German View on Terrorism

From: CRISPIN CATALAN <criscatalan@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 8:12 AM
Subject: Fw: German View on Terrorism

..
Subject: FW: German View on Terrorism
As I mentioned once, our daughter-in-law (who’s father survived Bergen-Belsen) has long maintained
that without the silent majority of Muslims speaking out history will repeat itself. She sent this to me as
she feels it expresses her fears/concerns better than she can.
Sharon
This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to
past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of
this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
A German’s View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large
industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can
guide our attitude toward fanaticism. ‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the
return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the
Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it,
they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I
ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’
We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that
the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true,
it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow
diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the
fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically
slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent
in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who
take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape
victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian
Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were
irrelevant. China ‘s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a
staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan
murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the
systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of
Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss
the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from
Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will
have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians,
Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak
up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that
counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is
contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send
this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it
on – before it’s too late.
Emanuel Tanay, M.D. 2980 Provincial St. Ann Arbor , MI 48104 734-997-0256

 

Some Events in Christian History

Some Events in Christian History

From ancient to modern times

 

Events that solely occurred on command of church authorities, or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)

 

Ancient Pagans

 

*As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples

were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.

 

*Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.

 

*Examples of destroyed Temples the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea,

the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the

Heliopolis.

 

*Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis

were famous as “temple destroyer.” [DA468] *Pagan services became

punishable by death in 356. [DA468]

 

*Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed,

because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]

 

According to Christian chroniclers he “followed meticulously all

Christian teachings… ”

 

*In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.

 

*In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on

demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]

 

*The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to

pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a

Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.

 

Mission

 

*Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to

convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]

 

*Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church

taxes between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain

5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]

 

*Battle of Belgrad 1456 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]

 

*15th century Poland 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by

Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]

 

*16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops “pacified and

civilized” Ireland, where only Gaelic “wild Irish”, “unreasonable

beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common

of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing.” One of

the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother

of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that “the heddes of all those (of what

sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte

off from their bodies… and should bee laied on the ground by eche

side of the waie”, which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused

“greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde

fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde”.

 

Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99,

225]

 

Crusades (1095-1291)

 

*First Crusade 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]

 

*Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96

thousands. [WW23] *9/9/96-9/26/ 96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish),

thousands respectively. [WW25-27]

 

*Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered

(number of slain unknown) [WW30]

 

*After 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and

60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed.

[WW32-35]

 

Here the Christians “did no other harm to the women found in [the

enemy’s] tents – save that they ran their lances through their

bellies,” according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres.

[EC60]

 

*Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the

subsequent famine “the already stinking corpses of the enemies were

eaten by the Christians” said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]

 

*Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish,

muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]

 

(In the words of one witness “there [in front of Solomon’s temple]

was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood

of our foes”, and after that “happily and crying for joy our people

marched to our Saviour’s tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of

gratitude”)

 

*The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote “It was impossible to

look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay

fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the

blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies

and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of

all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the

victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous

sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that

within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels

perished.” [TG79]

 

*Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that “even the following

summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of

decomposition” . One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]

 

*Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered “in the

name of Our Lord Jesus Christ”. [WW45]

 

*Fourth crusade 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims

unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]

 

*Rest of Crusades in less detail until the fall of Akkon 1291

probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas

alone). [WW224]

 

Note All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.

 

Heretics

 

*Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus

and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]

 

*Manichaean heresy a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice

birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics)

was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between

372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]

 

*Albigensians the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians.

[DO29]

 

The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely

sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept

roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]

 

Begin of violence on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single

pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209

destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including

Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends)

20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]

 

*Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed.

[WW181]

 

*subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half

the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were

exterminated. [WW183]

 

*After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search

and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the

stake 1324. [WW183] *Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy

alone), [WW183]

 

*Other heresies Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and

many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some

Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of

persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including

the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).

 

*Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220

burnings. [DO28]

 

*John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was

burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]

 

*University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna.

[DO59]

 

*Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for

seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori

(Rome) on 2/17/1600.

 

Witches

 

*from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several

thousand.

 

*in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars

several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or

hanged. [WV]

 

*incomplete list of documented cases

 

The Burning of Witches – A Chronicle of the Burning Times

 

Religious Wars

 

*15th century Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]

 

*1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all

English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into

action). [DO31]

 

*1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million

rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain.

[DO31]

 

*1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope

Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]

 

*17th century Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader.

After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, “cutting off

his head, his hands, and his genitals… and then dumped him into the

river […but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for

the fish, they hauled it out again [… and] dragged what was left …

to the gallows of Montfaulcon, ‘to be meat and carrion for maggots and

crows’.” [SH191]

 

*17th century Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany roughly

30,000 Protestants were slain. “In a single church fifty women were

found beheaded,” reported poet Friedrich Schiller, “and infants still

sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers.” [SH191]

 

*17th century 30 years’ war (Catholic vs. Protestant) at least 40% of

population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

 

Jews

 

*Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by

Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.

 

*In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed

on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The

first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river

Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388.

[DA450]

 

*17. Council of Toledo 694 Jews were enslaved, their property

confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]

 

*The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities’ Jews, who

would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]

 

*First Crusade Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000

total. Places Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons),

Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund,

Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations

Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]

 

*Second Crusade 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully,

Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]

 

*Third Crusade English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]

*Fulda/Germany 1235 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]

 

*1257, 1267 Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton,

Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]

 

*1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]

 

*1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51

towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]

 

*1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two

thousand) burned. [DO41]

 

*1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly

burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians

in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]

 

*1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]

 

*1391 Seville’s Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were

slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made

easy by the brightly colored “badges of shame” that all jews above the

age of ten had been forced to wear.

 

*1492 In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than

150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way

6/30/1492. [MM470-476]

 

*1648 Chmielnitzki massacres In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain.

[DO43]

 

(I feel sick …) this goes on and on, century after century, right

into the kilns of Auschwitz.

 

Native Peoples

 

*Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy

Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as

a means to propagate Christianity.

 

*Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered

in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people

who, he said, “ought to be good servants … [and] would easily be

made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no

religion.” [SH200]

 

While Columbus described the Indians as “idolators” and “slaves, as

many as [the Crown] shall order,” his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian

nobleman, referred to the natives as “beasts” because “they eat when

they are hungry,” and made love “openly whenever they feel like it.”

[SH204-205]

 

*On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, “making the

declarations that are required” – the requerimiento – to claim the

ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And “nobody objected.” If

the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding) ,

the requerimiento continued

 

“I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully

enter in your country and shall make war against you … and shall

subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church … and shall do

you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse

to receive their lord and resist and contradict him.” [SH66]

 

*Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of

Massachusetts Bay Colony “justifieinge the undertakeres of the

intended Plantation in New England … to carry the Gospell into those

parts of the world, … and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome

of the Ante-Christ. ” [SH235]

 

*In average two thirds of the native population were killed by

colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great

sign of “the marvelous goodness and providence of God” to the

Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay

Colony wrote in 1634, as “for the natives, they are near all dead of

the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we

possess.” [SH109,238]

 

*On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population

(Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of

abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000

dead. [SH204]

 

*The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and

spanish raids.

 

*As one of the culprits wrote “So many Indians died that they could

not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere.

The stench was very great and pestiferous. ” [SH69]

 

*The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and

burned alive. As “they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar

urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to

heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven

was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell.” [SH70]

 

*What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness

 

“The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties

… They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the

ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time

in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles… then, straw

was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive.”

