upon any ‘Kafirs‘ who were unlucky enough to pass through on that fateful Friday evening. As the tractor ambled across the mosque road, it was met with scores of flying stones, which took them by surprise. This stone pelting continued for some time, even as the men tried to find cover in the trolley. Some jumped over the sides and melt into the wilderness, but others weren’t so lucky. [Source: http://centreright.in/2013/09/muzaffarnagar-where-riots-turned-into-pathology-from-anatomy/#.UjTKu7zXFok]

The mob from the mosque then surrounded the tractor and pulled down some 6 men and threw them on the roadside. What happened over the next 30 minutes is too graphic to print – “it was the worst nightmare one could ever have” as per one of the survivors who is grievously injured and may not live long. The farm workers were first beaten up mercilessly and were then attacked with sharp weapons by a gang of 50 odd “mushtandey“ [toughs/goons]. Finally, they were shot at pointblank range, to ensure that they did not survive.

Meanwhile, those who had escaped the stone pelting reached the local police station and complained about the attack, but to their utter frustration, the police refused to budge from their seats. For more than an hour the police refused to visit the mosque to rescue the victims and when they finally did reach the spot, they found three bodies lying in a pool of blood. Two of the dead were simply identified as that of Pappu and Joginder, while one other victim was still breathing. Three other farm workers are still missing, 3 days after the incident, and are presumed dead for all practical purposes.

In the same post, Praveen writes that if one went to “any village in Muzaffarnagar” then ” you are likely to find new settlements of outsiders – a euphemism for “Bangladeshis” – who have now become part of the village political-economy. Add to this, the growing reach of the global Ummah philosophy combined with the fanaticism angle of “Islam Katre mein hai” and you have a potent mixture for disaster. In this concoction, when you add a large haul of “sophisticated arms, like hand grenades and AK 47s” smuggled from the Nepal border, you get a deadly syrup of violent riots.”

Praveen reflects the local perception of state administration being hand in gloves with Islamists when he writes, “Over the last few months there have been numerous reports of deadly weapons being circulated in UP, but the government has taken absolutely no action till date. There have been rumours that a powerful minister of the region belonging to the minority community is hand-in-glove with this whole exercise of arming a community to the teeth. In fact, quite a few vehicles have been raided by the police with large quantities of illegal weapons, but the state administration has adopted a “blind eye” policy towards this whole phenomenon. Finally, on Sunday, when the army conducted flag marches in various villages, some of the villagers actually fired back at the army, which eventually led to army seizing a large haul of illegal arms.”

Praveen speculates that the Islamist violence took the mostly Hindu Jats of western UP, a hard working Hindu primarily farming community – completely by surprise, because of their previous longstanding political alliance in this region. Also perhaps the degree of sophistication of the weapons available to the jihadis were a shock factor too – in a country that has assiduously maintained the British imperial policy of as complete a disarming of the civilian population as possible – but where Maoists, Jihadis, and Christian extremist groups in the North East seem to have no significant restrictions on the level and supply of weapons.

Four days after the riots began, on the 31st of August, the Jats first called a Panchayat at Jaansaath Tehsil, but even after trying to organize themselves, they were hopelessly outmaneuvered. It was only after Narendra Tikait and Rakesh Tikait – both sons of the legendary farmer leader, Mahendra Singh Tikait – entered the scene that the fight back began in earnest. As long as the Hindus failed to retaliate in kind, administration and media sat quietly. Then the Hindu farmers organized themselves and struck back. As usual, the Indian state suddenly then jumped into the fray with political parties who protect islamism and islamists now perhaps pressed into service by a desperate islamist leadership.

First, BSP MP Kadir Rana, Congress leader Saiduzzaman and Samajwadi Party leader Rashid Siddiqui made a highly charged communal speech at Khaalapur on the 30th of August, which was attended by more than 15 thousand people, despite prohibitory orders under section 144. Then the Mahapanchayat [the ethnic Hindu parliament] of 7th September was attended by Hukum Singh, Sangeet Som and Suresh Rana of BJP, former Congress MP Harinder Malik and the Tikait brothers of the BKU. [Source : Praveen Patil]

The English language media which gets the lions share of international attention and which was almost totally absent for ten days when the violence was only from the Islamic side, went in their droves to Muzaffarnagar to paint tales of minority victimhood. The news editors zoomed in on Islamic skull-caps and darkly hinted that Narendra Modi of the BJP – the supposed nemesis of the all things positive in India, precipitated this crisis by possibly “hurting Muslim” sentiments by the mere fact of his existence.

 At the end of the day, all this leads to a renewed convergence among various Hindu groups, and a consolidation that the fanatical Muslim will find quite difficult to digest.

The mood of the non-Muslim generations that were not born under the shadow of the Nehruvian Congress has been slowly and steadily changing. The islamist leadership failed to realize this, blinded by the apparent Saudi success in having the west as its prostitute and virtual blank cheque for any jihadi and expansionist agenda as long as it did not hurt the “western interests” directly.  Having a pliant politically subservient national media also does not help. It lulls the planners at highest levels of regime power into a false sense of secure power and assumed acceptance by the majority for ever into the future.

If the international community does not want to be shocked and surprised, it needs to go beyond the official posturings and look into ground realities of Islam in India, and the type of reactions it is generating from the non-Muslims.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )

Sayedee’s Jamaat-e-Islami shows how Islam actually spread in India or for that matter in Arabia too

Posted on March 3, 2013. Filed under: Arab, Bangladesh, Bengal, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Left, Pakistan, Politics, rape, religion, Saudi, Shahbag, Sunni, Taleban, terrorism, UK, Wahabi |

 What Jamaat-e-Islami of Bangladesh is doing in collaboration with other sharia-fascist Islamist groups is being dubbed by the media as merely being Pakistani agents, or trying to complete what Pakistan failed to do in 1971. There are two reasons or rather compulsions behind this media or even mainstream “secular”
political parties.

The first one is the fear in parties like Awami League stemming from the uncertainty of not really knowing how much of covert Islamist sympathy lies within their own ranks, or in the state machinery, or in the police and armed wings. Then there is also the fear of what pressures might be applied by external forces which no regime of Bangladesh can afford to displease.  A possible spectrum of such forces can perhaps be hypothesized as the covert state wings of UK, USA and KSA. Islamic leaders, or political  and military leaders from Islamic nations on the subcontinent – typically get immediate shelter in one of three countries when things get too hot in their native land and in anticipation of placing them back in their proper “roles” once things cool down – UK and KSA primarily, and USA secondarily. The eldest son of the current opposition leader has been “recuperating” quietly in UK ever since he went there for treatment after suffering health problems while in custody in Bangladesh under corruption charges. We can hear nothing, not even a murmur, from the anti-corruption agencies in Bangladesh over this – even though we do hear murmurs about the other son who is sheltered in Singapore. Another leader of the “interim-caretaker-government” is sheltered on the island too, and nothing is heard of him even though the opposition makes noises from time to time (not very loudly though). Musharraf has sheltered on the island too.

United Kingdom was instrumental in creating the Islamist problem on the subcontinent as part of a consistent and premeditated political programme of subverting Indian society, and there is some indication that the British state machinery had set the task of outlining separatist Islam based territorial and political units – to Islamic civil servants in the Indian administrative services as early as 1934.  Then the remarkably successful British Indian intelligence service, which penetrated almost each and every anti-Britsh peaceful or covert political groups, apparently failed completely in anticipating how demobilized Muslim soldiers of British Indian Army were being recruited by the Muslim League to train jihadi gangs as part of a planned pogrom and genocide move to be unleashed in the infamous “Direct Action Day”. The Partition violence was orchestrated to a very large extent from within resources ultimately traceable to the British Indian army (demobilized soldiers) and administration.

Thus it might actually be in the interest of sections of political and covert intelligence wings of both UK and KSA, not to allow the violent Islamist factions in Bangladesh (and in Pakistan) to be completely destroyed, as these may appear to be valuable destabilizing assets for future manipulation of subcontinental politics. If Awami League moves to the extent of destroying these assets, their leaders may suddenly find themselves assassinated or coups mounted.

The other reason, potentially, is the awareness that what Jamaat is doing – is actually consistently within the ambit of Islamism, and very much practised and used as precedence from the founding days of Islam. Thus countering the Jamaat is not possible from the Islamic religious angle. For every supposed “peaceful conversion” verse in the Quran, there are many more in the ahadith that makes deceptive, violent and genocidic jihad on the non-Muslim the norm.

That Jamaat is carrying out an Islamic programme is clear in the way it is actually repeating the Islamic jihadi meme for non-muslims on each and every excuse on which violence can be mounted, even if officially the call by them was simply to protest against the hanging order on Sayedee.

(1) In Chittagong, Jamaati Islamists attacked Hindu majority localities at Jaldi union of Banshkhali upazila and set fire to a Buddhist temple.(2) Jamaat members also burned houses at Dhopapara and Mohajonpara and attacked people with sticks, iron rods and sharp weapons.

(3) The rioters also burned three shops belonging to Hindus at Kaliash union of Satkania upazila.

(4) Members of Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing Islami Chhatra Shibir attacked a temple and business establishments belonging to Hindus at Bhelkobazar in Sundarganj upazila of Gaibandha district.

(5) Rioters also vandalised some houses in Shovaganj union.

(6) Vandalism, arson and looting took place in temples, houses and business establishments of Hindus in Sylhet, Rangpur, Thakurgaon, Laxmipur and Chapainawabganj.

(7) Attackers had vandalised the central Kali temple at Mithapukur upazila in Rangpur and another at Kansat in Chapainawabganj.

Jamaat is indeed following in the same order of politics of violent provocation, and using legitimate retribution from the victim side as the excuse to increase the level of violence in a bid to extract totalitarian state power – that was laid down in the early battles and campaigns of the founding of the religion in northern Arabia, targeting deceptively, by ambush, by flouting of all then prevalent code of conduct of war,  by rape, genocide, and again betrayal of the basic human values.

As expected, while Islamist march in violent demand of action against the Shahbag youth in Kolkata, the “progressiveness” capital of India under watchful protection of the state police [that which also maintains watchful protection of Islamist and jihadi campaigns in Hindu villages along the border with Bangladesh on the Indian side], no protests or marches or sit-ins have happened from the left and secular brandholders of the state. After all, there could be much higher than allowed to be known – electoral and financial benefits from the Muslim population in the state.

What is happening in India and the neighbouring Muslim states – is a repeat, and therefore revealing of actual totalitarianist strategies by which Islam originally spread on the subcontinent. It is just a renewed attempt after gathering the strength that was needed to make the move – recovering from the losses of defeat at the hands of European imperialism, and pretension of submission and alliance with the west.

Ending with a full list of  the 20 charges against Sayedee for a sample of those activities reported and could be supported by witnesses : many others could not make it to the courts because of the successful delay in the trial for 40 years, by which time many witnesses had died or “vanished” when the Jamaat was rehabilitated under international and military-dictatorship patronage.

1. On May 4, 1971, Delawar Hossain Sayedee as a member of Peace (Shanti) Committee carried secret information to the Pakistan army about a gathering of a group of people behind the Madhya Masimpur bus-stand under Pirojpur Sadar and took the army to the spot. The army killed 20 unnamed people by firing.

2. On May 4, 1971, Sayedee along with his accomplices accompanied by the Pakistan army looted belongings of members of the Hindu community living in Masimpur Hindu Para under Pirojpur Sadar. They also set the houses of Hindus alight and opened fire on the scared people, who started fleeing the scene, killing 13 people.

3. On May 4, 1971, Sayedee led a team of the Pakistan army to Masimpur Hindu Para, where the team looted goods from the houses of two members of the Hindu community — Monindra Nath Mistri and Suresh Chandra Mondol — and destroyed their houses by setting them on fire. Sayedee also directlytook part in the large-scale destruction by setting fire to the roadside houses of villages Kalibari, Masimpur, Palpara, Sikarpur, Razarhat, Kukarpara, Dumur Tola, Kalamtola, Nawabpur, Alamkuthi, Dhukigathi, Parerha and Chinrakhali.

4. On May 4, 1971, Sayedee and his accomplices, accompanied by the Pakistani army looted the houses of members of the Hindu community and opened fire indiscriminately on them in front of Dhopa Bari and behind the LGED Building in Pirojpur, leaving four persons killed.

5. Sayedee declared publicly to arrest Saif Mizanur Rahman, then deputy magistrate of Pirojpur Sub-division, when the magistrate organised a Sarbo Dalio Sangram Parishad to inspire people to join the Liberation War. On May 5, 1971, Sayedee along with his associate Monnaf (now deceased), a member of Peace (Shanti) Committee, accompanied by the Pakistan army picked up Saif from the hospital where he was hiding and took him to the bank of the Baleshwar river. On the same date and time, Foyezur Rahman Ahmed, sub-divisional police officer, and Abdur Razzak (SDO in charge of Pirojpur), were also arrested from their workplaces and taken to the river bank. Sayedee as a member of the killer squad was present there and all three government officials were gunned down. Their bodies were thrown into the river Baleshwar. Sayedee directly participated and abetted in the acts of abduction and killing of those three officers.

6. On May 7, 1971, Sayedee identified the houses and shops of Bangalees belonging to the Awami League, Hindu community and supporters of the Liberation War at Parerhat Bazar under Pirojpur Sadar. Sayedee as one of the perpetrators raided those shops and houses and looted valuables, including 22 seers of gold and silver from the shop of one Makhanlal Saha.

7. On May 8, 1971, Sayedee led a team of the Pakistan army to the house of Nurul Islam Khan, where he identified Nurul Islam as an Awami League leader and his son Shahidul Islam Selim as a freedom-fighter to the army. Sayedee then detained Nurul Islam and handed him to the army, which tortured Nurul Islam. His house was then looted and finally set on fire.

8. On May 8, 1971, Sayedee and his accomplices accompanied by the Pakistan army raided the house of one Manik Posari at Chitholia under Pirojpur Sadar and caught his brother Mofizuddin and one Ibrahim. Sayedee’s accomplices then burnt five houses there. On the way to the Pakistani army’s camp, Sayedee instigated the members of the occupation force to kill Ibrahim by gunshot and dump his body near a bridge. On the other hand, Mofiz was taken to the army camp and tortured. Sayedee directly participated in the abduction, murder and persecution of the victims.

9. On June 2, 1971, armed associates of Sayedee under his leadership and accompanied by the Pakistani army raided the house of one Abdul Halim Babul at Nolbunia under Indurkani Police Station and looted valuables from Halim’s house. The team then reduced the house to ashes.

10. On June 2, 1971, Sayedee’s armed associates under his leadership and accompanied by the Pakistan army burnt 25 houses of a Hindu Para in Umedpur village under Indurkani Police Station. At one stage, a victim, Bisabali, was tied to a coconut tree and was shot dead by Sayedee’s accomplice.

