XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, alt.religion.hindu
XPost: uk.religion.hindu, alt.usage.english, alt.politics
XPost: talk.politics.misc, soc.culture.india
From: alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com

INDIAN IDENTITY IS HINDUTVA, NOT NEHRUVIAN SECULARISM

Part 3 of 3 parts:

With this in mind, I suggest the following Agenda for Action: First, the concept of Hindustan defines the identity of India. That is, Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and those others who proudly accept that their ancestors
are Hindus. Muslims and Christians shall be part of the Hindustan if they accept this truth and revere it. That is the first dimension of Hindutva,
that is of a Brihad Hindutva. Therefore, the first item of a Hindutva
Agenda has to be to establish the overriding Hindustani identity of all citizens of Bharat, that is India based on the concept of Brihad Hindutva.
In this inclusive concept of Hindutva we have to examine and determine if
the present divisive caste system can be considered as sustainable. Second, Sanskrit and the Devanagari script, in addition to the mother tongue and
its script, will one day in the future, be Hindustan's link language. All
the main Indian languages have already a large percentage of their
vocabulary common with Sanskrit. Even Tamil which is considered as ancient,
has 40% words in common with Sanskrit. The scripts of all Indian languages
are derived or evolved from Brahmi script. Hence, the second item of the Hindutva Agenda has to be a commitment to re-throne Sanskrit with
Devanagari script as Hindustan's link language, which is to be achieved
through a compulsory 3-language formula of mother tongue, Hindi, and
English in all schools, and by a steady sanskritization of Hindi's
vocabulary till Sanskritized Hindi becomes indistinguishable from Sanskrit. Third, Hindus, and those others who are proud of their Hindu past and
origins, must learn the correct history of India. That history which
records that Hindus have always been, and are one; that caste is not birth- based nor immutable but a code of discipline by choice and adherence. India
is a continuum, sanatana. That is, ancient Hindus and their descendents
have always lived in this area from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean, an
area called Akhand Hindustan, and did not come from outside; and that there
is no truth in the Aryan-Dravidian race theory. Instead Hindus went abroad
to spread learning. Also fresh perspectives have to be given to chronology including recognizing that the Vijaynagaram Dynasty lasted 300 years
reigning over a larger area than the Mughals from Akbar to Aurangzeb which lasted about 150 years. But most all this history must record the valiant
and continuous struggle against the foreign invaders whether Islamic or Christian and the ultimate victory in 1947 and never having had
capitulated. So the third item of the Hindutva Agenda item has to be a
total and complete re-writing of history text books, that are then
prescribed in educational institutions. Fourth, the virat Hindutva mindset
is to retaliate when attacked. The retaliation must be massive enough to
deter future attacks. If terrorists come from training camps in Pakistan, Bangla Desh or Sri Lanka, Hindus must seek to carpet bomb those training
camps, no matter the consequences. If 5 lakh Kashmiri Hindus are driven out
of the Valley by Islamic terrorists, we must arm and financially equip 10
lakhs of the able-bodied ex-servicemen to go with their families and settle
in the former residences of the driven-out Hindus. If Bangla Desh permits
its population to infiltrate into Hindustan, then our armed forces should
annex the northern parts of Bangla Desh [above the line from Khulna to
Sylhet] as compensation within the meaning of the Indian Independence Act
of June 1947 passed by the British Parliament to legitimize Partition. The
Act was framed on the principle that territory in proportion to Muslims not wanting to live under what Jinnah called as the ?hegemony' of the Hindus,
be carved out as Pakistan. One-third of Banla Desh has already infiltrated
into Hindustan to live under Hindu ?hegemony' so one- third of Bangla Desh territory must be re-claimed, or Bangla Desh should take their people back. Thus, virat Hindutva minded Indians must prefer to lose everything they
possess rather than submit to treachery, tyranny or to terrorism. Today
those in India who submit to terrorists and hijackers hence must be
vehemently despised as anti-Hindus. They cannot be good Hindus just because they are pious or go regularly to the temple, or good Hindustanis just
because they are citizens of India or even tom-tom religious slogans.
Today's so-called self proclaimed "good" Hindus have however failed to
avenge or retaliate for the attack on Parliament, Akshaya Mandir, Ayodhya,
and even a former Prime Minister's[Rajiv Gandhi's] assassination. On the
other hand those who defend these assassins and praise the terrorist organization behind them, are central government Ministers today. Thus, the fourth item of the Hindutva Agenda has to be a commitment of ?zero
tolerance' for terrorists, also for those who forcibly or by inducements
seek to convert Hindus to other religion, and to never negotiate with them unless they surrender, and to retaliate against the political objectives of these enemies. This is virat Hindutva. At this juncture I would like to add
a basic axiom that we must always remember. While we may adhere to the principle of Hindu secularism, i.e., sarva pantha sama bhava, we must never forget one fundamental tenet of Islamic behavior: Islam teaches that
Muslims must behave differently when in majority, from when in strong
minority [if majority waffles or appeases], and in weak minority [if
majority is united and clear sighted]. Saudi Arabia is in the first
category, termed as Darul Islam, India, UK and Germany is in the second category called Darul Harab. Australia, China, and US is in the third
category held to be Darul Ahad or takkiyya. This categorization applies
even within countries. Kashmir is held to be Darul Islam, and hence Hindus
have to be driven out or killed as kafirs, or brutalized as dhimmis, their temples razed, and their women publicly raped. Even in Tamil Nadu where
Muslims state-wise are less than 5% of the population, and culturally very close to Hindus, there are 40 Town Panchayats where Muslims are in
majority, and there the Muslim psychology undergoes a complete
transformation. Thus, what happens in Kashmir happens also in these elected Town Panchayats but in more subdued forms for the hapless minority Hindus
of these Town Panchayats. I had to go before the Madras High Court in PIL
to ensure that the poorest scheduled caste Hindus of Melvisharam Town
Panchayat (75% Muslim) are provided the minimum civic amenities to the
Hindu area. Hindus had been a choice by the Panchayat: Either convert to
Islam, or lose civic amenities. For 29 20 years the Hindus held out and suffered horrible civic conditions till they came to me, and I went to
court. Still the problem is not over. The DMK TN Government has gone in
appeal to the Supreme Court. I believe similar is the fate of Hindus in Mau
and Azamgarh, Meerut, and good parts of Assam. Darul Islam is a Muslim religious concept of a land where Muslims rule, and the non- believers in
Islam are termed as ?Dhimmis".