[SH72]

 

Or, on another occasion

 

“The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and

from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and

mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain

like brute beasts…Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn

to pieces by dogs.” [SH83]

 

*The “island’s population of about eight million people at the time of

Columbus’s arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half

before the year 1496 was out.” Eventually all the island’s natives

were exterminated, so the Spaniards were “forced” to import slaves

from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus

“the Caribbean’s millions of native people [were] thereby effectively

liquidated in barely a quarter of a century”. [SH72-73] “In less than

the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of

millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had

been exterminated. ” [SH75]

 

*”And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of

Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The

exquisite city of Tenochtitlán [Mexico city] was next.” [SH75]

 

*Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors

likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of

Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida). *”When the 16th century ended,

some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time

probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead.” [SH95]

 

Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of

America.

 

*Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without

native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians.

Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in

comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults

rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers

“Their Warres are farre less bloudy…”, so that there usually was “no

great slawter of nether side”. Indeed, “they might fight seven yeares

and not kill seven men.” What is more, the Indians usually spared

women and children. [SH111]

 

*In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the

(generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave

Jamestown – “being idell … did runne away unto the Indyans,” – to

live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).

 

“Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed ‘Some he

apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles,

others to be staked and some shott to deathe’.” [SH105] Of course

these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen “This

was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those

who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people

of Virginia” methods were different “when an Indian was accused by an

Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English

response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire

community” down. [SH105]

 

*On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of

the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the

“Peqout War”. The killers were New England Puritan Christians,

refugees from persecution in their own home country England.

 

*When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by

Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite

the Indian chief’s pledge they attacked.

 

Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after,

because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of

the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and

burned their villages.

 

The puritan commander-in- charge John Mason after one massacre wrote

“And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon

their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very

Flames, where many of them perished … God was above them, who

laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making

them as a fiery Oven … Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen,

filling the Place with dead Bodies” men, women, children. [SH113-114]

*So “the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts,

and to give us their land for an inheritance” . [SH111].

 

*Because of his readers’ assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was

no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow

 

“Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly

destroy them…” (Deut 20)

 

*Mason’s comrade Underhill recalled how “great and doleful was the

bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers” yet reassured his

readers that “sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children

must perish with their parents”. [SH114]

 

*Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The

colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to

devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists’ own

words “blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them.”

(This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)

 

In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was

near. [SH107-119]

 

*The surviving handful of Indians “were parceled out to live in

servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking

for ‘a share’ of the captives, specifically ‘a young woman or girle

and a boy if you thinke good’.” [SH115]

 

*Other tribes were to follow the same path.

 

*Comment the Christian exterminators “God’s Will, which will at last

give us cause to say How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his

Beauty!”

 

“Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the

Dust!” [TA]

 

*Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. “Peace treaties were

signed with every intention to violate them when the Indians ‘grow

secure uppon (sic) the treatie’, advised the Council of State in

Virginia, ‘we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, &

cutt downe theire Corne’.” [SH106]

 

*In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless

Indian men, women and children. [SH107]

 

*In a single massacre in “King Philip’s War” of 1675 and 1676 some

“600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor

of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a

‘barbeque’.” [SH115]

 

*To summarize Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki

people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than

half a century later about 250 remained alive – a destruction rate of

98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years

later they were down to 920 – 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog

people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to

1500 – 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least

44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive – 81% destroyed.

[SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes

living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All

this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred.

And the carnage was not over then.

 

*All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it

was before the frontier age actually had begun.

 

*A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas)

were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds

by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed

directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.

 

*In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even

today.

 

More Notable Events in US history

 

*Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England’s most esteemed

religious leaders, in “1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts

Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to

purchase and train large packs of dogs ‘to hunt Indians as they do

bears’.” [SH241]

 

*Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington,

a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church (“I long to

be wading in gore”) had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women

and children, gunned down despite the chiefs’ waving with a white

flag 400-500 killed.

 

From an eye-witness account “There were some thirty or forty squaws

collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about

six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but

a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole

were afterwards killed …” [SH131]

 

*By the 1860s, “in Hawai’i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the

carnage that by then had reduced those islands’ native population by

90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected

total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this

missionary said, somewhat equivalent to ‘the amputation of diseased

members of the body’.” [SH244]

 

20th Century Church Atrocities

 

*Catholic extermination camps

 

Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II

were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years

1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by

Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practising

Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even

concentration camps exclusively for children!

 

In these camps – the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a

Franciscan friar – orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial

number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha

burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to

have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply

stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated

between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the

killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough

to induce bystanders of the Nazi “Sicherheitsdient der SS”, watching,

to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew

about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]

 

*Catholic terror in Vietnam

 

In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters – the Viet Minh – had finally

defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by

then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2

billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all

(most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge

anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South.

With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman,

the Vatican’s spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the

U.S. forces in Vietnam “Soldiers of Christ”, a scheme was concocted to

prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist

Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo

Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]

 

Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance

was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were

ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics

for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman

Catholicism.

 

The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American

counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read

 

“Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common

security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp.”

 

Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and

monks were imprisoned in “detention camps.” Out of protest dozens of

buddhist teachers – male and female – and monks poured gasoline over

themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned

themselves in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile

some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with

Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into

no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of

terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded – mostly in street

riots – 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or

tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention

camps. [MW76-89].

 

To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of

American GI’s lost their life.

 

*Christianity kills the cat

 

On July 1, 1976, Anneliese Michel, a 23-year-old student of a teachers

college in Germany, died she starved herself to death. For months she

had been haunted by demonic visions and apparitions, and for months

two Catholic priests – with explicit approval of the Catholic bishop

of Würzburg – additionally pestered and tormented the wretched girl

with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital –

her body was littered with wounds – her parents, both of them

fanatical Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having

called for medical help. None of the priests was punished on the

contrary, Miss Michel’s grave today is a place of pilgrimage and

worship for a number of similarly faithful Catholics (in the

seventeenth century Würzburg was notorious for it’s extensive witch

burnings).

 

This case is only the tip of an iceberg of such evil superstition and

has become known only because of its lethal outcome. [SP80]

 

*Rwanda Massacres

 

In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months

several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a

conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.

 

For quite some time I heard only rumours about Catholic clergy

actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of

involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even

anybody had openly accused members of the church.

 

Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany – a station not

at all critical to Christianity – the following was stated

 

“Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having

actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain

Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda’s capital

Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family

and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is

reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his

cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking

shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many

Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because

to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the

slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda

that has not seen refugees – women, children, old – being brutally

butchered facing the crucifix.

 

According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned

them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.

 

In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns

are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the

meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them

called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who

had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven

out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun

right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have

directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her

case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of

people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused

of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and

burn their victims alive…” [S2]

 

*As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never

come to an end.

 

http://notachristia n.org/christiana trocities. html

 

 

Hindu Fundamentalism: What Is It?

Hindu Fundamentalism: What Is It?
by David Frawley (Vamadeva Shastri),
Santa Fe, NM

 Fundamentalism is an easily discernable phenomenon in belief-oriented religions like Christianity and Islam which have a simple and exclusive pattern to their faith.  They generally insist that there is only One God, who has only one Son or final Prophet, and only one true scripture, which is literally God’s Word.  They hold that belief in this One God and his chief representative brings salvation in an eternal heaven and disbelief causes condemnation to an eternal hell.  Muslims daily chant ‘there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his (last) prophet.’  Most Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, regard belief in Christ as one’s personal savior as the only true way to salvation.

Fundamentalists are literalists in these traditions who hold rigidly to their beliefs and insist that since their religion alone is true that other religions should not be tolerated, particularly in the lands where members of their religion are in a majority.  Fundamentalists generally hold to their religion’s older social customs and refuse to integrate into the broader stream of modern society which recognizes freedom of religious belief.

Fundamentalism can usually be discriminated from orthodoxy in these traditions, but tends to overlap with it, particularly in the case of Islam.  Most orthodox Christians and many orthodox Muslims tolerate those of other religious beliefs, though they may not agree with them, and are not involved in the militancy and social backwardness of fundamentalist groups.  They usually have little trouble functioning in modern society, though they may keep to themselves in matters of religion and still regard that their’s is the only true religion.  The strictly orthodox in these religions, however, may not be very different than the fundamentalists and often support them.