11. On June 2, 1971, Sayedee led a team of Peace (Shanti) Committee members, accompanied by the Pakistani army, to raid the house of Mahbubul Alam Howlader (freedom-fighter) of Tengra Khali village under Indurkani Police Station. Sayedee and the team then detained Mahbubul’s elder brother Abdul Mazid Howlader and tortured him, and looted cash money, jewellery and other valuables from the house.

12. One day a group comprising 15-20 armed accomplices of Sayedee under his leadership entered the Hindu Para of Parerh at Bazar under Pirojpur Sadar and captured 14 Hindus, who were all supporters of Bangladesh’s independence. The fourteen were then tied with a single rope and dragged to Pirojpur and handed over to Pakistani soldiers, who killed them. Their bodies were thrown into the river.

13. One night, about 2 to 3 months after the war commenced, some members of Peace Committee under Sayedee’s leadership accompanied by the Pakistan army raided the house of Azhar Ali of Nalbunia village under Pirojpur Sadar Police Station. They then caught and tortured Azahar Ali and his son Shaheb Ali. The team then abducted Shaheb Ali and ultimately he was taken to Pirojpur and killed.

14. During the final stages of the war, Sayedee one morning led a team of Razakar Bahini consisting of 50 to 60 Razakars, into attacking the Hindu Para of Hoglabunia under Pirojpur Sadar. Seeing the attackers, the Hindus managed to flee but one Shefali Gharami failed to do that. Some members of Razakar Bahini entered her room and raped her. Being the leader of the team, Sayedee did not prevent them from committing rape upon her. Sayedee and the members of his team also set fire to the dwelling houses of the Hindu Para.

15. During the last part of the war, Sayedee led 15 to 20 armed Razakars who entered the Hoglabunia village under Pirojpur Sadar Police Station and caught 10 members of the Hindu faith. The attackers then tied all the members of Hindu community with a single rope, dragged them to Pirojpur and handed them over to the Pakistani army. They were all killed and their bodies were dumped into the river.

16. In the course of the Liberation War, Sayedee led a group of 10-12 armed Razakars and Peace Committee members, which surrounded the house of Gouranga Saha of Parerhat Bandar under Pirojpur Sadar. Subsequently, Sayedee and the others abducted three women and handed them over to the Pakistan army at Pirojpur where they were confined and raped for three days before being released.

17. During the Liberation War, Sayedee along with other armed Razakars kept Bipod Saha’s daughter Vanu Saha confined to Bipod Saha’s house at Parerhat under Pirojpur Sadar Police Station and regularly used to go there to rape her.

18. During the Liberation War, one Bhagirothi used to work in the camp of the Pakistan army. One day, after a fight with the freedom fighters, and at the instance of Sayedee, Bhagirothi was charged with passing information to the freedom fighters and killed.

19. During the war, Sayedee, being a member of Razakar Bahini and exercising his influence over the Hindu community of Pirojpur, converted 100-150 Hindus of Parerhat and other villages and compelled them to go to the mosque to offer prayers.

20. On a day at the end of November 1971, Sayedee got information that thousands of people were fleeing to India in order to save their lives. A group of 10-12 armed members of the Razakar Bahini, under Sayedee’s leadership, then attacked the houses of Talukdar Bari at Indurkani village and detained a total of 85 persons and looted goods from there. Of them, all but 10-12 persons were released in exchange for bribes negotiated by Fazlul Huq, a member of the Razakar Bahini. Male persons were tortured and female persons were raped by Pakistan soldiers deployed in the camp.

[Source : http://www.thedailystar.net/suppliments/charges_sayedee.pdf ]

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

How Islam came to India and why now it needs to go from India -14 : removal of capital from the Indian economy under Islam

Posted on March 2, 2013. Filed under: Afghanistan, Arab, Army, economics, economy, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Left, Muslims, neoimperialism, Ottoman, Politics, rape, religion, Roman, Russia, Salafi, Saudi, Sunni, Taleban |

[authors note :  posting on the theme that started the blog, after a long time. This item in the original series was drafted a couple of years go. But I realized that this portion may take up several blog-size posts, rather than one. Workload is heavy so – this sequence might come hence irregularly, but I am serious about taking up laying out the economic consequence of Islamic dominance on India. So please be patient.]

Removal of capital from the Indian economy by Muslims took place directly under three major forms (1) repeated invasions amounting or not amounting to permanent acquisition of territory with specific removal of capital in kind in the form of looted bullion and other valuables, as well as removal of human capital in the form of skilled and unskilled labour, and the basic reproductive unit for human labour, women, all as enslaved and exported commodity out of India, (2) extraction of capital by settled Muslim elite from the Indian economy for hoarding, and funding luxuries originating outside of India meant for pure consumption with no reinvestment or economic input into the local market (3) subsidizing religious activities primarily benefiting foreign Muslim countries and economies (4) Islam’s essential economic understanding amounting to only the desert-economy of Arabia and a complete failure to understand more sophisticated economies as reflected in the Muslim’s disastrous state interventions in the Indian market – also removed capital by impeding creation of value and growth and ultimately consumption and destroying already accumulated capital.

The indirect removal of capital was mainly under five forms (1) ruining and utterly destituting the basic producers of the economy, and extracting almost all surplus for personal consumption thereby preventing reinvestment and ultimately reducing total capital (2) continued and vastly increasing expenditure on military hardware and “software” such as horses imported from outside of India (3) destroying the non-Muslim intellectual classes and pre-Islamic centres of education that had promoted a wide variety of research into science and technology   and substituting this by theological seminaries run by fundamentalist Muslim clergy usually imported from Islamic heartland in the middle east and whose qualifications usually did not rise beyond a strict Wahabi or Salafi interpretation of the Islamic religious texts learned by rote (4) institutionalization of endemic corruption and system losses that increased the cost of capital, and thereby its ultimate devaluation (5) Sadistic and violent Islamic military religious policy aimed at subjugation of the non-Muslim populations ultimately forcing productive social units off the land and the economy into forests or rugged badlands from where they either carried out military struggles [raising the cost of administration and expending capital on maintaining ever-increasing armed forces on the part of the Islamic administration] or engage in low-surplus marginal productions and economies.

removal of material capital through repeated invasions

Accurate estimates of capital removed by Islamic invaders are very difficult to arrive at, mainly because of lack “undisputed records” of “looting” and amounts. Most surviving records of looting and shipping of loot back to the respective power centres of the raiding armies, are naturally, from side of the raiding armies  themselves or from subsequent chroniclers who draw upon or claim to draw upon earlier, relevant, and contemporary Islamic sources. As in the case all over the world, although historians try to shout a lot about absence of records of “trauma” on the part of the victims, who are not necessarily known to be illiterate, there is a persistent pattern of lack of such records, and we consistently find such records only from the “winners”. Logically thinking, such a situation is most natural to expect – a “traumatized” society is most unlikely to find time and resources to devote to keeping records “reliable” enough for modern professional historians with their highly selective and opportunistic use of logic in favour of hidden or sometimes not so hidden political agenda or political/academic patronage from interested regimes. Such a society is more likely to be obsessed about survival.

If we use modern, more closely observed from various sources, “history” of invasions by hostile regimes into an area, especially invasions that are also associated strongly with a particular hegemonistic ideology – we see certain persistent patterns – (1) specifically targeting the intellectuals [and try and eliminate them physically altogether] of the invaded society (2) destroy or suppress circulation of records, books, and other archival material of the invaded society (3) disrupt communication by actively discouraging native languages and imposing the languages preferred by the invaders (4) removal of capital resources from the invaded society (5) almost always a systematic programme of ethnic cleansing through genocide, a state sponsored regime of rape or enforced prostitution of the women of the invaded society – [which for very obvious physical reasons, targets more the women of the elite of the invaded society, and a section more likely to be a second line of repository of cultural heritage, or knowledge] thereby achieving two invader objectives in one stroke – removal of reproductive resources from the invaded society and increasing reproductive resources of the invader.  This is what happened under the Nazis, and under units of the Red Army as retribution for the activities of the Nazis when they overran Germany in the final phases of WWII, under the Imperial Japanese army in South East Asia, Korea and China [there are indications that Bose’s INA had come to an agreement with the Japanese Army command that such activities will not be carried out in their joint march towards the Indian border, and a recent interview on the Delhi based news channel NDTV reported eye-witness accounts from a Naga dignitary of the period – that in spite of what the British administration had tried to say, the Japanese occupation forces never “used” Naga women the way the British officers were habitually prone to do], and then by US army units stationed in Japan after the capitulation of the latter, with similar patterns repeated in the wars between the African nations and regional-ethnic conflicts, in the persistent accusations [disputed hotly by historians] of such practices by the Pakistani army in its various operations in the subcontinent, [the British army’s record in India during the Raj appear to be increasingly coming under the cloud in this regard].

If we extend the modern experience to the “historical” period, we can see, that it is consistent with records of the Roman empire, or the Persian, Parthian, Egyptian, Chinese, empires. Historians appear to have no problems in accepting the claims of the Spanish or the Portuguese about the Latin Americas, even though hardly anything survives that can hold up to historian’s claimed level of reliability from the side of the “victims”. Similarly, hardly anything survives of records of trauma of the  various Italian groups subjugated by the Romans, not all of whom were illiterates (e.g. Etruscans),  or of the various Germanic and Celtic tribes of Europe, but historians appear to have no problems with the Roman records of claims of ethnic cleansing, torture, destruction, looting or organized rape and enslavement. There are hardly any historian voices trying to say that the records of repression on the Jews as claimed in Roman texts by Roman authors were propaganda, since nothing much exists from contemporary Jewish sources [ the most famous one, that by Josephus, can also become suspect as he was being patronized by the Romans at the time of his wrtings – and he is not very sympathetic to the Jewish cause either]. Historians even quote figures of dead, slaughtered, raped, straight from the Roman texts.

The only exception in this general pattern of historians’ acceptance of records of repression by an invading regime is that applied to Islamic armies into the Indian subcontinent, where all their records of repression are demanded to be treated as false and propaganda for glorification.

We will start with trying to get an idea of the amounts involved in the loot by the Islamic armies removed from India.

Muhammad bin Qasim [C.E 711-713 – the first Islamic record of a relatively successful invasion] Besides the treasure collected from the various forts of the Sindhi King, worship rights of Hindus were allowed only in exchange of pilgrim tax, jiziyah and other similar cesses. The campaign expenses came to 60 thousand silver dirhams and Hajjaj paid to the Caliph 120 thousand dirhams. In Muhammad bin Qasim’s administration of the conquered territories the principal sources of revenue were the jiziyah and the land-tax. The Chachnama speaks of other taxes levied upon the cultivators such as the baj and ushari. The collection of jiziyah was considered a political as well as a religious duty, and was always exacted “with vigour and punctuality, and frequently with insult”. The native population had to feed every Muslim traveller for three days and nights and had to submit to many other humiliations which are mentioned by Muslim historians.

Multan (Punjab) “…He then crossed the Biyas, and went towards Multan… Muhammad destroyed the water-course; upon which the inhabitants, oppressed with thirst, surrendered at discretion. He massacred the men capable of bearing arms, but the children were taken captive, as well as the ministers of the temple, to the number of six thousand. The Muslamans found there much gold in a chamber ten cubits long by eight broad, and there was an aperture above, through which the gold was poured into the chamber…” (Futuhul-Buldan  of Ahmad bin Yahya bin Jabir,  aka  al-Biladuri).
Multan (Punjab) “Then all the great and principal inhabitants of the city assembled together, and silver to the weight of sixty thousand dirams was distributed and every horseman got a share of four hundred dirams weight. After this, Muhammad Qasim said that some plan should be devised for realizing the money to be sent to the Khalifa. He was pondering over this, when suddenly a Brahman came and said, ‘Heathenism is now at an end, the temples are thrown down, the world has received the light of Islam, and mosques are built instead of idol temples. I have heard from the elders of Multan that in ancient times there was a chief in this city whose name was Jibawin, and who was a descendant of the Rai of Kashmir. He was a Brahman and a monk, he strictly followed his religion, and always occupied his time in worshipping idols. When his treasures exceeded all limits and computation, he made a reservoir on the eastern side of Multan, which was hundred yards square. In the middle of it he built a temple fifty yards square, and he made a chamber in which he concealed forty copper jars each of which was filled with African gold dust. A treasure of three hundred and thirty mans of gold was buried there. Over it there is an idol made of red gold, and trees are planted round the reservoir.’ It is related by historians, on the authority of ‘Ali bin Muhammad who had heard it from Abu Muhammad Hindui that Muhammad Qasim arose and with his counsellors, guards and attendants, went to the temple. He saw there an idol made of gold, and its two eye were bright red rubies……Muhammad Qasim ordered the idol to be taken up. Two hundred and thirty mans of gold were obtained, and forty jars filled with gold dust… This gold and the image were brought to treasury together with the gems and pearls and treasures which were obtained from the plunder of Multan.” (Chachnama)

Yaqub bin Laith (CE 870-871) was a highway robber who succeeded in seizing Khurasan from the Tahirid governors of the Abbasid Caliphate and founded the short-lived Saffarid dynasty.
Balkh and Kabul (Afghanistan) “He first took Bamian, which he probably reached by way of Herat, and then marched on Balkh where he ruined (the temple) Naushad. On his way back from Balkh he attacked Kabul…
“Starting from Panjhir, the place he is known to have visited, he must have passed through the capital city of the Hindu Sahis to rob the sacred temple – the reputed place of coronation of the Sahi rulers-of its sculptural wealth…The exact details of the spoil collected from the Kabul valley are lacking. The Tarikh -i-Sistan records 50 idols of gold and silver and Masudi mentions elephants. The wonder excited in Baghdad by elephants and pagan idols forwarded to the Caliph by Yaqub also speaks for their high value. The best of our authorities put the date of this event in 257 (870-71). Tabari is more precise and says that the idols sent by Ya’qûb reached Baghdad in Rabi al-Akhar, 257 (Feb.-March, 871). Thus the date of the actual invasion may be placed at the end of CE 870.” (Tarikh-i-Tabari)

Mahmud of Ghazni [first quarter of C.E. 1000] Mahmud extracted 2,50,000 dinars as ransom from Jayapal (1001-02 C.E.). Jayapal’s necklace worth 2,00,000 gold dinars was appropriated by Mahmud, and twice that value extracted from the necklaces of his imprisoned or executed relatives. All the wealth of Bhera which was “as wealthy as imagination can conceive”, was captured in (1004-05 C.E.). In 1005-06 the people of Multan were forced to pay an indemnity of the value of 20,000,000 silver dirhams. When Nawasa Shah, who had reconverted to Hinduism, was deposed (1007-08), the Sultan confiscated his wealth amounting to 400,000 dirhams. Mahmud seized coins of the value of 70,000,000 Hindu Shahiya dirhams, from the fort of Bhimnagar in Kangra, and gold and silver ingots weighing some hundred maunds, jewellery and precious stones. There was also a collapsible house of silver, thirty yards in length and fifteen yards in breadth, and a canopy (mandapika) supported by two golden and two silver poles. This vast treasure could not be shifted immediately, and Mahmud left two of his “most confidential” chamberlains, Altuntash and Asightin, to arrange for its gradual removal to Ghazni. In subsequent expeditions (1015-20) Punjab and the adjoining areas were sucked dry. Over and above the looting by Mahmud, there was additional looting by his soldiers. From Baran Mahmud obtained, 1,000,000 dirhams, from Mahaban a large booty, from Mathura five idols which when melted [Should we apply the Thaparite algorithm of dividing by 10 or 100?] alone yielded 98,300 misqals (about 390 kg) of gold, and two hundred silver idols. Kanauj, Munj, Asni, Sharva and some other places yielded another 3,000,000 dirhams. Somnath yielded 20,000,000 dinars. [Utbi, the Secretary to Sultan Mahmud, reports this and if he exaggerated then as this was a contemporary record, the Caliphate would come to know of this and would be able to calculate that Mahmud had not sent full share of the Caliph. This is a part usually not much mentioned by the Thaparite School and generically dismissed as part of boasting].