The term 'Dhimmi' was coined after the Jews were crushed in Medina[Khaybar
to be exact], and the defeated Jews accepted that if they did not convert
to Islam, then they would accept second class status politically,
culturally, and religiously. This included zero civil rights including the right to modesty of women, and the special tax jizya. There is thus no
scope for Muslims and non-Muslims uniting as equals in the political,
cultural, or social system in a Darul Islam where Muslims rule. Secular
order in India thus is possible only when Muslims are not in power. Thondi, Rasathipuram, and other places prove that the Muslim mind suffers from a dangerous duality --of seeking secularism when out of power and imposing a brutal demeaning theocracy for non-Muslims when in power. It is this
duality that patriotic Hindus must re-shape by modern education and other means, as also retain its demographic overwhelming majority in India. We do
not have much time, in fact about 45 years, as the X-graph of statistical regressions estimated by J.S. Bajaj and colleagues shows. ?X' represents
the two trends -- Hindu percentage declining and Muslim percentage rising,
and intersecting in the year 2061. The ?dhimmitude' of Jews in Medina and
later in Mecca represents the beginning of religious apartheid inherent and basic to Islamic mores, and practiced long before what we saw in South
Africa on the basis of colour and race, and that which became prevalent
during the Islamic imperialist rule in parts of India. Hindus were dhimmis
for six hundred years in those parts of India despite being a bigger
majority in the country than even today. Hence, a majority is not enough. Hindus need also a Hindu mindset to be free.