While the news media of the Western World, and of India itself, speaks of Hindu fundamentalism, no one appears to have really defined what it is.  Is there a Hindu fundamentalism comparable to Islamic or Christian fundamentalism? Using such a term merely assumes that there is, but what is the evidence for it? Are there Hindu beliefs of the same order as the absolute beliefs of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam? It is questionable that, whatever problems might exist in Hinduism, whether fundamentalism like that found in Christianity or Islam, can exist at all in its more open and diverse tradition which has many names and forms for God, many great teachers and Divine incarnations, many sacred books, and a pursuit of Self-realization that does not recognize the existence of any eternal heaven or hell.  There is no monolithic faith called Hinduism with a set system of beliefs that all Hindus must follow which can be turned into such fundamentalism.

Fundamentalist groups insist that their’s is the only true God and that all other Gods or names for God are wrong.  Islamic fundamentalists insist that the only God is Allah, and will not accept Hindu names like Brahman or Ishvara, even though these also refer to a Supreme Being and Ultimate Spiritual Reality such as Allah is supposed to be.  Christian fundamentalists will not accept Allah or Brahman as names for God as they conceive Him to be.  Hindus with their many names and forms for God don’t mind accepting the Christian name God or even Islamic Allah as referring to the same reality, though they may not use these names in the same strict or exclusive sense as Christians or Muslims.  A belief in God is not even necessary to be a Hindu,?? as such non-theistic Hindu systems as Sankhya reveal.  For those who speak of Hindu fundamentalism, we must ask the question: What One God do Hindu fundamentalist groups insist upon is the only true God and which Gods are they claiming are false except for Him?  If Hindus are not insisting upon the sole reality of the One Hindu God, can they be called fundamentalists like the Christians and Muslims?

Islamic fundamentalists consider that Islam is the only true religion, that no true new faith can be established after Islam and that with the advent of Islam all previous faiths, even if they were valid up to that time, became outdated.  Christian fundamentalists hold that Christianity alone is true, and that Islam and Hinduism are religions of the devil.  Even orthodox people in these traditions may hold these views.
Hindus are not of one faith only.  They are divided into Shaivites (those who worship Shiva), Vaishnavas (those who worship Vishnu), Shaktas (those who worship the Goddess), Ganapatas (those who worship Ganesh), Smartas and a number of other groups which are constantly being revised relative to modern teachers around whom new movements may be founded (like the Swami Narayan movement, the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda groups, or the followers of Sri Aurobindo).  Those called Hindu fundamentalists are similarly divided up into these different sects.  What common belief can be found in all these groups which constitutes Hindu fundamentalism? What common Hindu fundamentalist platform do the different sects of Hinduism share?  Is it a Shaivite, Vaishnava, or other type fundamentalism?  How do such diverse groups maintain their harmony and identity under the Hindu fundamentalist banner?  While one can make a code of belief for Christian or Islamic fundamentalism, what code of belief applies to Hindu fundamentalism of all different sects?

No Hindus – including so-called Hindu fundamentalists – insist that there is only one true faith called Hinduism and that all other faiths are false.  Hinduism contains too much plurality to allow for that.  Its tendency is not to coalesce into a fanatic unity like the fundamentalists of other religions, but to disperse into various diverse sects and fail to arrive at any common action, historically even one of self-defense against foreign invaders.

Fundamentalist groups insist upon belief in the literal truth of one book as the Word of God, which they base their behavior on.  Muslim fundamentalists insist that the Koran is the Word of God and that all necessary knowledge is contained in it.  Christian fundamentalists say the same thing of the Bible.  Again even orthodox or ordinary Muslims and Christians often believe this.  Hindus have many holy books like the Vedas, Agamas, Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana and so on, which contain a great variety of teachings and many different points of view and no one of these books is required reading for all Hindus.  Hindus generally respect the holy books of other religions as well.  What single holy book do Hindu fundamentalists hold literally to be the word of God, which they base their behavior upon? Christian and Islamic fundamentalists flout their holy book and are ever quoting from it to justify their actions.  What Hindu Bible are the Hindu fundamentalists all carrying, quoting and preaching from and find justification in?

Fundamentalist groups are often involved in conversion activity to get other people to adopt their beliefs.  They frequently promote missionary efforts throughout the world to bring the entire world to their views.  This again is true of ordinary or orthodox Muslims and Christians.  Fundamentalists are merely more vehement in their practices.  What missionary activities are Hindu fundamentalists promoting throughout the world? What missions in other countries have Hindu fundamentalists set up to convert Christians, Muslims or those of other beliefs to the only true religion called Hinduism? What Hindus are motivated by a missionary spirit to discredit people of other religious beliefs in order to convert and save them?

Fundamentalist groups not only condemn those of other beliefs to an eternal hell, they may even make death threats against those who criticize their beliefs.  The fatwa of the Ayatollah Khomeni against Salmon Rushdie is one example of this, which many Muslim groups throughout the world, perhaps the majority, have accepted.  What Hindu has ever condemned non-Hindus to an eternal hell, or issued declarations asking for the death of anyone for merely criticizing Hindu beliefs? Where have Hindus ever stated that it is punishable by death to criticize Krishna, Rama or any other great Hindu leader? There are certainly plenty of books, including many by Christians and Muslims, which portray Hinduism in a negative light.  How many of such books are Hindu fundamentalists trying to ban, and how many of their authors are they threatening?

Fundamentalists are usually seeking to return to the social order and customs of some ideal religious era of a previous age.  Fundamentalists often insist upon returning to some traditional law code like the Islamic Sharia or Biblical law codes, which are often regressive by modern standards of justice and humanitarianism.  What law code are Hindu fundamentalists seeking to reestablish?  Which Hindu groups are agitating for the return of the law code of the Manu Samhita, for example (which incidentally has a far more liberal and spiritual law code than the Sharia or the Bible)?

Fundamentalists are usually opposed to modern science.  Many Christian and Islamic fundamentalists reject the theory of evolution and insist that the world was created by God some 6000 years ago.  Even in America Christian fundamentalists are trying to have this theory taught in the public schools and would like to have the evolution theory taken out.  What scientific theories are Hindu fundamentalists opposed to and trying to prevent being taught in schools today?

Fundamentalism creates various political parties limited to members of that religion only, which aim at setting up religious dictatorships.  What exclusively Hindu religious party exists in India or elsewhere in the world, and what is its common Hindu fundamentalist platform? Who is asking for a Hindu state that forbids the practice of other religions, allows only Hindu religious centers to be built and requires a Hindu religious figure as the head of the country.  This is what other fundamentalist groups are asking for in terms of their religions and what they have instituted in a number of countries that they have taken power, like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Fundamentalism is often involved with militancy and sometimes with terrorism.  What Hindu minorities in the world are violently agitating for their separate state? What planes have Hindu fundamentalists hijacked, what hostages have they taken, what bombs have they planted? What terrorist activities are Hindu fundamentalists promoting throughout the world? What countries are stalking down Hindu fundamentalist terrorists who are plotting against them? The Ayatollah Khomeni is regarded in the Western world as a typical example of an Islamic fundamentalist militant leader.  Many Western people consider him to be a terrorist as well.  What Hindu fundamentalist leader has a similar record?

Saudi Arabia is usually regarded as a pious or orthodox Islamic country, and is usually not called fundamentalist even by the news media of India.  No non-Islamic places of worship are allowed to be built there.  No non-Islamic worship is allowed in public.  American troops in the Gulf War had to hide their religious practices so as not to offend the Saudis.  Traditional Islamic law, including mutilation for various offenses, is strictly enforced by a special religious police force.  If we apply any standard definition of fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia is a super-fundamentalist country.  What Hindu community is insisting upon the same domination of one religious belief, law and social practices like that of Saudi Arabia?  Which Hindus are more fundamentalist in their beliefs and practices than the Saudis whom few are calling fundamentalists?