Archaeologically there is a significant absence of Indian coins or artefacts made of precious metal from this entire period in the Punjab and Sind area. [The Thaparite school of Indian history typically remains silent on this or jokes that this could be a possible pointer that the stories of these Hindu kingdoms with fabulous riches are simply stories and fantasies and they probably never existed. In this sense nothing contemporary specifically archaeologically associated with the early founders of Islam including its Prophet has been found in Arabia. [Sunni Wahabis dispute the authenticity of the Ottoman collections in this regard]. However the Thaparite school will never dare raise a similar joke in the Arabian context. This also helps the Thaparite school in trying to prove that “Hinduism” did not exist in general before the pre-Islamic period. However it is a general principle of the Thaparite School to accept archaeology only if it supports the Schools hypotheses and it very angrily reacts and disparages archaeology if it dares to differ from its diktats] The flow of bullion outside India stabilized Ghaznavid currency and debased the Indian. The gold content of millenial north Indian coins reduced from 120 to 60 grams with a similar reduction in the weight and content of the silver coin. This in turn reduced credit of Indian merchants in the international market.

India had always been an exporter against bullion and had accumulated bullion from domestic sources as well mines of Tibet and Central Asia. Mahmud collected in loot and tribute valuable articles of trade like indigo, fine muslins, embroidered silk, and cotton stuffs, and items and raw ingots of famous Indian steel, lavishly praised by Utbi, Hasan Nizami, Alberuni and others. [this is the source of the famous Damascus steel coveted by both by Europe and the Muslim world.  One valuable commodity taken from India was indigo. From Baihaqi, who writes the correct Indian word “nil” for the dye, it appears that 20,000 mans (about 500 maunds) of indigo was taken to Ghazna every year. According to Baihaqi, Sultan Masud once sent 25,000 mans (about 600 maunds) of indigo to the Caliph at Baghdad, for “the Sultans often reserved part of this (valuable commodity) for their own usage, and often sent it as part of presents for the Caliph or for other rulers”.

Mahmud also started the later consistent Islamic traditions of looting wealth and women whenever the Islamic heartlands of middle East or central Asia became “impoverished” as a result of intensive and destructive Islamic looting. Utbi writes “It happened, that 20,000 men from Mawaraun nahr and its neighbourhood, who were with the Sultan (Mahmud), were anxious to be employed on some holy expedition in which they might obtain martyrdom. The Sultan determined to march with them to Kanauj”. This is the tradition of Ghazis, (the Arabic root means one who has gone for a Ghazwa, literally a tribal raid typically mentioned in the context of looting wealth, animals, and women) as imposed on India. Even after the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, Muhammad Ghori declared jihad in “Hind” (1205 C.E.- 13 years after the second battle of Tarain, decisively destroying his strongest Hindu opponent Prithviraj), “in order to repair the fortunes of his servants and armies; for within the last few years, Khurasan, on account of the disasters it had sustained, yielded neither men nor money. When he arrived in Hind, God gave him such a victory that his treasures were replenished, and his armies renewed”.

Nagarkot Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) “…He now attacked the fort of Bhim, where was a temple of the Hindus. He was victorious, and obtained much wealth, including about a hundred idols of gold and silver. One of the golden images, which weighed a million mishkals, the Sultan appropriated to the decoration of the Mosque of Ghazni, so that the ornaments of the doors were of gold instead of iron.” (Tarikh-i-Guzida :  of Hamdullah bin Abu Bakr bin Hamd bin Nasr Mustaufi of Kazwin)

[to be continued]

Link to previous post in sequence how-islam-came-to-india-and-why-now-it-needs-to-go-from-india-13-economic-decline-under-islam-fate-of-producers

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Who’s afraid of Afzal Guru’s hanging and “damaging consequences”? The thin shell of India’s self-appointed secularists.

Posted on February 9, 2013. Filed under: Ayodhya, Bangladesh, Bengal, Christians, Communist, Delhi, Egypt, exile, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Maoism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Politics, rape, religion, Taleban, terrorism |

Seema Mustafa, a noted journalist, wrote a piece on Rediff  http://www.rediff.com/news/column/hanging-could-have-damaging-repercussions/20130209.htm– about the possibly “damaging” consequences of the rather quiet hanging of Afzal Guru – an Indian from the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and an accused as well as convicted of a murderous terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament.

Mustafa’s primary concerns can be summarized as

(1) supposed signs of “bias” in a section of Indian journalists over questions of “nationalism”

(2) supposed allegation that Afzal did not have a fair trial or adequate representation

(3) supposed fear of “damaging consequences” of the hanging.

Mustafa brings out everything that is wrong with the Indian media’s long history of playing and pretending “secularism” which effectively became Hindu/Saffron bashing while selectively whitewashing, even protecting the image of so-called “minority” religions by clamping down on anything negative motivated by such religions. She writes in such frank tones of a sense of betrayal, that she possibly does not realize how she has exposed the underlying religious politics of selective favouritism that plagues her profession.

A television news anchor, shortly after Parliament terror attack accused Afzal Guru was hung by the government in Tihar jail, declared, ‘All nationalist, secular and progressive people support this.’

That was just one statement amidst a cacophony of euphoric reactions to the hanging, but stood out as many of us who have been opposing the death penalty and questioning the fairness of the Afzal Guru trial certainly do not regard ourselves as communal and reactionary or for that matter anti-national.

Quite the contrary really, and so it did sound strange when journalists supporting death by hanging, refusing to question the fact that Guru did not get a capable lawyer through the trial, and blocking out the responses of those raising such issues, so easily put large segments of the Indian population into their self-defined ‘anti-national’ frame.

And so before analysing the possibly disastrous consequences of this hanging, it is imperative to understand the mindset of television news anchors who have successfully managed to convert personal beliefs into news, and trash all voices of sanity and sobriety that seek answers to complex questions. News channels are supposed to report the news and not give their editorial comments to a point where contrary voices are restricted from giving their views.

Most interesting to read! Now did the colleagues of Mustafa, only report the “news” and not give their editorial comments to the point of restricting contrary voices from giving their views when it came to talking about the rape, eviction, enforced migration – each and every element of genocide by most current standards of definition of a genocide – on the Kashmiri pundits? How many of Seema Mustafa’s colleagues practised what she wants them to – when the targets were Hindus from Kashmir Valley, or did they care to give space to view from the “other” side of what is alleged to have happened in the burning of returning Hindu pilgrims in a locked train compartment at Godhra, that is supposed to have led to the inter-community clashes in Gujarat which has been mad einto an international issue. I remember watching a news report from a well-known “secular” channel of India based in New Delhi – during the heyday of the Kandhmal (Orissa) conflict, when Hindu tribals hiding out in the forests express their fear of being lynched by Christian mobs or their Maoist collaborators – but the news-anchor comments before them along the lines of “look how much they have been threatened so that they they lie out of fear”.  What reports have ever been covered by Mustafa’s secular colleagues on the atrocities carried out by Muslim gangs in Kerala, or West Bengal, or Assam? Did they go and ever give any space to any views on the “other” side, if that other side did not happen to be Muslim or Christian? It is exactly these sort of biased behaviour that strengthens the more radical among the Hindu!

There was a time when reporters followed the news, reporting it as it was, communicating and informing the public, without wearing their prejudice, bias or for that matter, views on their sleeves.

How many times have details of religiously motivated atrocities been ever objectively and impartially reported by the media – without considering the supreme objective of not allowing the tarnishing or exposure of the on-ground modus operandi of extremist religious movements if and only if those movements happen not to be “Hindu”? Riots have been frequent in the state of Uttar Pradesh, atrocities by organized muslim gangs in Kerala, or Bengal – but Mustafa’s colleagues never find the space to report them. By accusing her colleagues of biased and ideologically motivated reporting, Mustafa confirms that Indian media can be and does operate on religious and ideological bias in reporting. In fact many like us draw the inference that it must have been this or that Muslim gang that started a riot – if the media reports it as a violent clash between “two communities”. One way or the other, if the responsibility can be or needed to be – put on “Hindus”, the names or details will be leaked to the sufficient degree to make sure that the conclusion or impression holds.

Afzal Guru has been hung. And apart from the main story the news media has a responsibility to:

one, trace his story with the facts of the case highlighted;

two, review the trial through important voices to see whether he had the best legal advice at hand or whether he was virtually left unrepresented;

three, to find out (and not just from official quotes) whether his family was informed in time, and were asked to meet him as per the humane provisions of law;

four, to seek answers to the commonly asked questions as to why the rush now, has it been prompted by political considerations;

five, to look at the possible political consequences of the hanging at this point in time and analyse whether the death of one man was worth what might follow.

This constitutes responsible reporting. As for the beating of the drums, this can be safely left to the political parties and the government who have held innumerable press conferences to applaud the act.

Has this ever been done by Mustafa’s colleagues when the victims of religiously motivated violence were non-Muslims or non-Christians? Even Sikhs were not always given the benefit of “unbiasedness”! Recently unusually (for Indian courts in such cases) harsh sentences were passed on BJP political leader for her alleged complicity in riot violence against Muslims – and a woman to boot – in Gujarat, on a peculiar legalistic claim that her “crimes” deserved exemplary punishments (I thought law was usually claimed to be about “fairness” and not about “examples”). Did Mustafa and her colleagues go and research the “other” side’s views? Did they report allegations of one “victim” having been in the habit of pulling out his firearm on previous occasions to threaten non-muslims or even use the firearm [I did not see any follow-ups, even debunking attempts, of this by any of Mustafas  secular colleagues]. Significantly, she uses an expression that has often been used in the past by the Indian state, predominantly the Congress and the Leftists, and in some cases – ideology-less regional charismatics, to clamp down on protests against Islamic claims of immunity from even verbal criticism. The ubiquitious claim is that “any crackdown on Islamic violence, protests, or outrage, or even protest or criticism of an Islamic gang coercive street rampage behaviour – is going to lead to a deterioration of law and order problem”. On this excuse Indian state regimes often pre-emptively strike on opposition to Islamic claims, and such an attitude has been primarily responsible for the threats and attacks on writers the Islamic shariacracy in India think of as damaging to their agenda of Islamization of India – like the banning of Salman Rushdie’s book, or the hounding out of the exiled woman author from Bangladesh – Tasleema Nasreen.

Journalists are supposed to play the devil’s advocate, be on the other side of the fence as it were, and review the story in all its dimensions. Indian democracy has many views, and a media that insists only on one view as ‘nationalist’ promotes a monolith that is in contradiction to the pluralism and diversity of this country..

Unfortunately, Mustafa’s case seems to rest on having all these benefits as privileges of the Islamic only – and her voice comes out when she effectively sees these privileges being taken away from the Islamic. Mustafa even does not realize that “nationalism” has its boundaries and terms of debate that cannot be allowed to be infinitely stretched. Otherwise, no attack on the “nation” can be opposed logically, for there will always be a “diversified” view that supports exactly such attacks as valid becausee they do not agree to “our” definition of  “our nationhood”. One day, the presence of non-Muslims will become problematic for “nation-hood” – the argument used by the jihadis of Muslim League and Jamaatis to unleash the partition genocide and carve out “Muslim” nations.

The terror attack on Parliament was heinous. And could have been far more disastrous had the terrorists been able to enter the building.

But Mustafa fails to say that 12 people were killed in that attack. Is this part of merely factual reporting too?Is not “heinous” a qualitative expression and not an objective one?

It was clear at the onset that the police had no clue about the attackers. Finally, Delhi [ Images ] university lecturer S A R Geelani was arrested, and then Afzal Guru was picked up. Geelani’s trial took a chequered course, but because of the support in Delhi and the involvement of wellknown lawyers, he was finally released.

Guru was from Kashmir and unable to afford a decent lawyer. He did not have the money and as senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal managed to say hastily on a news channel, he went virtually unrepresented.

Geelani, contacted by Rediff.com, one of the news sites doing its job professionally, said, “Afzal Guru was denied a fair trial. This has been proved in his last moments. I do not understand the attitude of the government. They have done nothing but play to the gallery.”

“Do you know there is a case pending in the Supreme Court of India ? The court has been looking into the delay into this case, arguments are going on and the matter is pending justice.”

‘Do you think it was right to hurry up the matter?’

“The due process of law has not been followed. This is nothing but a flawed process.”

But somehow we have becomes so blood thirsty as a nation, so wedded to war and violence (largely because of TRP ratings) that we do not like to ask any questions. After all, even a death row convict has rights, or is the case now that all these chaps should be shown no mercy and hung the moment they are convicted by the courts?

As wellknown women rights lawyer Indira Jaising said, while arguing against the death penalty, is there not a right to reform, and if even reform for some is seen as impossible, is there not a right to remorse? And should not it be the job of the sane voice of journalism to ensure that at least the rule of law is respected, and the rights of an individual acknowledged?

The interesting piece about Indian journalism is revealed in the way the “facts” are presented here. Somehow the Indian “police” are seen to be “obviously” not having a clue “right from the beginning”. I am not sure how many police forces of the world have clues to crimes being committed “right from the beginning” – for such details in prior knowledge would in most case lead to prevention of the crime actually being committed. From this “obviousness” in the eyes of the journalist, an ominous silence hangs to the onset of the next statement about Afzal being picked up after the arrest of another. The insinuation perhaps intended is that somehow this allegation of “obvious lack of clue” should encourage the reader to suspect that the police arrested Afzal without any proof or evidence.  If the evidence gathering process was so good and reliable in passing sentences on Kandhmal and Gujarat riot accused after long delays and twists and turns that could have raised even more serious concerns about police “capabilities or intentions” – why is it suddenly so unreliable when the accused is implicated in a violent terrorist attack on the very symbolic seat of Indian democracy?