In his Presidential address to the Muslim League in Lahore in 1940,
Mohammed Ali Jinnah had articulated this concept of apartheid in his own inimitable way to suit his patrons, viz., the British colonialists: "To visualize Hindus and Muslims in India uniting to create a common nation is
a mythical concept. It is only a fancy dream of some unawakened Hindu leaders....The truth is that Hindus and Muslims are two different civilisations.... since their thought process grow on different beliefs."
Large sections of Muslims in India then had rejected Jinnah and his concept
of non- compatibility of Muslims with Hindus. But after Independence and Partition, instead of building on this rejection by many Muslims, the Nehru
era saw increasing pandering precisely to the religious element that
believed in this apartheid. Indira Gandhi vigorously continued this
appeasement thereby nurturing the apartheid mentality of Muslim orthodoxy.
But the final undermining of the enlightened Muslim came when the
government capitulated in the Shah Bano case. Thousands of Muslims had demonstrated on the streets demanding that the government not bring
legislation that would nullify the Supreme Court's judgment in the Shah
Bano case but in vain. Rajiv Gandhi, I learnt later, on counsel from his Italian Catholic family, had surrendered to the hard line clerics who
protested that the Supreme Court had no right to interfere and to defacto
amend the Shariat, the Islamic law code. These relatives on a directive
from the Vatican thought that if secular law would be applied to Muslims,
it can be to the Christians too. This was a nonsense argument of the Muslim clerics, since the Shariat had already been amended, without protest, in
the criminal law of India. The Indian Penal Code represents the uniform criminal code that equally applies to all religious communities. I
therefore ask the clerics: if a Muslim is caught stealing, can any court in India direct that his hand at the wrist be cut off as the Shariat
prescribes? If Muslims can accept a uniform criminal code what is the logic
in rejecting the uniform civil code?

In India, Dhimmi status for Hindus during Islamic imperialist rule has had other social implications. Defiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had refused
to convert and chose to remain Hindus, were forced to carry night soil and suffer great indignities for their women folk. Or it meant gross mental torture. Guru Tegh Bahadur, for example, had to see his disciples sawed in half, before the pious Guru's own head was severed and displayed in public.
The debasement of Hindu society then was such that those targeted valiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had refused to convert and thus made to carry
night soil, were disowned by other Hindus and declared to be asprashya or "untouchable". The ranks of the Scheduled Caste community which was not
more than 1% of the population before the advent of Islam in India, swelled
to 14 percent by the time Mughal rule collapsed. Thus, today's SC community especially those who are still Hindus, consists mostly of those valiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had refused to become Muslims but preferred ostracization and ignominy in order to remain Hindus. Hindu society today should offer koti koti pranams to them for keeping the Bhagwa Dhwaj of
Hindu religion flying even at great personal cost and misery. Here I
suggest therefore that we Hindus must understand the true nature of Islam before we can formulate a strategy to defeat those who threaten us.

In a later publication, I will write about the true nature of Christianity
and how to combat the menace of religious conversions of Hindus. At this juncture let me add even though I oppose conversion as it is indeed
violence, as Swami Dayanand Sarasvati boldly wrote to the Vatican Pope, nevertheless if an Indian Muslim or Christian changes his religion to
Hinduism today, I will not regard it as conversion because it is a return
to the Hindu fold of those whose ancestors had been forcibly converted.
Islam is not only and merely what is stated in the Koran. Islam is a
trilogy of Koran, Sira and Hadith. This trilogy defines a "true" Muslim or believer. Therefore those who sing praises of the Koran to prove that Islam
is intrinsically humane, have not read the Sira and Hadith. While Koran is
a compilation of revelations of Allah to Mohammed through angel Gabriel,
Sira is essentially a biography of Mohammed, while Hadiths are a collection
of proverbs, poems, and practices of Mohammed. Thus Islamic theology is
Koran plus what the Prophet said or did. This is borne by content analysis
of the trilogy. Koran has 153,000 words, while Sira has 408,000 words, and Hadith compiled by Bukhari has 338,000 words. Hence, Koran is just 17 % of Islam, while Sira and Hadith are 83% and about Prophet Mohammed. For 13
years in Mecca, Mohammed preached the Koran and managed to convert just 150 persons. But in Medina, Mohammed did and said what is contained in Sira and Hadith. Within 10 years he became the King of Arabia, and converted 100
percent of the people who survived the sword of Islam. To enforce his revelations, Mohammed resorted to Jihad, which meant sacred violence as a process of spreading Islam. Holy war is just one phase of Jihad, because
Jihad is a process. It is in Sira that one finds a detailed manual of the complete strategy of jihad and political dimension of Islam. Sira is about
how Mohammed dealt with those who disagreed with him. In Mecca, Mohammed
was conciliatory because he was in a hopeless minority. But he became completely different in Medina, While Koran is personal to every Muslim or believer, Sira and Hadith affect non- believers. Islamic theology is
obsessed with what to do with unbelievers and non-believers. Unlike
Hinduism, which says not a word against non-believers, in fact says that
other religions also lead to God, Islam is harsh on them, and justifies violence against them as sacred. The choice to non-believers in Islam is:

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)