Hence we must ask: What are Hindus being accused as fundamentalists for doing?  Is it belief in the unique superiority of their religion, the sole claim of their scripture as the Word of God, their savior or prophet as ultimate for all humanity, that those who believe in their religion go to an eternal heaven and those who don’t go to an eternal hell, the need to convert the world to their beliefs – these views are found not only in Christian and Islamic fundamentalism but even among the orthodox.  There are no Hindu fundamentalist statements of such nature.  Can we imagine any Hindu swearing that there is no God but Rama and Tulsidas is his only prophet, that the Ramayana is the only true scripture, that those who believe differently will be condemned by Rama to eternal damnation and those who criticize Tulsidas should be killed?

Hindus are called fundamentalists for wanting to retake a few of their old holy places, like Ayodhya, of the many thousands destroyed during centuries of foreign domination.  Several Hindu groups are united around this cause.  This, however, is an issue oriented movement, not the manifestation of a monolithic fundamentalism.  It is a unification of diverse groups to achieve a common end, not the product of a uniform belief system.  Even the different groups involved have often been divided as to how to proceed and have not spoken with any single voice.  Whether one considers the action to be right or wrong, it is not the manifestation of fundamentalism.  It may be the awakening of a number of Hindus socially and politically, but it is not the assertion of any single or exclusive religious ideology.  If it is fundamentalism, what is the fundamentalist ideology, belief, and practice behind it?  Hindus, alone of all people, have failed to take back their holy sites after the end of the colonial era.  If they are fundamentalists for seeking to do so, then what should we call Pakistan or Bangladesh who have destroyed many Hindu holy sites and were not simply taking back Islamic sites that the Hindus had previously usurped?

Hindus are called fundamentalists for organizing themselves politically.  Yet members of all other religions have done this, while Hinduism is by all accounts the most disorganized of all religions.  There are many Christian and Islamic parties throughout the world, and in all countries where these religions are in a majority, they make sure to exert whatever political influence they can.  Why shouldn’t Hindus have a political voice even in India?  The Muslims in India have their own Muslim party and no one is calling them fundamentalists for organizing themselves politically.  There are many Islamic states throughout the world, and in these states Hindus, if they exist at all, are oppressed.  What Hindu groups are asking for India to be a more strictly Hindu state than Muslims are doing in Islamic states?

There are those who warn that Hindu rule would mean the creation of a Hindu theocratic state.  Yet what standard Hindu theology is there, and what Hindu theocratic state has ever existed?  Will it be a Shaivite, Vaishnava, or Vedantic theocracy?  What Hindu theocratic model will it be based upon?  Is there a model of Hindu kings like the Caliphs of early Islam to go back to, or like the Christian emperors of the Middle Ages?  What famous Hindu king was a fundamentalist who tried to eliminate all other beliefs from the land or tried to spread Hinduism throughout the world by the sword?  Does Rama or Krishna provide such a model?  Does Shivaji provide such a model?  If no such model exists, what is the fear of a militant Hindu theocratic rule based upon?

Traditional Hindus do exist.  There are Hindus who are caught in conservative or regressive social customs, like untouchability or mistreatment of women, which should not be underestimated.  There are serious problems in Hindu society that must be addressed, but these should be examined as per their nature and cause which is not some uniform Hindu fundamentalism but wrong practices that are often contrary to real Hindu thought.  To lump them together as problems of Hindu fundamentalism fails to examine them adequately but, rather, uses them as a scare tactic to discredit Hinduism as a whole.  There are some Hindus who may believe that their religion is superior and want to keep it separate from other religions.  In this regard they are no different than orthodox Christians and Muslims.

The fact is that there is no monolithic fundamentalism possible among Hindus who have no uniform belief structure.  A charge of social backwardness and discriminatory attitudes can be made against a number of Hindus but this is not the same as the blanket charge of fundamentalism, which misinterprets Hinduism as a religion of militancy which it nowhere is.  The charge of fundamentalism is usually made against various Hindu groups like the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) who do not support the caste system and other such backward customs anyway.

What is called Hindu fundamentalism is in fact generally a reaction to Islamic, Christian and Communist fundamentalisms, which are all organized according to an exclusive belief system and a strategy to take over the world.  These three fundamentalisms are attacking India from within, as well as threatening it from without.  Islamic terrorist activity continues in India, particularly in Kashmir.  India is now surrounded by self-proclaimed Islamic states where Hindus have become second class citizens.  Under this circumstance why should it be so wrong for Hindus in India to consider creating a state that defends them?  What other country is willing to defend the rights or traditions of Hindus?  Christian and Islamic missionary activity continues strongly in many parts of India.  Do these missionary groups portray Hinduism as a valid religion in its own right?  They are sometimes not even teaching respect for India as a nation as the separatist agitation they create once their members become a majority in a region reveals.

Hinduism is a super-tolerant religion.  No other religion in the world accepts such a diversity of beliefs and practices or is so ready to acknowledge the validity of other religions.  The idea of the unity of all religions was practically invented by modern Hindus like Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Gandhi.  As Hinduism is a super-tolerant religion, even a little intolerance among Hindus is regarded as Hindu fundamentalism.  And the charge of intolerance can be used to discredit Hindu groups, who are extremely sensitive to such a negative portrayal.

Throughout history Islam and Christianity, owing to the exclusive nature of their beliefs, have been generally intolerant religions (though there have been notable exceptions).  They have not accepted the validity of other religious practices, and contain in themselves little diversity as compared to Hinduism.  What Christian or Muslim leaders proclaim that all religions are one or that Hindus and Buddhists have as valid a religion as they do (and therefore do not need to be converted)?  As these religions are generally intolerant, their members have to be super-intolerant to be called fundamentalist.

Hindus often have a double standard in religion that works against them.  They try to tolerate, accept or even appreciate exclusivism, intolerance and fundamentalism when practiced by those of other religious beliefs.  For example, which Hindus are criticizing the far more obvious fundamentalism and exclusivism among Christians and Muslims? Meanwhile any criticism by Hindus of other religions, even when justified, may be regarded by other Hindus as intolerance.  In addition, many Hindus, particularly of the modern socialist-communist variety, brand even pride in Hinduism as fundamentalism.

Another related term that we meet with in the Indian press today is that of Hindu chauvinism, though terms such as Christian chauvinism or Islamic chauvinism do not occur in either the Indian or the Western press.  Chauvinists believe in the special superiority of their particular group.  This term is used mainly relative to white chauvinists, those who think that whites are genetically better than dark-skinned people, or in the case of male chauvinists or those who think that men are inherently better than women.  Hindus may praise their religion, and Hindus often use flowery and exaggerated language to praise things, but few if any Hindus are claiming that Hindus own the truth and that those of other backgrounds or beliefs cannot find it.  Christians and Muslims routinely believe that only members of their religion go to heaven and everyone else, particularly idol worshipping people like Hindus, go to hell.  Which Hindu chauvinists have similar ideas?  The Vatican recently told its monks and nuns not to experiment with Yoga and Eastern forms of religious practice which it branded as selfish, false and misleading.  Should we not therefore call the Pope a Christian chauvinist religious leader?  Yet Hindus who are more tolerant than this may be designated in such a manner.

Hindus are not only not chauvinistic, but they are generally suffering from a lack of self-esteem and an inferiority complex by which they are afraid to really express themselves or their religion.  They have been beaten down by centuries of foreign rule and ongoing attempts to convert them.  The British treated them as racially inferior and both Christians and Muslims treated them as religiously perverted.  (The fact) that some Hindus may express pride in their religion is a good sign, and it shows a Hindu awakening.  Unfortunately the groups who may be challenged by this awakening have labelled this pride chauvinistic.  Naturally some Hindu groups may express this pride in an excessive way, just as happened with the Black pride idea in America during the civil rights movement, but this is only an attempt to counter a lack of pride and self-respect.  It is hardly the assertion of any enduring cultural militancy and does not have the history like the fundamentalism of Christianity and Islam which goes back to the early eras of these faiths.