The impact of the hanging can have damaging repercussions at different levels, and far more than this government will be able to handle. The media informs us, through the usual sources, that the decision was taken after top-level meetings and discussions. So one is led to believe it was a considered decision.

Instead of instilling confidence, this actually evokes fear, fear of being led by a government that clearly is unable to make the right assessments and basically does not care if parts of the country go up in flames.

The government has bitten the bullet as channels screamed with joy, but there is every possibility of the bullet exploding in its mouth. And this is what makes one wonder at a political leadership that willfully invites trouble.

Aspects of the case, as has been pointed out by lawyers as well, were before the Supreme Court and the government could have easily ridden the issue out instead of converting it into a storm that will hit it, in all likelihood, in Kashmir.

The military has clamped down in Jammu and Kashmir. As a resident there said, “Not even a leaf is fluttering here.” But while the state can be confident of maintaining control in normal circumstances, and beating down demonstrations, it also realises that one civilian death will snowball into a major uprising.

The February 11, 1984 hanging of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front leader Maqbool Bhatt led to a decade of the worst violence that India has ever seen. It is true that Afzal Guru does not have the same stature in terms of a leadership profile, but in terms of sympathy and support he was probably far ahead.

Besides, the alienation and anger in Kashmir is in a heightened stage, more so after the death of the young boys in the 2010 stone pelting incidents. A Facebook post by this columnist on Afzal Guru’s hanging has elicited a volley of responses reflecting this anger and alienation and asking why those responsible for the death of the boys have not met with similar punishment.

Now that sounds like a threat, isn’t it? It is time that the pretenders of secularism who actually effectively, on the ground, promote and protect Islamism by their selective reporting or campaigns at manufacture of social consensus in favour of Islamist agenda – realize, that a new generation is coming up. They are seeking to search out the reality of religious politics, especially of the medievalist brand of religiosity represented by modern Islamism. Even a Morsi cannot easily take an Egypt back to the 7th century one-sided propaganda that targeted all other cultures and human freedoms or civilizational achievements for erasure.If Mustafa is so concerned about the Kashmiri boys trained to give a Intifada style uprising – is she also concerned about the Kashmiri Hindus murdered, raped, looted at the start of the Shariafication drive of the Valley in the late 80’s – long before the excuse of all Muslim reaction stemming from the destruction of the disputed structure at Ayodhya could be given ?

The only logical explanation, thus, for the sudden hanging of Afzal Guru is the fact that general elections are around the corner.

And the Congress in its usual cynical manipulation of the votes is trying to eat into the majority constituency with this action. As for the Kashmiris they do not figure in Delhi’s plans. As for the secular forces, the argument voiced by Congress leaders is: ‘Where will you go. If there is Modi as prime minister you will have to be with us.’

So the minorities do not figure either, as they are the bechaara who can easily be made to run into Congress arms while fleeing from communal shadows. The secularists too, in the Congress analysis, will not be far behind as there is no Left and hence no Third Front alternative that could attract them in the polls.

So all in all a cozy scenario, except for the fact that the dynamics of India and the aspirations of the people cannot be controlled and tend to upset the most careful calibrations.

Tut -tut! why such a frustration? Is it so bad to be on the receiving end of the religious politics which had been so good for so many decades in expanding the network of madrassahs and Islamism spreading structures fueled by Gulf money and complicity by Islamophile regimes of the Left and Congress? If the Congress is really the supreme popularists they are made out to be, if saffron is really the outcast of Indian politics, and yet the Congress feels the pressure to need to appease the “majority” of the populations of India – that appeasement politics has run its steam off? That no longer should any population be hostage to the type of totalitariansim represented by Islamism – under excuses or threats of “potential damage”?

Take Islamist threats of damaging more liberal societies, and the tactics of emasculating entire societies by trying to raise apocalyptic visions of destruction and “damages” if terrorists are not pampered – with yourselves away from the public space! Nay! Better – speak more about this – because by doing so, the cozy arrangement to manipulate public opinion through clever manipulation of appeal to liberal values to progress non-liberal agenda  and veiled threats of violence otherwise – gets more and more exposed.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Indians ashamed to be Indians over the rape : confusing Indian identity with foreign misogyny

Posted on January 6, 2013. Filed under: Arab, Buddhists, Delhi, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Pakistan, rape, religion, terrorism |

Prequel : from a friend’s note saw that the UK Daily Mirror http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/india-gang-rape-victims-father-1521289 claims the name of the target of the gangrape to be Jyothi Singh Pandey. The first name means “light/illumination/brightness”. The middle name is a common patronymic/family/clan name of Northern India, meaning “Lion”, and the last name derives from Hindu “Pundit”, almost surely assigned only to “Brahmin” lineages. In India, we can now hear the bandying of “rape of Dalit girls” as a special issue – as if in Indian identity politics, even “rape” can be classified based on politically correct positive discrimination lines. Somehow, it appears that by the frequent throwing of a special phrase of “Dalit rape”, the rape of a Dalit girl is of a different order compared to the rape of a “Brahmin” girl. If according to tweeter allegations, the alleged minor who is alleged to have inserted the u-bar and ripped intestines by hand through the vagina, turns out to be a Muslim – then this rape flies against all the propaganda dished out by regime influence over Indian media – that it is only “repressive” “upper caste” Hindus who repress and rape minorities and “Dalits”. But again India is a strange society nowadays where people feel ashamed to be Indians over a rape, unlike most other countries whose leadership only make profound promises to “correct the situation”, but who never apologize or feel ashamed.

Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan and Tech Wizard Narayana Murthy – two iconic Indians of modernity, from two opposite ends of public entertainment and economic value creation, have been reported on Indian media as supposedly having felt “ashamed to be an Indian” over the issue of the Delhi gang rape.

Women activists on TV chat shows and discussion rounds have directly or indirectly blamed “Indian traditional attitudes” for the mistreatment of Indian women. The list of complaints is long : patriarchy, religious orthodoxy, fundamentalism. The overall impression in going through the media representations is however – a definite sense of discomfort in blaming “religion” for it. The reasons are obvious, because both Islam and Christianity in India have shown their orthodox, and religiously motivated, attitudes towards the female body and the female role in society so often and so intensively – that the main target of so-called secular politics, that is “Hindutva”, cannot be singled out, and the prime favourites of secularists will also get tarred and feathered.

The real reasons as to why Indians are in a spot is because they have been forced by regime dependent and encouraged professional historiography to cover up the reality of Indian cultural development, being forced to swallow fanciful reconstructions of Indian past where foreign imperialist ideologies like Islam and colonial period European Christianity had to be shown as having immensely positively shaped and “reformed” a supposedly “backward, primitive, pagan, Brahminical, repressive” Indian society.

The brevity of this post forces me to touch upon some of the myths of Indian history – especially where it concerns women, but very briefly.

Vedic and Puranic literature show ample examples of women choosing their own husbands, having the right to approach and be “satisfied” by a man they took fancy to,  to go out on dates with other men even while having fixed longer term partners and children [the very institution of Vedic marriage rites as a contract of mutual loyalty by the sage Swetaketu – son of Uddalaka – because he did not like his own mother going out with a strange man when he was a child and his father explained that women were free to “roam” and were not be held as private property]. If a woman chose to have a child outside of marriage, she and her child were both acceptable – for example, a founder of a Brahmin lineage, Bharadwaja, was a son of his mother Mamata by her brother-in-law Brihaspati (brother of her husband), and delivered twins she carried at the same time – one from her husband, and the other from the brother-in-law. Puranic literature shows many cases of women proposing to men they fell in love with, or have clandestine marriages [the story of Shakuntala], and being recognized as founders of prestigious lineages. Brahma’s unmarried daughter Saraswati declares that she would like to go and “live” with the Gandharvas because they know how to “please” women and she is not prevented from doing so.

The two famous epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata are much lambasted by western and Indian scholars as epitomizing patriarchal attitudes and repression. The central story of Ramayana revolves around the destruction of a whole city and a king because he abducted the wife of another. But the same story also told how an “adultress” could still “come back to life” and be taken back into society (Ahalya), and how it was okay for a wife to sit through the murder of her husband to marry the brother of her husband, whom she loved and served loyally (Tara). A key feature of the Mahabharata is however that a woman could practice polyandry – with the lead characters of the five-brothers sharing one significant wife. What is not mentioned is that Mahabharata shows the prevalence of swayamvara – the open and public choice of husbands by eligible girls, and of warrior women who go and fight alongside their husbands or even without husbands.  At least two women, Satyabhama, the wife of Krishna, and Chitrangada, the wife of Arjuna – are described as having actually taken to the battlefield – with their partners/lovers/husbands.

A primary cause of the core story of the Mahabhrata war is given to be the molestation of the wife of the five-brothers in public space. Thus molestation of women was seen to be worthy of terrible retribution. In fact in a little highlighted passage, Krishna explains the reason as to why the brothers who were reluctant to shed the blood of their kin, should actually take up arms – because if their elite-status wife could be so molested, what about the protection of women in general society? They should fight the war to re-establish “dharma” which among many other things, was also supposed to ensure freedom and dignity for women. With one exception, all abduction of women, in Mahabharata is punished – one way or the other – even in a society that recognized certain types of “abduction” if ended with “honourable” marriages. Bhisma, abducts Kasi princesses to give in marriage to his nephews (by the custom of his times he had a right to be angry because his nephews had not been invited to the sayambhara of the girls), but is punished for not marrying them – even if he  did not rape or molest them – by having to die at the hands of a transgender enemy. The Kurus are destroyed horribly because their leader molested a wife.

Interestingly, women were abadhya/aghnaya – or could not be killed, even in war-situations. A commander of one side, Bhisma, drops his weapons when faced with a transgender  opponent- whom he considers a woman, and allows himself to be fatally wounded to maintain this principle of conduct of war.

Sounds oh so Brahminical and patriarchal and repressive towards women, sexuality and the female body?

Indian regimes and historians often portray the advent of Buddhism as a “liberating” and “reforming” movement that “cleansed” Indian post-Vedic society from the “evils of Brahminism”, and try to shift all blame to the Vedic as being repressive towards “caste” and “women”. I have great respects for the Buddhists, but I am intrigued by very curious features of early and later Buddhism, that go against the propaganda.

First, early Buddhist literature show two things not shared in general by the Vedic – the gradation of human work as “uttama” (good/higher) and “adhama”(evil/lower) based, presumably on whether the work involved violence or not, and the emphasis given in Buddhism to the connection between “uttama/adhama” karma to reincarnation in a better future life or lesser punishment in such future existence. This would give an early pointer as to how  and why categories of work connected to animal husbandry or butchery, or tanning would become later “untouchable”. Buddha and his disciples seem to be over-aware of “superiority” of caste. If one tries to read up the extant early Buddhist literature, one can see “Brahmana” and “Sramana”(the term reserved for Buddhist aspirants and initiates) used equivalently. Moreover the Buddha is reluctant to be born in any other caste that “Kshatryia”or “Brahmin” in his next incarnation as Maitreya – because those are the “empowered” categories of society. So even the early Buddhists did not think their movement would abolish castes and hierarchies.

The more important feature relevant for our current discussion is the attitude towards women, women’s bodies and their dress and public behaviour. Many Vinayas and early texts portray women who freely move around in public in a disparaging tone, hinting at “low moral character”. Significantly the Buddha is claimed to have been reluctant in the early days to allow women to become members of his cloister or become nuns. After a lot of appeal from the women, he is supposed to have allowed them to join on condition that they follow certain restrictions on conduct in addition to those applicable for monks. Most interestingly these conditions pay a great deal of attention as to how the female body of the nun is to be “covered up” and require the nuns to be always under the authority of a male monk.

Bhikṣunīvibhaṅga, says that a bhikṣunī “should not show her nakedness when bathing. She is advised to either bathe in a screened-off area or to wear a bathing cloth”. Also another must-wear is kaṇṭhapraticchādana, “a robe that covers the rounding (of the breasts)”.  All the Vinaya texts devote a lot of space to discussing the exact forms of coverage of different parts of the nun’s body – all adding at least two more items of covering-dress over and above the three reserved for monks.

The important thing to note here is that the nuns are segregated cloistered members of the movement, and their covering up in public is insisted upon as “setting an example” to “society” on exemplary “moral conduct”. This in turn implies that their covering up was not needed within a segregated cloister, and the  general public was less concerned about covering up – so much so that the nuns had to be sent out to set an example.

But let us see what the non-Buddhists – before the advent of the Buddhists, were doing about women. Vandhul Malla, and his wife, a couple of martial arts experts and warriors, trained Visakha, the daughter of prosperous merchants, in warfare, chariot driving, weapons and “wrestling”. This daughter of merchants, married another merchant, set up her own household away from the extended family of her husbands, and ran her own business over and above that of her husband’s. This was the lady who was very much in public life, and with many other similar independent, business or otherwise productively engaged women – who were instrumental in promoting the early Buddhist “church”. They were not Buddhists, or the society that produced them were not Buddhists.

Chinese pilgrims visiting India from the middle of the 4th to the 8th century, similarly speak of the general freedom of movement of women, and the general law-abiding nature of citizens, with not much mention of crimes against women. This is the period when Buddhism was supposed to be in retreat, under huge repression from revivalist “Brahminism”.

Many of the women activists on Indian TV have referred to how “suttee” was stamped out by colonial regimes, as a model of how to deal with “patriarchal repressive traditions”. Interestingly, even as late as the first successful Muslim raid on Sindh portion of India in 712, as per the version of Islamic chroniclers whose claims on Indian society are claimed by professional historians to be “accurate” if they show non-Muslim society in any negative light (but “exaggeration” and “boasting”  or “fanciful” if it shows Islam in negative light) – the mother of the reigning king, wife of Chach, had actually helped in the assassination of the previous king and her previous husband – because she had fallen in love with a visiting handsome young Brahmin to her husband’s court – Chach.

Note that a wife could remove her husband from power, marry her lover, without facing social hue and cry and opposition, and without being forced to commit “suttee”. She was a “Rajput” to boot too.

But with the advent of Muslims, Indian society goes quickly downhill. Rape, abduction, public humiliation and sale of captive women become the norm. Girls and women are no longer safe in the public domain, and educational or professional space is closed off for women. The extremely misogynist, and sexually commodifying memes in Islam and Sharia take over the definition of Indian womanhood. The incidence of jauhar or “suttee”, self-immolation by widows on the funeral pyre of their husbands or on separate pyres, begin to be frequently mentioned only from the advent of Islamic armies. The label of “suttee” and widow-burning however stuck to the Hindu forever.

In my “how Islam came to India” series, I have shown how Qasim’s successful raid (three previous ones had failed) had as one of its primary objectives (apart from making good the war chest) the capture and enslavement of Indian women. Thousands of Sindhi women were captured, inspected in the public like cattle, enslaved and given as rewards to jihadis or reserved for the Baghdad markets and for the private pleasure of the pious leaders of Islam around their Gulf dens. The Islamic attitude that entered India at this stage can be estimated from the Islamist side story that – Qasim was executed with typical Islamic barbarity (by being stitched within raw animal hide, and then nails driven into the bundle – the rawhide would dry up and strangulate him also at the same time). His crime : the two Sindhi princesses he had sent for the pious head of Islam – the Caliph’s personal pleasures – were found no longer to be “virgins” in the bed by the pious Caliph. Whether the girls themselves tore their hymen and accused Qasim of “rape” – as told in some versions of the story, or their hymen tore because of some other causes – the fact comes out that these enslaved girls were vulnerable to rape during transport and sale.

All those crying hoarse about “Indian” traditions, should take note of the explanatory note given as the speech by the princesses – to the effect that they warn the Caliph about not “trusting mere women” on accusations of “rape”, and that the Caliph should not have taken their word for it. This single story gives out the entire mindset of Islam that imposed itself on India.  A girl crying rape was not to be believed easily against a man’s claim of innocence. Women are manipulative and they cry rape by tearing their own hymen. The status of a woman is that of “merely a woman/slave” and hence her words did not matter. And most significantly, where the “virginity” of the woman did not matter to the repressive culture “brahmin” Chach who married a widow and happily produced children with her – in the same period – the supreme leader of Islam has his goats shaken by discovering that his captive and enslaved bed-fellow was not a “virgin”.

How did women began to become a “problem” for Hindu households? In my post on “peaceful Sufis”, I have given the details on how the famous Sufi founder of Ajmer Sahrif obtained his wife. He “dreamed” that his prophet visited him and chastised him for not “keeping sunna” (not having a wife) and promptly the local Islamic commander arranged for a regional chief’s daughter to be captured and given to him that very “night”. The Sylheti “mouthpiece of peace” from Yemen, Shah Jalal – took up swords against the local non-Muslim ruler, whose daughter Anandi “promptly fell in love with this paragon of peace with a sword in hand on the battle field itself” (what was the girl doing there?), and was “immediately” “converted” and was married on the “battlefield”.

Shams Siraj Afif (fourteenth century) write “Firoz Shah was born in the year 709 H. (1309 C.E.). His father was named Sipahsalar Rajjab, who was a brother of Sultan Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq Ghazi. The three brothers, Tughlaq, Rajjab, and Abu Bakr, came from Khurasan to Delhi in the reign of Alauddin (Khalji), and that monarch took all the three in the service of the Court. The Sultan conferred upon Tughlaq the country of Dipalpur. Tughlaq was desirous that his brother Sipahsalar Rajjab should obtain in marriage the daughter of one of the Rais of Dipalpur. He was informed that the daughters of Ranamall Bhatti were very beautiful and accomplished. Tughlaq sent to Ranamall a proposal of marriage. Ranamall refused. Upon this Tughlaq proceeded to the villages (talwandi) belonging to Ranamall and demanded payment of the whole year’s revenue in a lump sum. The Muqaddams and Chaudharis were subjected to coercion. Ranamall’s people were helpless and could do nothing, for those were the days of Alauddin, and no one dared to make an outcry. One damsel was brought to Dipalpur. Before her marriage she was called Bibi Naila. On entering the house of Sipahsalar Rajjab she was styled Sultan Bibi Kadbanu. After the lapse of a few years she gave birth to Firoz shah“. If this could be accomplished by force by a regional officer, there was nothing to stop the king. In the seventeenth century, Jahangir writes in his Memoirs that after the third year of his accession, “I demanded in marriage the daughter of Jagat Singh, eldest son of Raja Man Singh (of Amer). Raja Ram Chandra Bundela was defeated, imprisoned, and subsequently released by Jahangir. Later on, says Jahangir, “I took the daughter of Ram Chandra Bandilah into my service (i.e. married her)”.

Ibn Battuta who visited India during Muhammad bin Tughlaq’s reign and stayed at the Court for a long time writes:  “At (one) time there arrived in Delhi some female infidel captives, ten of whom the Vazir sent to me. I gave one of them to the man who had brought them to me. My companion took three girls, and – I do not know what happened to the rest.” On the large scale distribution of girl slaves on the occasion of Muslim festivals like Id, he writes: “First of all, daughters of Kafir (Hindu) Rajas captured during the course of the year, come and sing and dance. Thereafter they are bestowed upon Amirs and important foreigners. After this daughters of other Kafirs dance and sing. The Sultan gives them to his brothers, relatives, sons of Maliks etc. On the second day the durbar is held in a similar fashion after Asr. Female singers are brought out. the Sultan distributes them among the Mameluke Amirs”. Thousands of non-Muslim women were distributed in the above manner in later years.

The few incidents I quoted above, are just a few among thousands of such narratives – described with pride and glee by Islamic chroniclers.  Wherever Muslims arrive for the first time in India, their chronicles show extreme surprise at the openness of Indian/Hindu womens’ public presence, their lack of “proper covering” (proper in the Islamic head-to-toe sense), and their relative freedom in society. The father of the doyen of Indian secularism – Hyder Ali, father of Tipu – is described in Nishan-i-Hyduri to have enslaved Coorgi women when he attacked Coorg – for their heinous crime of walking about bare-breasted or short dresses.

Thus it became a norm for Indian society – to be anxious and unhappy at the birth of the girl child, because the girl child brought rape, raid, and destruction of families, livelihoods, and entire communities. The girl child had to be married off early, hidden from the eager glances of every local muslim who felt it was his divine right to appropriate the beautiful of the kaffir for rape or other pleasures , and therefore not to be educated, not to be given skills to run businesses or professions, and closeted out of sunlight. Hidden away from the public place – so that even her existence did not come under the notice of Islamic hunters for female flesh.

Society takes a long time to come out of what had become a rationalization of impotence – especially if it had to be tolerated for more than a thousand years.

Indian culture is not about the violently misogynist memes of the Middle East, and Indians should not feel ashamed of their true culture – which was far different from the Islamic hybrid it is now pushed as for. It is a case of mistaken identities.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 7 so far )

Why the Indian Left fails to understand religious extremism

Posted on August 25, 2012. Filed under: Ayodhya, Bangladesh, Christians, Communist, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Left, Macaulay, Maoism, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, Politics, religion, terrorism, Uncategorized |

For some time now, the Indian state of Assam has been on the news due to its large-scale civilian strife and internal displacement of communities. But even more spectacularly, the internet and the media to an extent – has been ablaze with the issue of alleged threat mails and texts that perhaps forced a lot of migrant labour and students from the North Eastern ends of India. Following up, the government of India apparently has moved on in its bid to control the net, just like almost any other government on the planet, on the formal platform of protecting vulnerable people.

I will not go into the details of the Assam ethnicity, migration, religious divide problem that is essential to get a perspective of what is happening there and why. But in this Kafkaesque world of interest groups, doublespeak, hidden motivations shaped in their outward expression by complicated legacies of history and concocted morality, what is much more revealing is what the intellectuals and the self-acknowledged voices of nations and communities say on the issue.

I will pick on a very interesting voice pointed out to me by a friend, that of Amaresh Mishra in his timesofIndia blog. Mishra gives a good clue to his ideological lens in the very beginning lines

Before joining the Times of India in 1993 as a roving correspondent, I was part of the radical Left movement led then by the CPI-ML (Liberation). However, sufferings of dalits, adivasis and the working classes—natural Left constituencies—did not contribute to my early, personal radicalization. Still a student leader in the Allahabad University, I took active part in debates, discussions concerning national-international topics—and agitations mainly—on student issues.

In 1984, the day our Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated, I was in Calcutta. I had gone there to take part in the national conference of the Indian Peoples Front—the only attempt of its kind—of a Communist Party sponsoring  a democratic-peoples party in India—made under the leadership of late comrade Vinod Mishra—the then general secretary of the CPI-ML (Liberation).

Mishra, says much more about where his mindset comes from – that of the Maoist strand within Indian communism, which typically frantically tries to distinguish itself from the second attempt at puritanism within Indian Marxism – that of CPI(M=Marxist), by adding the claim to be closer to Lenin in the L of its CPI(ML). In so many ways, the communists seem to uncannily reflect the classical search for ever more purity and a return to the golden mythical pure origins of all totalitarian and monoiconic ideologies including totalitarian religions – through evermore stringent factional and sectarian schisms.

Eric Hoffer writes : “Whence comes the impulse to proselytize? Intensity of conviction is not the main factor which impels a movement to spread its faith to the four corners of the earth. …Nor is the impulse to proselytize an expression of an overabundance of power. …The missionary zeal seems rather an expression of some deep misgiving, some pressing feeling of insufficiency at the center. Proselytizing is more a passionate search for something not yet found than a desire to bestow upon the world something we already have. It is a search for a final and irrefutable demonstration that our absolute truth is indeed the one and only truth. The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. …It is also plausible that those movements with the greatest inner contradiction between profession and practice – that is to say with a strong feeling of guilt – are likely to be the most fervent in imposing their faith on others.”  (The True Believer, Psychology of Mass Movements, 1948, p. 110-111)

This sense of inadequacy and insufficiency, minus the humility of spirituality, leads to a constant instability and inequilibrium that leads the communist radical as much as a religious one, into a permanent search for something to feel guilty about and atone for that guilt by extreme action on a focused enemy, the “other”, the devil of his instantaneous ideology. Note that Mishra is perhaps subconsciously aware of this – in that he claims that his radicalism did not stem from communism per se but had existed even before – that his innate fanaticism and radicalism perhaps only found an appropriate vehicle to express itself.

Mishra explains his “anti-right wing” radical thoughts based on his glimpse of communal violence in 1984, when according to him he witnesses an atrocity:

Back then, I was only 18 years of age; the incident traumatized me so deeply that after I got back to Allahabad I fought with everyone—including my close relatives—who—as per the norm those days—were abusing Sikhs incessantly.

For several days, I was unable to sleep; I was full of rage; it was good that I did not have access to a gun those days—I would certainly have used it on some right-wing, communal/anti-Sikh element in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.

I am expressing my inner most urges to make a point—that during desperate/unjust times—a sensitive human being—belonging to the majority community—can be driven to anti right-wing violence. Being a ruling class  brahmin—whose family had protected Muslims during the 1947 riots—and who took any violence against minorities as a challenge to his sense of honour directly—also must have contributed  a lot to my aggressive stance.     

So, imagine the plight/mindset of minority communities who saw unspeakable crimes—raping of daughters and mauling of children—being committed on their kith and kin.

It is most illuminating that Mishra always thinks of the “majority” in the context of the “Hindu”, and never ever expresses similar thoughts about the plight of the “minority” Hindu or Buddhist in Muslim majority areas or societies. In his memory and narrative, the “majority” member Hindu-Brahmin ancestor of his, is and does what is expected of the “majority” in any society. However, he conspicuously avoids the issue of duty of similar muslim majorities to protect the humanity and dignity of minorities in Muslim majority countries – even on the subcontinent and as neighbours, as in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where minorities have been systematically targeted for elimination and have been constantly dwindling from the time of Partition. Mishra of course needs to be completely silent about similar trauma and reaction in the “Hindus” seeing similar action during the Partition – when a future luminary of Pakistan, and icon of Bangladesh , Hussein Suhrawardy allowed a planned pogrom of Hindus to go through in Noakhali and Calcutta. Mishra cannot cite Liaqat Khan’s role in organizing a pogrom of Sindhi Hindus and what effect such memories should have had on Hindu survivors!

Amaresh Mishra then goes on to list the long tale of alleged woes of Muslims in India and allegations of state connivance in supposed “right-wing” torture. For Mishra’s deracinated guilt-ridden conscience, however, it does not pay to remember the case of the Kashmir Valley and the state sponsored “Muslim” “right-wing” atrocity on the Kashmir Valley Hindus from as early as late 60’s and early 70’s.  Mishra has never heard of a certain Kashmiri Pundit girl who was abducted and the consequences thereof – long, long before the destruction of the disputed structure at Ayodhya.

Mishra accepts that in India, it was possible to flourish as an “upper-caste” “ex-Naxalite”. He fails to realize, that in his clever self-pity, he shows that even after passing through “Naxalism”, it was impossible for someone to leave behind his awareness of privileged birth. Or therein lies the tragedy and the real failure of the Indian leftist, the failure to realize that his leftist radicalism often has its roots in an imperfect digestion of his Hindu cultural roots. The reason that the ranks of leftism are dominated by “upper castes” and Hindus, but not Muslims or Christians – who only make rare appearances, lie in Hindu threads of a pervasive universal humanism that has remained alive through texts and folk belief in spite of the louder voices of so-called elitism of caste or jaati-varna hierarchies. Islamic culture theologically endorses property, and the imperialism shaped later Christianity similarly endorses authoritarianism and property, and discourage rebellions against the theologically approved regimes which protect those very things that the Left seeks to destroy.

The remainder of Mishras’ article goes on to repeat the allegations in the current Congress led Indian regime’s attempts at sticking the blame for almost each and every terrorist atrocity on Indian soil at the door of Congress’s hated “other”, the apotheosis, the “devil” – of the saffron, or the “Hindu”. Mishra’s political project therefore does not wait to mention the fact that many of these alleged cases against the so-called saffron terror themselves suffer from allegations of torture, political witchhunts, use of state machinery to serve electoral calculations, and that some of the accused could very well be agents provocateurs sent deliberately by the state – like a certain Col Purohit.

Is it so that Mishra perhaps needs a devil, a satan, on whom he can put the sense of all his inadequacies, and transfer all his guilt to? The underlying Hindu memes of equality of all mankind – amritasya putra of the Upanishads, the persistent and recurring post-Vedic Indian thinkers who repeatedly fought with the elite against claims of hierarchy and superiority, prepare him to expect social justice for all humanity- something a predominantly Muslim society never, ever feels towards the non-Muslims. But the established social hierarchy that gave birth to him practices differently from the underlying memes, and this contributes part of the guilt.