Such terms as ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘chauvinist’ are much less applicable to Hinduism than to other religions and generally are  great exaggerations.  They are a form of name calling, and do not represent any clearly thought out understanding.  It is also interesting to note that many of the people who brand Hindus in this light are often themselves members of more exclusivist ideologies which have an agenda to gain world-domination and to take over India.

This does not mean that Hindus should not be criticized.  Certainly they can be criticized for many things.  They have to really look at who they are and what they are doing, because in most cases they are not living up to their inner potential or their heritage.  On a social level many Hindus are trapped in backward social customs, but those who are not backward are usually caught in the corruption or materialism of modern society.  On an inner level, Hindus suffer from lack of creativity, initiative, and original thinking.  They want to imitate either their own older thinkers whose teachings may not be entirely relevant today, or, if modern, they imitate the trends of Western culture which are unspiritual.  As a group, Hindus mainly suffer from passivity, disunity, and a lack of organization, and they are very poor at communicating who they are to the world as a whole.  Relative to their own religion, their main problem is that they fail to study, practice or support it, or to defend it if Hindu teachings are misrepresented or if Hindus are oppressed.

These are not the problems of an aggressive or militant fundamentalism but the opposite, that of people who lack faith and dedication to themselves and their traditions.  Hindus are not in danger of being overly active and militant but of remaining so passive, resigned, and apologetic that they are unable to function as a coherent group or speak with a common voice about any issue.  They have been very slow even to defend themselves against unwarranted attack, much less to assert themselves or attack others.  There is no danger of a monolithic or dictatorial fundamentalism in India like in Iran or Saudi Arabia.  The danger is of a divided and passive religion that leaves itself prey to external forces and thereby gradually disintegrates.  A little more activity among Hindus, almost whatever it might be, would be a good sign as it shows that they are not entirely asleep!  To brand such activity, which is bound to be agitated at first, as fundamentalist because it causes this sleep to be questioned is a mistake.

In this regard Sri Aurobindo’s insight may be helpful (INDIA’S REBIRTH, pg.  177).  He said, ‘The Christians brought darkness rather than light.  That has always been the case with aggressive religions – they tend to overrun the Earth.  Hinduism on the other hand is passive, and therein lies its danger.’

It is time Hindus stopped accepting wrong designations and negative stereotypes of their wonderful religion.  Certainly aspects of Hinduism need to be reformed, and Hindus are not all required to agree with each other or accept any set religious dogma, but there is very little in this beautiful religion that warrants such debasing terms as fundamentalism and chauvinism.  If we look at the aspects which are commonly ascribed to religious fundamentalism, we find little of them even among so-called Hindu fundamentalists.

Hindus who accuse other Hindus of being fundamentalists should really question what they are saying.  What is the fundamentalism they see, or is it merely a reaction to the oppression that Hindus have passively suffered for so long?  Are the people making the charge of fundamentalism themselves following any religious or spiritual path, or is it a political statement of non-religious people against religion?  If Hindus are becoming intolerant and narrow-minded, they should be criticized for being poor Hindus, (they should) not (be criticized) for being fundamentalist Hindus; as true Hinduism has a universal spirit.

As long as Hinduism is devalued and misrepresented, we must expect some Hindus to take a stand against this in one way or another.  Other Hindus should not simply criticize them if the stand they take may be one-sided.  Hindus must try to defend Hinduism in a real way, not simply condemn those who may not be defending it in a way that they think is not correct.  This requires projecting a positive Hindu spirit, the yogic spirit, that can attract all Hindus and turn their support of the tradition in a spiritual direction.  It requires not condemning other Hindus who are struggling to uphold the tradition as they understand it to be, but arousing them to the true spirit of the religion.

To routinely raise such negative stereotypes as fundamentalist or even fascist relative to Hindu groups, who may only be trying to bring some sense of unity or common cause among Hindus, is a gross abuse of language.  What Hindus need is to wake up and unite, to recognize their common spiritual heritage and work together to manifest it in the world today, just as modern teachers like Vivekananda and Aurobindo encouraged.  Such teachers did not speak of Hindu fundamentalism.  They recognized Hindu backwardness but sought to remedy it by going to the core of Hindu spirituality, the spirit of unity in recognition of the Divine in all, not by trying to cast a shadow on Hinduism as a whole.

The Democratic Process In Governing the Vedic Associations

The Democratic Process

In Governing the Vedic Associations
by Suresh Vyas

Here I am talking about the Vedic associations that are generally but incorrectly known as Hindu associations of the commonVedic people.

 

The democratic process of votes does not consider how spiritually advanced the voters are, or how much the voters understand and practice dharma. Our Dharma is given in the scriptures like Bhagavad gita, Srimad Bhagvatam, etc. The original authority of dharma is the Vedas, and its summary Gita. In religious matters we consider, or ought to consider, the Vedic gurus, those sadhus Hindus that seriously practice dharma, and shastras as our guide. These three (guru, sadhu, shastra) provide a system of checks and balances when a difficult decision has to be made in accordance with dharma. Now, if the voters do not care any of these three and just vote based upon their own personal choices, then their vote will not be the best from dharma point of view.

 

A majority could not be the wisest or most seriously dharma practicing group. The nature is such that very wise and knowledgeable people are few, and very unintelligent and ignorant people are also very few. The rest of the people who are the majority fall in between. So, a society progresses well when it listens and follows to those few that know better than the common people.

 

Most of the Vedic associations’ mission includes retaining the freedom

 

  1. to know the Vedic dharma and culture as it really is from real Vedic gurus, sadhus and shastras without concocting one’s own opinion.
  2. to practice the Vedic dharma and culture correctly
  3. to pass on the Vedic dharma and culture to the new generation in particular, and to the interested people of the world in general.
  4. to own and manage a functioning temple facility as the center for dharmic and cultural activities and spiritual education for the society.

 

So, considering the mission, it is obvious that the when the governing body has people who are serious about practicing dharma, and who are proud of their Vedic dharma and culture, then the association progresses faster spiritually. If those who are not serious about dharma and culture become the leaders using the flaw of the democratic process, then the association will not be able to conduct its mission effectively. When that happens, then those few who are serious about dharma and culture will need to seek grass root support to get the right people in the governing body.

 

The other strategy is that the goal or vision or ideal should be the highest/ purest, but the implementation is done with a series of small attainable tasks and actions. In Vedic culture any person has equal opportunity to progress spiritually no matter what high or low level one is. So, no Vedic association should shy away from setting very high noble dharmic standards for practicing dharma as given in shastras, gurus and sadhus.

 

svRSy cahm! ùid siÚivòae mÄ> Sm&itrœ }anm! Apaehnm! c,

vedEs! c svERrœ Ahm! @v ve*ae veda<t-k«dœ ved-ivdœ @v cahm!. -Gita 15.15

 

sarvasya chaaham hR^idi sannivishhTo . mattaH smR^itir GYaanam apohanam cha ..
vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo . vedaa.nta-kR^id veda-vid eva chaaham .. Gita 15.15

 

TRANSLATION:  I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas I am to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. –Gita 15.15

 

Bottom line:

Always make sure the democratic process does not retard or neglect the spiritual progress of the Vedic society. Know who cares for dharma, who understands it well, and who is willing to help. Then put him or her in the governing body. The support him or her when needed.

 

Jai Sri Krishna.

Screening a Speaker

Screening a Speaker
by Suresh Vyas

 

The Vedic associations could use below form to screen a speaker for their congregation. The form could be tailored, re-worded, or improved to make it better.