But the major part of the guilt comes from the colonial project of Macaulay, prompted by his dear friend Sir William Jones, and other missionaries aligned to the imperialist project on British India. Jones’s favourite textual representation of “Hinduism” was the work attributed to Manu, even though at the time, there was ample evidence that in India, various other Hindu texts were actually followed – like the various grihya sutras of Apastambha, Baudhayana, or Gautama – many far more liberal than that of Manu. In fact modern scholarship excavates increasingly the reality of 18th and 19th century Indian “Hindu”legal practice as far more heterodox and non-Manu like than the British colonial project wanted it to be. For the British empire, demonizing the “Brahmin” was a primary necessity – just as it was for the centuries of Muslim invaders before them. The cultural and intellectual legitimacy of the “Hindu” needed to be undermined and associated with guilt before the colonial project could succeed fully. The source of Mishraic guilt lies in that colonial project. Even the very fact of his “Brahmin” upper-caste ancestor behaving very un-Brahmin-like during 1947 fails to stir him to question the Islamist and British colonial stereotype of the evil caste-repressive “Brahmin” exploiter.

The intellectual limitations that lead to Mishra’s feverish imagination of conspiracy theories could have been overcome had he allowed himself to look at news items like the following:

Hindu Bengali Muslim refugees in Myanmar moved for protection away from Bengali Muslim refugees in Myanmar.

Khine Myo Min: Myanmar government authority in Sittwe evacuated ninety eight Hindu refugees from Bengali Muslim dominated refugee camps to downtown Sittwe on Wednesday.

98 people from 18 Hindu families were moved from their current shelter of Thae Chaung and Thak Kay Pron camps to Sittwe city due to increased threats by Bengali Muslim extremists after many reported rapes and attempted rapes and tortures committed by the Bengali Muslims who are majority in the camp.

A mind more used to logical dissection without ideological preoccupations, would have immediately noted the peculiarity by which even the horrors of a common refugee existence fails to suppress the Islamic urge for genocide or repression/exploitation of the non-Muslim.

In constructing grand saffron conspiracies, Mishra ignores news items that come from his trusted “secular” side of the narrative construction business :

Rogue sms’s traced to Kerala and Bangladesh

Cyber security agencies have apparently detected the hand of radical groups, such as the Popular Front of India (PFI) in Kerala and Bangladesh-based Harkat-ul-Jehad al Islami (HuJI), while tracking SMSs that led to the exodus of Northeast people[…] they have been successful in detecting forwarding of bulk messages going viral from Bangladesh groups and PFI activists. Some of the messages hold out communal threats of retribution for alleged atrocities on Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, a community in the Arakan state linked with Bangladesh, traditionally backed by Islamist and jihadist groups, such as the HuJI.

The Arakan state, in west Myanmar, lies on the route for supplying guns to Northeast insurgents through Cox’s Bazaar, in Chittagong in the past. The HuJI, formed by former Bangladeshi jihadists who took part in the Afghan civil war, was involved in the attack on Sheikh Hasina, now Bangladesh PM, in 2004.

The agencies, monitoring Facebook and Twitter, are also examining the possible role of the Hindu radical groups and the underworld.

Mishra, if he had retained his critical intellectual faculties, would have noticed that the “security” agencies could give much greater details in case of Islamist outfits, and could only add the “possibility” of “Hindu radicals” too being involved. Such equating of Islamism with saffronism seems to have become a requirement of Indian political correctness, often resulting in hilarious columns. Actually, such perspectives should have led to exploring the “possible role” of “Christian” groups in the North East too, with some prominent insurgent groups in the past having paraded their Christian identity a lot possibly in the hope attracting international sympathies from appropriate corners.

It is understandable as to why Mishra cannot quote the following items, or even dismiss them as concoctions of a right-wing state. His devil then has to be extended to icons he needs to clutch on to as the last remaining helpless wronged victims of his limitless guilt. If he has to acknowledge the reality, he loses the fulcrum of his life.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Guwahati/Assam-refugees-head-for-West-Bengal-Meghalaya/Article1-917351.aspx

When armed communities are at each other’s throats in the three violence-hit western districts in Assam, the unarmed and unorganised are fleeing the state — mostly to West Bengal and Meghalaya. The fear factor has gripped Bengali Hindus — the softest target whenever violence takes over the state’s fragile peace — and Koch-Rajbonsi tribals are fleeing the Muslim-dominated Dhubri district over the last one month since the Bodo-Muslim clashes broke out on July 20.

 Curfew in Allahabad

Curfew was today clamped in an Allahabad locality as a precautionary measure while stray incidents took place in Lucknow during a street protest against the ongoing ethnic strife in Assam.

“The curfew was imposed in Kotwali police station area from 7 P.M. And will remain in force till midnight when further decision will be taken after reviewing the situation,” Additional District Magistrate (City), D P Giri told PTI. Trouble began this afternoon when a procession was being taken out by some members of a minority community in localities falling under Kotwali police station.

However, policemen deployed in the area objected to the procession pointing out that no prior permission had been obtained and that order had to be maintained in view of large crowds expected at places of worship on the occasion of the last Friday prayers of Ramzan.
The agitators allegedly reacted strongly and tried to proceed with the procession with some of them indulging in heavy stone-pelting which left several persons, including some policemen, injured and caused damage to a number of shops in the vicinity and vehicles parked nearby.
[…]
Earlier, the protest march in Lucknow after the Friday prayers turned violent here as a group of people, shouting slogans against alleged atrocities on minorities in Assam and Myanmar, resorted to stone pelting and vandalism. The protest march which started from near the Tile Wali Masjid created a ruckus on its way forcing business establishments to close down and vandalising parks and vehicles, a senior police official said.

When the RAF and PAC tried to stop them they indulged in brick batting damaging public properties and vehicles. The protesters also took offence to the presence of media covering the event and damaged their vehicles and equipments, police said.

Later police resorted to baton charge as the protesters tried to march towards Vidhan Sabha.

With such a single-track focus, Mishra therefore shows no grasp of the longer social processes of history and reconstruction of history by both the colonial forces as well as those to whom the colonialists handed over power. He shows in exemplary detail, why the Indian Left had long stopped thinking and questioning themselves, their very own belief systems and values – to check for how those very concepts and values were shaped. In thinking how others wanted them to think for their own geo-strategic purposes and projects, projects which themselves are now defunct – there might still have been a way out.

But indulging in such conspiracy theories actually helps the neo-imperialist strategies to succeed. Mishra will be nowhere to defend whatever is left of his society when the time comes, a society which people of his ideology have helped undo out of unthinking and politically created guilt.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Islamo-Judaic Relations : politically correct mythology – 5: late-Medieval to the modern.

Posted on April 7, 2012. Filed under: Arab, Christians, diaspora, Egypt, exile, Gaza, Historians with political agenda, History, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Muslims, Ottoman, Palestine, religion, Syria, terrorism, Turkey, UK |

Maimonides (1135-1204), was a famous Jewish philosopher and author who fled Spain from a murderous Muslim persecution and took up the job of a physician to Saladin. However over time his experiences come out in his “Letter to Yemen” [1]

“[as punishment] God has hurled us into the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us… Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.”

Maimonides had correspondence with Jews over a large area (yes, including India), and was therefore in a position to compare.

The 9th century Muslim writer al-Jahiz (an Arab settled in Baghdad) wrote: “…the hearts of the Muslims are hardened toward the Jews but inclined toward the Christians.”[2] He pointed out that “in his time the Christians were both socially and economically better off than the Jews.”[3] He explained this by the political resistance of the Jews of Medina to Muhammad.

In this contemporary chronicle from Baghdad by Obadyah the Proselyte, in 1100 C.E.: [7: …the Caliph of Baghdad, al—Muqtadi [1075—1094], had given power to his vizier, Abu Shuja… [who] imposed that each male Jew should wear a yellow badge on his headgear. This was one distinctive sign on the head and the other was on the neck— a piece of lead of the weight of a silver dinar hanging round the neck of every Jew and inscribed with the word dhimmi to signify that the Jew had to pay poll—tax. Jews also had to wear girdles round their wastes. Abu Shuja further imposed two signs on Jewish women. They had to wear a black and a red shoe, and each woman had to have a small brass bell on her neck or shoe, which would tinkle and thus announce the separation of Jewish from Gentile [Muslim] women. He assigned cruel Muslim men to spy upon Jewish women, in order to oppress them with all kinds of curses, humiliation, and spite. The Gentile population used to mock all the Jews, and the mob and their children used to beat up the Jews in all the streets of Baghdad…When a Jew died, who had not paid up the poll—tax [jizya] to the full and was in debt for a small or large amount, the Gentiles did not permit burial until the poll—tax was paid. If the deceased left nothing of value, the Gentiles demanded that other Jews should, with their own money, meet the debt owed by the deceased in poll—tax; otherwise they [threatened] they would burn the body.”

Bernard Lewis refers to attempts at reform in the 19th century Ottoman empire by quoting a Turk “… whereas in former times, in the Ottoman state, the communities were ranked, with the Muslims first, then the Greeks [Greek Orthodox], then the Armenians, then the Jews, now all of them were put on the same level. Some Greeks objected to this, saying: “The government has put us together with the Jews. We were content with the supremacy of Islam.”[4] Most likely this refers to the reform decrees that resulted out of the power struggle between Muhammad Ali of Egypt and the Ottomans.

The British envoy, Dr John Bowring was in Lebanon and Syria in the 1830s, and he writes:

The Mussulmans. . . deeply deplore the loss of that sort of superiority which they all & individually exercised over and against the other sects. . . a Mussulman. . . believes and maintains that a Christian — and still more a Jew — is an inferior being to himself.[5] […] The condition of the Jews forms, perhaps, an exception [to the general improvement of non-Muslims] and cannot be said to have improved comparatively with that of the other Sects[6]

Towards the end of Mameluk rule (from the Mongol withdrawal in 1260 to the Ottoman conquest in 1517), a Franciscan monk named Francesco Suriano lived in the monastery in Jerusalem for about a quarter of a century. He served as Custos Terrae Sanctae or Guardian of the Holy Land for his order for some time and therefore the highest ranking Catholic official there, charged by the pope with overseeing Roman Catholic interests in the Christian holy places and Church affairs in the country. He writes about the Jews in Jerusalem:

“I wish you to know how these dogs of Jews are trampled upon, beaten and ill-treated, as they deserve, by every infidel nation, and this is the just decree of God. They live in this country in such subjection that words cannot describe it. . . there in Jerusalem, where they committed the sin for which they are dispersed throughout the world [i.e., the Crucifixion], they are by God more punished and afflicted than in any other part of the world. And over a long time I have witnessed that . . . No infidel [= Muslim] would touch with his hand a Jew lest he be contaminated but when they wish to beat them, they take off their shoes with which they strike them on the mustaches; the greatest wrong and insult to a man is to call him a Jew. And it is a right notable thing that the Moslems do not accept a Jew into their creed unless he first become a Christian. . . And if they were not subsidized by the Jews of Christendom, the Jews who live in Judea would die like dogs of hunger.”[7]

The Ottoman Empire needed the Jewish expertise in various fields including finances so initially after conquest they brought in some of the more outstanding into service. This was vehemently opposed by the local muslims. Therefore, “The Jewish community… paid the jizya at rates somewhat higher than the [Greek] Orthodox.”[8] Now, even under and after such “great” patronage by the Ottomans, Chateaubriand, (a famous French author), visited Jerusalem in 1806, and later wrote:

Special target of all contempt [i.e., of both Muslims and Christians], they lower their heads without complaint; they suffer all insults without demanding justice; they let themselves be crushed by blows… Penetrate the dwellings of these people, you will find them in frightful poverty…

Nothing can prevent them from turning their gaze towards Zion. When one sees the Jews dispersed throughout the world,… one is probably surprised, but, to be struck by supernatural astonishment, it is necessary to find them in Jerusalem.. . to see these legitimate owners of Judea, slaves and strangers in their own land. One must see them under all oppressions, awaiting a king who is to redeem them.[9]

Neophytos was a Greek Orthodox monk belonging to the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, which governed Orthodox church affairs in Jerusalem. Around 1834, Neophytos writes:

“As we are on the question of repairs, we must say something about the Jewish Synagogue. One year ago only, seeing the liberal dispositions of Mehemet Ali Pasha [Muhammad Ali] and Ibrahim Pasha [his son, general, and deputy], they dared to speak about their Synagogue. They asked that their House of Prayer, being in a ruinous condition and in danger of falling in, might be repaired. So, those who did not even dare to change a tile on the roof of the Synagogue at one time, now received a permit and a decree to build.”[10]

Felix Bovet, a Swiss Protestant minister who visited Jerusalem in 1858, writes “the Jews are still, to this day, the most miserable part of the population of the Holy City.”[11] Bovet quotes a French convert to Islam, who wrote: “the Jerusalem Jew only half lives, scarcely daring to breathe.”[12]

References
1. Maimonides, “Epistle to Yemen,” in David Hartman, ed., Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides (tr. A Halkin; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1985), p 126.

2. Quoted in Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton 1984), pp 59-60.

3. Words of Moshe Sharon, op. cit., p 94; also see Carlo Panella, Il ‘Complotto Ebraico’ — L’antisemitismo islamico da Maometto a Bin Laden (Torino: Lindau 2005), p 89

4. Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? (London: Orion House 2002), p 104.

5. Quoted in William R Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788-1840 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1963), p 138. Other 19th century Western observers noted the same Arab-Muslim Judeophobia, as quoted by Saul S Friedman, Land of Dust (Washington, DC: University Press of America 1982), p 136.

6. William R Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788-1840 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1963), p 138.

7. Francesco Suriano, Treatise on the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1949) [in original: Trattato di Terra Santa e dell’Oriente], pp 101-02. For a scholarly view of the Jews in Jerusalem in the late Mamluk period, when Suriano lived there, see Avraham David in “The Mamluk Period” in Israel: People, Land, State (Avigdor Shinan, ed.: Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2005).

8. Amnon Cohen, “On the Realities of the Millet System: Jerusalem in the 16th century,” in B Braude and B Lewis, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire (New York: Holmes & Meier 1982), p 14.

9. Chateaubriand, Itinéraire de Paris à Jérusalem (Paris: Juilliard 1964), pp 426-427.

10. Neophytos, Extracts from Annals of Palestine 1821-1841 (Jerusalem, Ariel Publishing House, 1979; compiled by Eli Schiller), p 78. Originally published in Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, vol. XVIII (1938; tr S N Spyridon).

11. Felix Bovet, Egypt, Palestine, and Phoenicia (Eng. trans; London: 1872), p 180

12. Ibid., p 181.

Discussion

The more one studies the history of Islamic repression on the Jews, the more one comes up with the stark reality that in many many ways, the Islamic treatment simply picked up and intensified the iconoclastic violence and genocidic tendencies latent within the Churches of east. In many many ways, the appearance of the Islamics provided a tool and a hope in the eastern churches to actually achieve what they had so far failed to do – the complete elimination of the Jews as a physical reality.