 

From:   The Governing Body of any Vedic Association

 

To:       A Preacher or speaker who requests an audience

 

Dear Speaker,

 

When a speaker asks us the leaders of a Vedic association to allow him/her to speak to our Vedic congregation, we feel between a rock and a hard place. On one hand we do not want to say no a Vedic speaker who may be an advanced gyani, yogi, bhakta, tyaagi, swami or sanyaasi, but we may not know the background of the speaker. On the other hand we do not know if what a speaker will say could offend our congregation. We do not want our congregation offended by a speaker. Additionally, the standard a Vedic association uses to select or de-select a speaker determines the quality of the Vedic association. So to maintain some quality in selection, we humbly request you the following if we allow you to speak to our congregation.

 

  1. A speaker, especially a Vedic preacher, should have a guru in a bona fide sampradayic paramparaa beginning from, say, Sri Shankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Nimbarkacharya, Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Chaitnya Mahaprabhu, or Sri Vallabhacharya. So, please let us know:

Your Guru’s Name ___________________________________________

Your Sampradaaya’s Name ____________________________________

 

  1. We request you to please do not say ‘all the religions are same,’ because there is no scriptural, historical, or archeological evidence to support it. The Gita and the Koran, for example, have opposite messages. When the Vedas said that all paths lead to the same god, the words ‘all paths’ meant (and means) all the Vedic paths, because at that time thousands of years ago there was no religion existing other than the Vedic dharma (meaning sanaatana dharma or varnaasrama dharma.)

 

  1. We request you to please do not speak low of any Vedic scripture, god, goddess, aachaarya, or saint. Specifically, please do not use the word demigod or demigoddess, for any Vedic god or goddess. Use the word Deva or Devi instead, as is used in Gita.

 

  1. We request you say or speak what is in the Vedic scriptures like Gita, Upanishads, Ramayan, Mahabharat, Srimad Bhagavatam, etc., and do not speak something concocted in mind and pass it on as a Vedic message. asto maa sat gamaya (O God lead us from untruth to the truth.) is the guiding Vedic mantra of many associations.

 

  1. We request you to please do not disrespect any genuine Vedic guru, sadhu or shastra.

 

  1. As the global Vedic community needs to unite to protect the global Vedic interests in the current times, we request you to say something to unite us, and not say that could cause disunity. Your speech to make the Vedic people proud of the Vedic dharma and culture is most welcome.

 

  1. As it is very clear from Bhagavad Gita that ahimsa is not an absolute principle in Vedic dharma, we request you to please do not preach that it is an absolute principle. For that reason it does not serve the Vedic interests to glorify those leaders who have preached (or are preaching) that ahimsa is an absolute principle.

 

  1. We request you to please do not say that there is no need for gurus or temples. For a serious saadhak Gita and the Vedas do recommend to have a good guru. tad viddhi praNipaatena pari prashnena sevayaa, says krishna in Gita. Our Vedic country Bharat has thousands of ancient temples. Those ancestors who built them and used them were not foolish in making and using the temples for the spiritual advancement of the whole Vedic society.

 

  1. We request please provide your brief introduction here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. We request your signature here to indicate your concurrence.

 

Name (Print) __________________________________________________________

 

Signature ____________________________________________________________

 

Date ___________________, Place _______________________________________

 

Thanks. Namaskaar!

Jai Sri Krishna!

The Boundaries, Rights, Nationalism, and Dharma

The Boundaries, Rights, Nationalism, and Dharma

By ‘Maadhav’

 I have heard an advanced Hare Krishna (HK) saying that HKs are spiritual communists, not material communists like former USSR or China.  Thus some religious groups do not want national boundaries.  Some so-called world powers also do not want boundaries, meaning that they want the whole world as their nation.

So, the question is, is it possible to have a boundary-less world or society? Or, Is it really desirable?  Below is an analytical approach to answer the questions.

1.  The creation includes material planets and spiritual planets. The material planets have their boundaries.  Each planet is different in many ways: location, size, orbit, environment, etc.  The Vedic literature tells that there are many spiritual planets. These planets also are different. The devas worshipped there are different for different planets.  The way of worship and the activities of the populations there are different. So, all planets  spiritual or material have boundaries.

2.  Now let us look at one of many planets: The Earth.  Within this planet, the nature has made natural boundaries with the mountains, and the rivers.  When there was no mechanical means of travel, then the societies used to live within these natural boundaries.  And we humans lived almost 99.99999.. % of the life of the human races age like that.  This living within the natural boundaries caused growth of different cultures.  The Vedic culture grew in Bharat.  It is very old.  Islam and Xianity grew in the deserts.

3.  Each culture has its own behavior boundaries.  For example:  Islam cannot stand the existence of a non-Muslim any where.  Islam does not want woman to be seen out of burkha, and Xianity does not mind if women roam almost naked.  Islam forbids wine, and Xians cannot live without it.  Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) cannot allow cow killing, and the Xian world has produced millions of cow slaughter houses.  Xianity says we all are sinners, and Hinduism says we are not.  Xianity says God is jealous, and Hinduism says God cannot be jealous.  Enjoying sex, particularly in the heaven of Islam where they think there are 72 virgins is the most desired happiness for the Muslims. In contrast, Hinduism says, sex pleasure is the least desired for happiness. It says that one after sex cannot go to god or be free from the cycle of births and deaths.

So, because of these cultural boundaries, when the cultures touch earth other or mix due to modern high-speed travel means, and then conflicts arise.  An Author, Samual Huntington, has written a book – The Clash of the Cultures – about this.

4.  In the conflicts of cultures, Xianity has wiped out several cultures of the world. Even now they still kill other cultures, e.g. in the NE part of India .  Islam sent invaders to India for 1000 years, and they all slaughtered millions of the Hindus and destroyed thousands of their Vedic temples.  The Hindus did nothing like it.

5.  Now let us look at the most intimate boundary – the body.  Per Hinduism, we the humans (and every living being) are actually the souls within a body.  We are not the body. The proof is that we say, “This is my body”.  No one ever says, “I am this body.”  So, our material body is our material limit around us, the souls within.  Every soul tries to keep its body well functioning, so that the soul can enjoy (jiva) life using the senses of the body.

6.  What is the best use of this human body?  The different cultures have different answers for this.  But on the following things, all agree.

a. One should not harm or miss-use the body.

b. One should keep the body strong and healthy.

c. One should not harm a friend or relative’s body.

d. One should not commit suicide, nor should kill others, generally.

e. One should not take away the freedom of another to move around feely, generally.

Thus, we have this body boundary, and it cannot be given up. No sane person says, give up this body boundary.  When strong conflicts arise due to clashes of the cultures or interests, then one wants to get the soul of the enemy out of its body boundary.  As a general rule, all respect the body boundary of the self and others.

7.  Every one wants to do minimum or no labor to keep the body in comfort.  The body needs protection from the natural environmental elements and from other living beings.  This caused the development of clothes and houses.  Every culture developed their own styles of the clothing and houses.  Now, a house has a boundary.  All want to keep their house in good condition and beautiful.  So, in general, all respects the house boundaries.  No one wants to remove these house boundaries and live under the sky.  This however is possible in some countries like India .  Therefore, some Vedic religious sects really do say so.  It is not possible, however, to live under the sky in extreme weather countries.

8.  Now, when you have a house, you do not want your enemy to live next to you or near you.  So, the people of same culture live in same neighborhood.  Each person loves his culture, good or bad in the opinion of other.  Mexico has a culture of cockfights and dogfights, and gambling, and bullfights.  This is unspiritual, and no Hindu likes it.  Even some Xians do not like it, but some Mexicans push to preserve this culture.  “It is our cultural heritage,” they say.  A culture is transferred to new generations by living together at a location in a society.  The first basic unit of a society is a family, and family lives in a house.

9.  When people of a culture live in a neighborhood, then that neighborhood has a boundary.  Now, this neighborhood does not want an enemy culture live next to its own neighborhood.  This caused the development villages and cities of same cultures.

A number of villages and cities of a common culture trade with each other.  This caused the rise of nations.  Now, a nation does not want an enemy country at its border.  But the people of the other cultures cannot go in space. They need to live where they are.

As the nations grow in size, their boundaries touch other nations’ boundaries.  This fact that the earth has limited land to live and a limited resource at certain locations only, is the cause of the conflicts when every one wants more or better land and more resources.

10. We came from a body boundary to nations’ boundaries.  As long as there is body boundary, there will be nations’ boundaries.  It is said that all boundaries are political.  There is an ancient Vedic saying that money (gold, silver, diamonds, etc.), land, and women are the causes of conflicts.

a. As a general rule, one (a person, group, or nation) should not take away another’s wife, but some will not honor this rule.  Then conflict is inevitable.  This is social boundary – one’s wife, not everyone’s wife.

b.  As a general rule, a land-owner (person, group, or nation) should not expand his land boundary illegally, but some would do.  Then conflict is inevitable.  Every land that is owned by some one has a boundary.

c.  As a general rule, one (person, group, or nation) should not take away another’s money or wealth, but some would do.  Then conflict is inevitable. The wealth has a legal boundary, whose wealth and how much.  The total wealth of the world remains the same.  The owners change over time.  As a general rule, every one has right to increase one’s wealth, and one does not want to illegally take over another’s wealth.  Some violate this rule, and conflict is inevitable.

11. By now, it should be obvious that conflicts, violent or non violent, cannot be avoided as long as we have bodies.  So, if conflicts cannot be avoided, then we should know when to fight and when to not fight, and we should fight to win.  Sometimes it is dharma to fight and die, than live without fighting the demoniac asura emery.

12.  Even if a nation has all the people of same culture, there will be conflicts within due to crimes related to illegal possessions or use of wife, wealth, resources, or land.

13.  Every culture or nation has somewhat different rules for when to fight and when not to fight.  All cultures or nations never stick to their own rules all the times.

14.  Every person, or a group, or a nation, small or big, strong or weak, has the right to fight against the demoniac asuric persons or nations or ideologies.

15.  When the existence of nations is inevitable and cannot be eliminated, the existence of nationalisms is also inevitable and cannot be eliminated.  There are some rules a family lives by.  Same for any nation.  If one loves, one’s self, family, culture, and the mother land, then one loves one’s nation, and this love reflects in one’s nationalism.  So, every one who loves his nation is a nationalist, and most people love their nation.  Thus there are American nationalists, British nationalists, Arab nationalists, Hindu nationalists, Israel nationalists, etc.

16.  If you love sanatana dharma (Hinduism), what is wrong in loving a nation that is the cradle of Hinduism?  Nothing.  What is wrong in wishing and making efforts to keep that nation for the Hindus and for the friends of the Hindus?  Nothing.  If that nation is taken over by Islam or Xianity or any anti Hindus, then Hindus will not have a place to live like Hindus.  The Jews roamed as home-country-less for at least 2-3 thousand years till recently when they re-claimed their country – Israel – back.  So, my request to the Hindus and all the Vedic people is this:

a. Understand the value of sanatana dharma for the people of the world of this and future times.

b. Know dharma well and live by it.

c. Stop any malpractice of dharma.

e. Keep out of Bharat the ideologies that have invaded in Bharat, and are anti-Vedic.

f. Preach Hinduism to interested people.

g. Declare Islam illegal in India .  It is not compatible with Hinduism.  There is no wisdom in allowing an enemy to live in your own home.

i. Convince the Muslims of India to given up Islam if they want to live in India .

j. The followers of the invaded ideology should not be given any benefit of the invasions.

k. The invaded ideology has no right to hinder or disrespect our dharma practice in our own homeland.

If sanatana dharma is good for all, as we know it, then there is nothing wrong to secure its birthplace – Bharat – as a safe place on this earth where no one can act as an enemy to Hindus or Hinduism.  Thus there is nothing wrong in the purpose of the Hindu nationalism. Hinduism is a universal dharma.

So, is it possible to have a boundary-less world or society?

No.

Is a boundary-less world really desirable?

No.  Not possible.

Even if the world comes under one government, it will have many state-nations with different cultures and religions. The wars will happen, and they will be called civil wars.  So, any ideology or persons that advocated non-violence as the absolute principle is not wise.  Krishna in Gita says when to fight.

How Immigration and Multiculturalism Destroyed Detroit

How Immigration and Multiculturalism Destroyed Detroit

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty506.htm

 

By Frosty Wooldridge

October 5, 2009

NewsWithViews.com

For 15 years, from the mid 1970s to 1990, I worked in Detroit, Michigan. I watched it descend into the abyss of crime, debauchery, gun play, drugs, school truancy, car-jacking, gangs and human depravity. I watched entire city blocks burned out. I watched graffiti explode on buildings, cars, trucks, buses and school yards. Trash everywhere! Detroiters walked through it, tossed more into it and ignored it.

Tens of thousands and then, hundreds of thousands today exist on federal welfare, free housing and food stamps! With Aid to Dependent Children, minority women birthed eight to 10 and in once case, one woman birthed 24 kids as reported by the Detroit Free Press—all on American taxpayer dollarss. A new child meant a new car payment, new TV and whatever mom wanted. I saw Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “Great Society” flourish in Detroit. If you give money for doing nothing, you will get more hands out taking money for doing nothing.

Mayor Coleman Young, perhaps the most corrupt mayor in America, outside of Richard Daley in Chicago, rode Detroit down to its knees. He set the benchmark for cronyism, incompetence and arrogance. As a black man, he said, “I am the MFIC.” The IC meant ‘in charge’. You can figure out the rest. Detroit became a majority black city with 67 percent African-Americans.

As a United Van Lines truck driver for my summer job from teaching math and science, I loaded hundreds of American families into my van for a new life in another city or state. Detroit plummeted from 1.8 million citizens to 912,000 today. At the same time, legal and illegal immigrants converged on the city, so much so, that Muslims number over 300,000. Mexicans number 400,000 throughout Michigan, but most work in Detroit.

As the Muslims moved in, the whites moved out. As the crimes became more violent, the whites fled. Finally, unlawful Mexicans moved in at a torrid pace. You could cut the racial tension in the air with a knife! Detroit may be one our best examples of multiculturalism: pure dislike and total separation from America.

Today, you hear Muslim calls to worship over the city like a new American Baghdad with hundreds of Islamic mosques in Michigan, paid for by Saudi Arabia oil money. High school flunk out rates reached 76 percent last June according to NBC’s Brian Williams. Classrooms resemble more foreign countries than America. English? Few speak it! The city features a 50 percent illiteracy rate and growing. Unemployment hit 28.9 percent in 2009 as the auto industry vacated the city.

In this week’s Time Magazine October 4, 2009, “The Tragedy of Detroit: How a great city fell and how it can rise again,” I choked on the writer’s description of what happened.

“If Detroit had been savaged by a hurricane and submerged by a ravenous flood, we’d know a lot more about it,” said Daniel Okrent. “If drought and carelessness had spread brush fires across the city, we’d see it on the evening news every night. Earthquake, tornadoes, you name it — if natural disaster had devastated the city that was once the living proof of American prosperity, the rest of the country might take notice. Top of Form

Bottom of Form

But Detroit, once our fourth largest city, now 11th and slipping rapidly, has had no such luck. Its disaster has long been a slow unwinding that seemed to remove it from the rest of the country. Even the death rattle that in the past year emanated from its signature industry brought more attention to the auto executives than to the people of the city, who had for so long been victimized by their dreadful decision-making.”

As Coleman Young’s corruption brought the city to its knees, no amount of federal dollars could save the incredible payoffs, kick backs and illegality permeating his administration. I witnessed the city’s death from the seat of my 18-wheeler tractor trailer because I moved people out of every sector of decaying Detroit.