From this started a whole lot of processes :

(1) realizing that the Jews will remain strongly resistant to conversion in spite of certain disgruntled Jews switching allegiance and acting against their own origin community (not surprising for Hindus of India!). As long as the Jews remained adamant to conversion, Jews are a problem to the two other claimants of the sole rights to the Abrahamic legacy (which in turn in its proselytizing/converting form is a most effective tool for imperialism).

(2) try and blame all atrocities , or even invent genocide/exile/enslavement on a grand scale and assign it to “Romans” (not the Church primarily)

(3) suppress all references to non-genocidic/encouraging behaviour from “Roman” authorities

(4) when instigating “Roman” authorities as much as possible to eliminate the Jews was not achieving this goal, the Islamists were a “Godsend”. This is shown in the active collaboration of the Eastern Churches leadership with the Islamists and Jihadists to eliminate and repress Jews to an extent they could only rant about but not actually implement under “Roman” rule. The combined effort achieves the target to a much greater degree than ever achieved before in the pre-Islamic period.

(5) jihadis use this eagerness in Church leadership to intensify their dhimma policy – which is not toleration as represented by Islamists and their non-Muslim apologists, neither is it a purely “social discrimination” non-physical-violence non-Jihad thing. It is a double edged sword, by first enforcing a one-sided set of extremely harsh and almost impossible to meet conditions on the Jews, and then systematically and regularly claim that the “covenants” of the dhimma had been broken so jihad was now applicable to the captive population of dhimmis.

(6) gradually Jihadis tighten the noose on Levantine non-Muslims, especially Christians who are increasingly subjected to forced conversions, genocide and enslavement once the Islamists gain a foothold with their leaders’ initial weaknesses, and this in turn makes the Christian leadership more and more eager to please the Islamists. They start suppressing evidence of Jihadi violence on Christians (unfortunately even the most enlightened so-called paragons of tolerance Ottoman behaviour in this regard is also historically documented) and increase their collaboration in persecution of Jews in the hope of achieving their aims of cleansing of the land of the Jews.

(7) this leads to the western churches being ideologically cornered since eastern churches have to justify their collaboration with the Islamics on the “original sin” or so called responsibility of “deicide”. This concept of collective responsibility was taken to its extreme both by the christians as well as the muslim leadership, but finds its perfection under Islamic leadership of christianity. So the major “expulsions” and “genocides” have to be put at the door of the Roman empire BEFORE the acceptance of Christianity as a Roman imperial religion.

“Sado-masochism” – the almost sexual enjoyment of giving and receiving intense pain (mental as well as physical)- is perhaps a key to understand this modern (and not so modern) Christian reaction against the Jews which intensified under Islamic leadership over the greater part of Christian leadership’s mindset. Its intensity and naked expression in Jihadi Islam is simply the next stage of development from Christian attitudes towards the origin – perhaps a generalization of father-son antagonistic dynamic so insightfully discovered by a man of Jewish origins, Sigmund Freud. The Judaic being the father, and Christianity the elder born, and Islam the younger, with the sons having a raging sibling rivalry, a shared hatred of the father who stands between them and the mother – the legacy of the Abrahamic.

Now why should it find expression in some Indians who were born as Hindus? Perhaps the same mindset that led to a few Jewish converts into Islam or Christianity – an unconscious attraction for the possibilities of gratifying their sado-masochastic tendencies!

Each of the points (1)-(7) can be supported with documented sources. I have already mentioned once on the modern thinking in a large part “professional historians” on the so-called “greater role” of Romans in the “diaspora”. Apparently many like the one I mentioned have argued for the whole thing being a “myth”(!!) and that there was really no traumatic dispersal at the scales of hundreds of thousands or millions under the Romans [ there are detailed arguments about the 1.1 million being absurd based on actual estimates of food production, archaeological reconstructions of living conditions and settlement estimates, etc.] – according to these “experts”.

Maybe the pro-Islamics of all colours should unite against these very Jewish profs and academics as being part of a Zionist conspiracy with overt pro-Palestinian sympathies but actually undermining the whole Islamist cause!! Denying the key-pivot of Roman role in Diaspora combined with source narrative claims from Islamists themselves about atrocities and genocide perpetrated by Muslims on the Jews is problematic for the Islamist-line of Palestinian “movement”.

Part 4

To be continued.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Islamo-Judaic Relations : politically correct mythology – 4 : From departure of Muhammad to Islamist Conquest of Palestine and Syria

Posted on March 1, 2012. Filed under: Antisemitism, Arab, Christians, diaspora, Egypt, exile, Gaza, Historians with political agenda, History, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Muslims, Palestine, religion, Roman, Syria, terrorism |

From the successful genocide at Khyber and land grab, in the late 620’s until his death, Muhammad tried to expand the reach of his army towards Syria and Palestine. His first attempt with an open declared campaign (for the first time in his life, because previously he had always relied on surprise and deception) against Heraclius was a disaster, and at this time we have reports of increasing dissent against his leadership. So Muhammad renewed his earlier strategy of covert and piecemeal targeting of isolated communities and tribes.

During this phase he was taken ill and passed away, according to the Hadiths, exactly at the time when a new and larger expedition was being planned against the then Byzantine held territories of Syria and Palestine. The expedition did take off, and similar expeditions were then subsequently organized until finally at the Battle of Yarmouk a large Byzantine army was defeated and Heraclius abandoned Syria and Palestine and went back to Constantinople. This is just within 10 years of Khyber. However many cities held out.

Some Bedouin nomadic tribes at this period did hover around in the frontierland between Byzantium and beyond (the southern desert of Palestine, west of the Euphrates (Hira) in the Syrian desert, Palmyra), where for a long time due to the competition with the persians, the Byzantines had come to an arrangement of benefits and payment to enlist the large nomadic Arab tribes as a bulwark against raids from beyond. The arable inner regions and the cities were populated by Aramaic speaking Jews and Christians. The contemporary writings of the Church Fathers and in Talmudic sources show that they had little or no identification/sympathy with the Bedouins (who spoke a different language) and actually were quite hostile because they faced constant raids. [1]

Moshe Gil, [1] quotes surviving sources from the defeated indigenous non-Muslim populations, to show that they

“reflect the attitude of the towns and villages in Palestine quite accurately; the attitude of a sedentary population, of farmers and craftsmen, toward nomads whose source of income is the camel and who frequently attack the towns, pillage and slaughter the inhabitants, and endanger the lives of the wayfarer. These sources completely contradict the argument to the effect that the villagers and townsmen in Palestine accepted the invasion of those tribes bearing the banner of Islam with open arms of their so-called racial affinity.” [This is a copyrighted book, so I cannot quote extensively. Those interested do look up]

The whole Gaza region up to Kaiseria [Caesarea] was sacked and devastated in the campaign of 634. Four thousand Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan peasants who defended their land were massacred. The villages of the Negev were looted. Cities such as Jerusalem, Gaza, Jaffa, Caesarea, Nablus, and Beth Shean were isolated and closed their gates. In his sermon on Christmas day 634 CE, the patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, says “the Christians are being forcibly kept in Jerusalem…chained and nailed by fear of the Saracens, whose savage, barbarous and bloody sword kept them locked up in the town”. In 636, Sophronius, [Day of the Epiphany 636], writes of the destruction of the churches and monasteries, the sacked towns, the fields laid waste, the villages burned down by the “nomads” [generic name for Arabs including Islamics whom the Byzantine Christians were yet to recognize as any significant independent faith system] who were overrunning the country. In a letter the same year to Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, he mentions the ravages wrought by the Arabs. Thousands of people perished in 639, falling victim to the raids as well as the famine and plague that resulted from these destructions. [2] For Jerusalem, according to one version of the terms of the treaty with the Patriarch for surrender, “Jews” would not be allowed to remain within the city.

According to Baladhuri (d. 892 C.E. – his name also comes up in connection with records of campaigns in Sindh in India), 40,000 Jews [20,000 according to some translations] lived in Caesarea alone at the Arab conquest, after which all trace of them is lost. [3] Tabari further reports that 4000 survivors were taken prisoner and transported out of the region and given as slaves to Muslims in Al-Jurf. [4]

Gil further shows that the period of the conquest was also that of the destruction of the synagogues and churches of the Byzantine era, remnants of which have been turning up in archaeological discoveries. Towns in the western strip and the central strip (the region of the red sand hills and the swamps) in the Sharon, decreased from fifty-eight to seventeen. It is estimated that the erosion of the soil from the western slopes of the Judaean mountains reached as a result of the decultivation during the Muslim period to almost 2,000 to 4,000 cubic meters. The direct evidence of the destruction of agriculture and the desertion of the villages is shown by the fact that the papyri of Nessana are completely discontinued after the year 700. [1]

Similar conclusions have been reached in archaeological analysis with Negev being reduced to a wasteland. Gil has translated these observations by the 10th century Karaite [The rationalist movement within Judaism started by Maimonides] commentator Yefet b. Ali recording that there was great destruction in Palestine and that there were places which remained uninhabited, while there were other places to which people returned and settled:

“the places which were completely destroyed so that no memory of them remains, like Samaria…are the places which have been destroyed and ruined, but despite this there are guards and people living there, such as Hebron and others” [1]

There is no reason to expect, like some of us probably do – that just within 10 years the entire spirit of Badr, Khyber would be forgotten and abandoned by Islamism – all of a sudden when they overrun Palestine.

[1] Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634-1099

[2] Bat Yeor, “Islam and the Dhimmis”, The Jerusalem Quarterly, 1987, Vol. 42,

[3] The origins of the Islamic state, being a translation from the Arabic, accompanied with annotations, geographic and historic notes of the Kitab futuh al-buldan of al-Imam abu-l Abbas Ahmad ibn-Jabir al-Baladhuri -p213 [4] Ibid p216-218

Part 3

Part 5

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Rahul, Roemer allegedly and Wikipee : who is conning whom?

Posted on December 21, 2010. Filed under: Ayodhya, China, Christians, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Kashmir, Kashmiri Pundit, Muslims, Rahul Gandhi, USA |

Recently, the net and the news media has been abuzz with a certain founder of a certain website that claims to release into the public domain supposed secret communications between American diplomats and Washington. Using some journalistic license in lampooning I will use the keyword “Wikipee” – since in some casually polite English circles “taking a leak” is an euphemism for a natural and essential mammalian act. Apologies in advance if anyone feels offended – both from the supporting or the opposing side.

Having said that, there is no alternative verification possible about the truth, reality or reliability of the information posted, so we can neither accept them at face value, nor reject them at face value. There are wild speculations about the possibility of these being a selected list of items which have been manufactured to create a certain opinion in favour of US foreign policy itself or help the US attain specific foreign policy objectives. Attacking the apparent source in public could then be seen as increasing the credibility of the source. On the other hand, it could also be simply a random act of omission, carelessness, negligence combined with various personal grievances and ideological dissent from among American personnel at various levels. It could even be an act of penetration and sabotage by opposing international forces like China which has been alleged many times as behind hacking attempts against national governments.

But whoever has selected the items to be released must have selected it out of some purpose, some aim at creating some impression. Here I will look at one item that has raised a huge storm in India : the alleged quote of Rahul Gandhi alleging much greater threat of supposed “Hindu Terror” compared to Pakistani or Islamist terror. The concerned text can be found here : http://cablesearch.org/cable/view.php?id=09NEWDELHI1624

5. (C) Responding to the Ambassador’s query about Lashkar-e-Taiba’s activities in the region and immediate threat to India, Gandhi said there was evidence of some support for the group among certain elements in India’s indigenous Muslim community. However, Gandhi warned, the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community. (Comment: Gandhi was referring to the tensions created by some of the more polarizing figures in the BJP such as Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.) The risk of a “home-grown” extremist front, reacting to terror attacks coming from Pakistan or from Islamist groups in India, was a growing concern and one that demanded constant attention.
Comment

If true, Rahul is actually causing some severe logical problems for both himself as well as his party.

(a) Alleged “Hindu terrorists”—who are so completely penetrated, rounded up and cases put up in a jiffy by the Indian anti-terror organizations currently under the Congress led government in contrast to the lackadaisical pursuit of cases, penetration and rounding up or even absence of proper cases by the same government agencies if a single Indian Muslim name appears in connection with any terror atrocity — are accused of bomb blasts in 2007 and 2008 in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra that killed 17 people. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, the toll in India from about two dozen radical Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 stands at more than 950 dead and many hundreds more injured.

The principal Hindu groups accused have little or no international presence – no theological support within Hinduism similar to the doctrine of violent Jihad (yes violent, as amply borne out by the core texts of Islam, where one ambiguous citing for “conditional peaceful treatment of people of the book” is propagandized by modern hagiographers compared to numerous references where Jihad is only mentioned in the context of violence). But those alleged to have a hand behind incidents like the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, have a wide ranging support network and connections of Islamist Jihad.

No Islamist government whose territories have been used to perpetrate terror on India has seriously taken any steps at all to try and book the culprits or even properly investigate the organizations. India under the Congress on the other hand jumps up and down ardently to pin the blame on its majority community.

Nowhere in the alleged report by Roemer, Rahul Gandhi is quoted as saying similar things about Jihadi terror. Significantly there is no hint of any importance being given to the Maoist terror or Left wing radicalism, which has consistently claimed lives and property damages. No mention either of outfits in the North East with open affiliations to Christian beliefs or who appear to tout their religious affiliation as a means of attracting obvious international interest and support.

(b) Rahul is a shame on his “historian” great-grandfather, who at least selectively quoted histories existing at his time and predominantly created by colonial historians with their own imperialist agenda in mind.

He tries to blame all Islamist Jihadi reaction against India as a reaction to supposed Hindu atrocities or provocations. But then can he answer what Hindu provocation in Jammu and Kashmir provoked the violent rapes and massacres and ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri pundits in 1989 – a full three years before the supposed incident over the disputed structure at Ayodhya?

Moreover, if Islamist reaction has only started as reaction to Hindu provocation, then did his great-grandfather Jwaharlal Nehru – who became the sole and supreme leaders of the Congress, its legislative wing, and key figure in the transitional government for independence of India – provoke the Muslims so much so that they went into Direct Action (rather Direct Rape and Genocide Action) Day leading to the Partition in 1947? The majority of Hindus made up the Congress at the time.

If every violence is due to historical trauma, why cannot Hindus have a similar justification and only Muslims are allowed to use such an excuse? If every historical atrocity event has a precursor provocation  event, why does not Rahul try to apply the same logic to alleged Hindu violence?


¶6. (C) Gandhi was forthright in describing the challenges faced by the Congress Party and the UPA government in the months ahead. Over the past four years, he was an elusive contact, but he could be interested in reaching out to the United States, given a thoughtful, politically sensitive and strategic approach on our part. We will seek other opportunities to engage with him and with other promising young members of the new generation of parliamentarians. Gandhi mentioned that in the recent election 60 members of the new Parliament were 45 or younger. In a system long viewed as relatively static, the influx of new faces and the rising profile of young leaders like Rahul Gandhi provides us an opening to expand the constituency in support of the strategic partnership with a long term horizon.

What is however more seriously damaging for Rahul Gandhi and the US itself is however here. If the US feels that reaching out to Rahul will ensure securing US strategic interests, that damns both Rahul and the US and their mutual strategic interest.

(1) Rahul’s desirability for the US makes him rather dubious as a candidate to win the future trust of Muslims.

(2) For India’s Hindus, US approach to enlist Rahul on their side is discomforting. His religious affiliations have been publicly ambiguous, unlike her illustrious grandmother Indira Gandhi who at least had no discomfort in display her Hindu affiliation, and there are increasing concerns in many quarters of India about the aggressive proselytization and conversion activities of Christian missionaries funded by Evangelicals from the USA – activities often seemingly protected by state machinery whereas any attempt at reconversion back into Hinduism is treated as “violence”.

USA forgets that the record of Christian missionaries and the Churches have often been actions in favour of colonial and imperialist designs, and that perception remains in the general Hindu society although it always does not come out in the Abrahamic violent intolerance of the “other” because of the inherent pluralistic nature of Hinduism.

(3) USA also should keep in mind that if the majority Hindu is sought to be disempowered and its faith undermined or attacked, then there are two fallouts that the USA will not be able to control.

First, removal of the Hindu from India will mean that there will be no moderating influence to mediate between the Islamists and the Christians, and these two have never been able to flourish together. No country exists today where this has been so. The only known example where it comes close to co-existence is Lebanon, which however speaks for itself. Removal or weakening or attacking the Hindu will mean civil war between Islamist Jihadis and Christian Jihadis – and who will ultimately win that war – Chinese or the Russians or it will become all a part of the grand Islamic Caliphate.

Second, Hindus have never proven easily digestible. They have not always gone the Abrahamic sectarian, non-pluralistic way – but neither have they always succumbed to onslaughts. Islamics made the error of treating the Hindu as a single category to be wiped off, and the Sikhs and the Marathas were the result who practically made the Mughals their slaves. Timely intervention of British saved the Muslims to an extent, but if US lends a hand to a similar attack against the “Hindu” – will it not do the opposite of what USA or its Evangelists want? What if it only consolidates the moderates and the conservative Hindu together more?

USA has often proved its shortsightedness in dealing with nations by concentrating on individual apparently pliable fanbois. Most of the time they turned out at the head of corrupt and unpopular regimes, supporting which even the US became ultimately unpopular in that country. It would be better sense to look at the national fabric, its majority culture and framework – which in case of India will provide a much better long term security for US strategic interests in Asia.

I hope there is more sense in one of the few remaining hopes for democracy and freedom of thought and words – that is the American “conscience”.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

So-called eminent Historians of India : in their own words under cross-examination in the court over the Ayodhya dispute -1

Posted on October 7, 2010. Filed under: Ayodhya, Hindu, Historians with political agenda, History, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims |

Post-updated…….

Exhibit historian Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra : (bold parts are due to me, and not highlighted as such in the original judgment).

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Vol 6,
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … vol-06.pdf

Page 1468 (219/251)
Quote:

1338. P.W.13 Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra in his cross examination has said:
At the time when I visited the site, I considered only these records, viz., inscriptions to be important. But they were in Arabic language. As that is an additional and credible information, I am telling it now. I did not make mention of these things in the symbols and objects earlier stated to be important.” 

“These records were in Arabic and I do not know Arabic language. It is not that I am a habitual liar. I on 14.07.98 gave my statement in this court. In the statement I had caused it to be recorded that ‘the inscription which was there, was written in Persian language but I had been in the know of that from earlier’. My today’s statement is correct that the record was written in the Arabic language. Actually it was a record, not an inscription. My earlier statement to the effect that it was written in Persian language, was incorrect. It may be due to mistake in understanding it, because I know neither the Persian language nor the Arabic language. I do not know Latin either.” (E.T.C.)

“I have read a journal ‘Epigraphica Indica’ in regard to inscription…… One of its editions makes mention of an inscription and contains an article which makes mention of inscriptions with 14 lines inside the Babri mosque. It makes mention of three pillar inscription. Yesterday I gave a statement in this very court that there was just one pillar inscription there. Actually, that statement of mine was due to slip of tongue and under the impression that there should not be any mention of any new fake inscription.”

1339. The witness has claimed himself to be an Expert Historian…also claimed that he may be placed in the category of Expert in “Epigraphy”. His statement on page 54…Babar was his favourite subject However, he admits that he did not find any reference of construction of the disputed building/Babari mosque in Baburnama..contains no reference of Mir Baqi. On the one hand he accepts of being expert in Epigraphy (page 111) but simultaneously he admits that neither he knows Arabic nor Persian nor Latin, therefore, he had no occasion to understand the language in which the alleged inscription was written…he claims that the inscriptions were written in Persian but later on page 72 he retracted and said that the inscriptions were written in Arabic and his earlier statement was wrong for the reason that neither he understand Persian nor Arabic
.
The slipshod and casual manner in which he made inquiry about inscriptions is further interesting. On page 79 he says that he carried inside the disputed building, the book “Baburnama by Beveridge” and therefrom compared the script of the inscriptions with the text quoted in the said book and since the matter relate to 1989/1990 he is not able to tell the correct date but thereafter on page 79/80 he admits that for security reasons his entire belongings were made to be left outside the premises and he went inside the disputed building empty handed. The book was also left outside where police checking was going. On page 80 when his statement about comparison of the text of the inscription with the book was further examined he says that he kept the text after reading the book in his mind and compared it with the inscription. This wonderful memory of the witness has to be seen in the light of the fact that the witness admits that he knows neither Persian nor Arabic. On page 79 he also admits that he also do not know Urdu language.

1341. Further, he claims to have read “Baburnama by Beveridge” but on page 197 could not tell whether the names Baqi Shaghawal and Baqi Tashkandi are mentioned therein ornot. His lack of knowledge in this matter is writ large from the fact that Mrs. Beveridge has suggested that it is probably Baqi Tashkandi whose name was mentioned in the inscription as Mir Baqi but PW 13 on page 197 says that even if the names of Baqi Tashkandi and Baqi Shaghawal have been mentioned in Baburnama that cannot be connected with the army chief Mir Baqi.

1344. …Dr. S.C. Misra (PW 13) did his Ph.D. under Prof. D.N. Jha (page 49) and claims to be closely acquainted with him On page 53, he says that he has also studied the “History of India” written by “Romila Thaper” and has also consulted her in the course of so called deep study on the dispute in question and believed whatever she has written is correct. On the one hand he claims to be a man of scientific temperament and in order to believe anything he looks into the matter and several things, analyse them and only then come to aconcrete finding (page 49) but on page 56 he says that on the basis of general conception among majority of people and also because of acceptance on the part of scholars he accepted that Islam emerged through revelation.On page 57 he admits that neither he know what “revelation” means nor has read the process of such revelation and, therefore, he is wholly ignorance of the term “revelation” and its meaning.

1347. The defendants sought to highlight the fact that PW 13 was a paid witness and made certain questions about the manner in which he comes from Delhi. On page 185 he said:
….I never came by air but on my way back from Lucknow to Delhi I went by air two times. Even today I want to go back by aeroplane. …

1348. However, later on he retracted and made a different statement on page 201 as under:
” I travel by rail and get my seat reserved while making to and fro journey. I travel in second class A.C., to which I am entitled. It is true that I told the court last time that I had gone back to Delhi by aeroplane two times.”

1349. His statement fails to inspire confidence and lack independent, fair and impartial opinion.

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J
Vol 6, Page 1487 (238/251)
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … vol-06.pdf

Next expert witness – Sushil Srivastava

“Neither I can read nor write Persian. I can also not read Arabic Language nor can write it. I have no sound knowledge of Sanskrit also.” 

It is correct that my father-in-law helped me a lot in reading and writing, i.e., in interpreting the Persian language, which neither I can read nor write,..father-in-law is a scholar of Arabic and Persian languages..father in law felt that the translation of articles on disputed site made by Bevarage is not wholly correct…can not say whether out of three inscriptions one was in Persian and two were in Arabic, as I had no knowledge of these two language..In my book I have written about the three inscriptions after getting the same translated in English. For English transcription I have requested my father-inlaw and got it done from him….he know Arabic and Persian…style of Calligraphy on inscriptions creates doubt whether this mosque was constructed by Babar or not…basis of the aforesaid fact is that my father-in-law realized so. I have written this fact in my book.”

“I have not the least knowledge of art or science of calligraphy…true that, in the foot note of my book, I have mentioned those books too which I have not read…true that I have a very little knowledge of history.”

Vol 7, Page 1511 (12/251)
1352. Learned counsel for the defendants have stressed upon the motive of this witness certain facts antecedents to the publication of his book
“The name of my wife is Mehar Afshan Farooqui. My marriage has been solemnized as civil marriage, i.e., under Special Marriage Act. When I adopted Islam religion, at that time, I was given a new name Sajid. Presently, I am neither a Hindu nor a Muslim..I married according to Islamic rites.”

My wife encouraged me for this work.” “ In the Preface of my book I have written that Mehar Afshan Farooqi started persuading me to popularize the historical truth.” 1354. They also pointed out that the wife of PW 15 is well qualified being M.A. in Medieval History and D.Phil. with specialisation in “Economic Policy of Delhi Sultanate” which she did in 1988 but her father was not a Historian..

1357. ..Though the witness has been produced as Expert Historian but on page 222 he admits that he had a very little knowledge of history. That being so according to own statement of the witness his statement cannot be taken as an opinion of an Expert Historian and, therefore, inadmissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act…We in fact find it surprising with the kind of dishonesty, such person has shown..

1357.[…]On page 106 on the one hand he admits that he lacks knowledge of Epigraphy, Numismatic, Archeology, Survey of Land, Science of Architecture, Turkish, Arabic and Persian language yet simultaneously he says that though the period of construction of the disputed structure, he could not conclude but according to him it relates prior to Mughal period. We are sorry to find that a person like PW 15 has written a book on such an important and sensitive matter without having made an in-depth study on the subject and hasdeposed before us claiming himself to be an Expert Historian though simultaneously admit that he has a very little knowledge of history.

On page 218 and 219 again contradicting his earlier statement he said that he has made research on the question as to how much old and of which period the inscriptions are and found that the inner inscription appears to be new from the style of calligraphy while the outer one is old. Despite admitting the fact that he has no knowledge of calligraphy he has made such comments on calligraphy of the text of inscription which is not expected from a responsible Expert Historian.

 

Next expert witness Prof. Suraj Bhan
Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … Vol-07.pdf

Page 1513 (14/251)
Vol 7
1359. PW 16, Prof. Suraj Bhan in his cross-examination has said: “Except for an inscription carved by Mir Baqi, I did not come across any other epigraphical evidence on the basis of which the disputed site may be called Babri Masjid. This inscription is as old as this masjid.”“Inscriptions were engraved at two places in the disputed structure. Both of the inscriptions were engraved in the stone but the slab of the outside inscription was fixed in the wall. Both these inscriptions were written in Persian language. I do not know Persian. It is true that I can not read Persian. So I, could not read both the inscriptions at the site and could not even see the inside inscription.”

“This mosque not built by Babar on his own; rather, it was built by Mir Baqi with the permission of Babar, and for this very reason, the Babri mosque was built only as per the means of Mir Baqi…It was so written in the stone inscription at the mosque and the same had also been seen by me before demolition of the mosque”

1360. The statement of PW 16 … is solely based on two inscriptions which he claims to have affixed on the disputed building in Persian language though neither the witness can read Persian nor could see the inner one. ..though the witness claims that the inscriptions which were installed when he visited the premises were the same as were installed at the time of construction of the building..shows that he has not read the text of the inscriptions as published in different books..but the statement has been made on pure conjecture and surmises.

Next expert witness PW 15, Sushil Srivastava,, on behalf of muslim parties
J. Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 15

Page 3061- (102/251) para 3603
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ … ol-15.pdfA

3603. About PW 15, Sushil Srivastava, we have already dealt in detail while considering the issues about the date of construction of the disputed building. The aforesaid witness has given a new theory that the building in dispute was constructed much earlier from the period when Babar came to India and must have been constructed before commencement of Mughal period. It is clearly against the pleadings of Muslim parties on whose behalf he has appeared as an expert witness. He also admits of teaching “Modern History” and on page 220, he admits that he has a very little nowledge of History. He, however, admits that there was a possibility of an earlier structure at the place where the disputed building was constructed:

“At page 113 of my book, I have written that this probability cannot be ruled out, i.e, cannot be completely ruled out, i.e, no other ancient construction would have existed at the place of Babri mosque……This conclusion of mine is based on Cunningham’s report.”

“It is true that stones were found in the mound below the Babri mosque. The size of the stones in this mound was very big, i.e. very large stones were present.”

“Q. You have just stated above that in the mound below the Babri mosque large stones were present, did you mean by “long size bricks” or “long size stones?” “Ans. I mean by long size bricks.” (ETC)

3604. He has written a book “An Inquiry on the Disputed Mosque”. On page 87 thereof, he has written that in 17th century, the people started claiming that the building in dispute was constructed by Babar after demolishing a temple but on page 256 of his cross examination, he said that the 17th century mentioned on page 87 of his own Book is wrong and it ought to be 19th century:

“At page 87 of this book, 17 century is written, which is wrong. In fact, it should be 19th century. Further said that the supposition that Babar had got constructed the mosque after demolishing the temple, commenced in the first half of 19th century. By first half of 19th century, I mean the period between 1801 to 1850. The amalgamation of Avadh Province in East India Company took place on13th Feburary 1856. i.e. since the British rule.” (ETC)

3605. He has further said:“To my knowledge, prior to 1526, except Syed Salar Masoodi and Ibne Batuta, no any other foreign Muslim Traveller had come to Ayodhya.” (ETC)
“means that it cannot be wholly ignored that where Babri mosque situated, earlier, there had been any old structure or ancient construction.” (ETC)

“This Babari mosque had not been in possession of Muslims during 1853 to 1855.” (ETC)

3606. All the Muslims parties have denied of any riot or dispute among the two communities in 1855 but this witness gave a different stand and admitted such a clash: “After 1855, no clash took place at the disputed place between Hindus and Muslims.” (ETC)
3607. Moreover, the expertise and authority of PW 15 has been challenged by PW 20, Prof. Shirin Musavi in her statement at page 129 observing that Shshil Srivastava is a Modern Historian and not an authority on Medieval History.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 7 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...