“By any quantifiable standard, the city is on life support. Detroit’s treasury is $300 million short of the funds needed to provide the barest municipal services,” Okrent said. “The school system, which six years ago was compelled by the teachers’ union to reject a philanthropist’s offer of $200 million to build 15 small, independent charter high schools, is in receivership. The murder rate is soaring, and 7 out of 10 remain unsolved. Three years after Katrina devastated New Orleans, unemployment in that city hit a peak of 11%. In Detroit, the unemployment rate is 28.9%. That’s worth spelling out: twenty-eight point nine percent.”

At the end of Okrent’s report, and he will write a dozen more about Detroit, he said, “That’s because the story of Detroit is not simply one of a great city’s collapse. It’s also about the erosion of the industries that helped build the country we know today. The ultimate fate of Detroit will reveal much about the character of America in the 21st century. If what was once the most prosperous manufacturing city in the nation has been brought to its knees, what does that say about our recent past? And if it can’t find a way to get up, what does that say about our future?”

As you read in my book review of Chris Steiner’s book, $20 Per Gallon, the auto industry won’t come back. Immigration will keep pouring more and more uneducated third world immigrants from the Middle East into Detroit—thus creating a beachhead for Islamic hegemony in America. If 50 percent illiteracy continues, we will see more homegrown terrorists spawned out of the Muslim ghettos of Detroit. Illiteracy plus Islam equals walking human bombs. You have already seen it in the Madrid, Spain, London, England and Paris, France with train bombings, subway bombings and riots. As their numbers grow, so will their power to enact their barbaric Sharia Law that negates republican forms of government, first amendment rights and subjugates women to the lowest rungs on the human ladder. We will see more honor killings by upset husbands, fathers and brothers that demand subjugation by their daughters, sisters and wives. Muslims prefer beheadings of women to scare the hell out of any other members of their sect from straying.

Multiculturalism: what a perfect method to kill our language, culture, country and way of life.

Jinnah and Secularism: Crime of Jinnah

Jinnah and Secularism: Crime of Jinnah
By: Dr.Dipak Basu
Aug-24-2009

 

In India, we tend to forget the crimes committed against humanity by either the British or the Muslim rulers before them or the Muslim League and its child Pakistan. History books of India hardly mention that in 1943 at least 5 million people in Bengal were forced to starve to death by the British. There are no accounts of how many millions were slaughtered by the Muslim League guided by Jinnah during 1946 to 1948 and subsequently in Pakistan. India has pressed no charges against Yhahiya Khan and Tikka Khan, who have killed at least 3 million people, almost all Hindus, in East Pakistan in 1970.

 

Some politicians like LK Advani and Jaswant Singh are determined to prove Jinnah”s claim to so-called secularism. They ignored the crimes committed by Jinnah but only cited the speech he made on August 11, 1947 in the Constituent Assembly in front of Lord Mountbatten for the British elite, gathered there. In that speech, Jinnah said that in a future Pakistan, everyone would be treated equally irrespective of their religion and non-Muslims would be free to practice their respective religions in Pakistan. Does that speech make Jinnah a “secularist”? Hitler himself has killed a Jew or Russian. Does that Hitler was a peace-loving German nationalist? It is sadder that both Advani and Jaswant Singh pretend to be leaders of a patriotic nationalist party called BJP but they are following Pakistani historian Ayesha Jalal and a very anti-Indian American historian Stanley Wolpert, who have glorified Jinnah in their recent books.

 

Definition of Secularism

 

Secularism is defined in Webster”s Dictionary as: “A system of doctrines and practices that rejects any form of religious faith and worship” or ” the belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the State, especially into public education.” The Oxford English Dictionary states that secularism is the doctrine in which morality should be based solely with regard to the well being of mankind in the present life to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future State.

 

George Holyoake and Charles Bradlaugh were two leading secularists and atheists of England in the 19th century, from whom we have obtained the word “secularism”. According to Holyoake, secularism maintains the sufficiency of secular reason for guidance in human duties. Secularism also includes the utilitarian rule that makes the good of others the law of duty.

 

Equal treatment of people of different religions or equal respect for all religions is not secularism, as it implies the affairs of the State must not be influenced by any religious or moral considerations at all. The State must adhere to the strict code of “rationality”, which means maximization of its utility, irrespective of moral or religious codes.

 

Jinnah, had devoted his life to create a nation only for the Muslims out of the Indian subcontinent, Islam was the guiding force, and the ideology of that newly created nation Pakistan. Thus, he cannot be called secular at all.

 

Muslims and Secularism

 

Secularism finds no support in Islam. According to Islam, what Mohammed spoke is law that controls everything in the universe. This is a system of life that has been responsible for the creation of everything existing in it and their continuity.

 

“God can guide you to the Truth. Who is more worthy to be followed: He that can guide to the Truth, or He that cannot and is Himself in need of guidance? What has come over you that you so judge?” (The Koran, 10:35) “He that fights for God”s cause fights for himself. God needs no man”s help” (The Koran, 29:6).

 

Rule of Allah (Shariah) is compulsory and stipulates basic laws and regulations that cannot be changed. Some of these laws are concerned with the acts of worship, the relations between men and women, etc. What is the position of secularism with regard to these laws? Secularism makes adultery lawful if both the male and the female are consenting partners. Riba or interest on borrowed money is the basis of all financial transactions in secular economies, while the Koran forbids it. As for alcohol, all secular systems permit consumption of alcohol and make sale of it a lawful business.

 

Secularism is based on keeping religion separate from all affairs of the life and hence, it rules by law and regulations other than Allah”s laws. Thus, secularism rejects Allah”s rules without exception and prefers regulations other than Allah”s and his Messengers. For Muslim societies, acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shariah, denial of divine guidance and rejection of Allah”s injunctions.

 

If someone says Jinnah was a secular, it makes Jinnah anti-Islamic, a non-Muslim and against the ideology of Pakistan. To judge Jinnah, it is essential to examine his activities and motives, which would prove beyond doubt that Jinnah was devoted to the cause of a Muslim nation, not a secular State.

 

Activities of Jinnah

 

Let us look at his early life. Since 1897, Jinnah had been active in Anjuman-i-Islam, the Muslim Bombay”s foremost religious-political body. In 1906, Jinnah opposed the demand for separate electorates, but before long his opposition thawed when he realized that the demand had ” the mandate of the community” of Muslims in India. In 1910, he was elected to the Imperial Council on a reserved Muslim seat.

From then on, he came in close contact with Nadwah, Aligarh and the All India Muslim League (AIML). He was chosen by the AIML to sponsor a Bill on Waqf-alal-Aulad, a problem of deep concern to Muslims since the time of Syed Ahmad Khan.

He joined the AIML formally in October 1913 (although he gave up his membership of the Congress in 1920, opposing Gandhi”s policy to confront the British) and became its president in 1916. One outcome of his efforts was the Congress-Muslim League Lucknow Pact of 1916, which settled the controversial issue of separate electorate for the Muslims, paving the way for the birth of Pakistan in future. Thus, Sorojini Naidu was very wrong to say in 1916 that Jinnah was the symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity, because the Lucknow pact, which was rejected by the Muslim League, very soon afterwards has nothing to do with the communal harmony but to do with communal division.

 

Jinnah was the most westernized political leader in the annals of Indian Islam; no other Muslim political leader could match him in terms of modernity and modern outlook. He was completely at home with the Anglo-Indian society in cosmopolitan Bombay and metropolitan London. During his chequered career, Jinnah encountered an exceedingly large number of leading non-Muslim personalities and a host of British officials more than any other Muslim leader and had the opportunity to interact with them for some four decades. However, during that time, Jinnah married a Zoroastrian girl only after getting her converted to Islam. A great “secularist” Jinnah indeed.

 

For Jinnah, while national freedom for both Hindus and Muslims continued to be the supreme goal, the means adopted to achieve it underwent a dramatic change. His ultimate objective was to ensure political power for Muslims. After 1937, Jinnah developed close friendship with Mohammed Iqbal, the spiritual founder of the concept of Pakistan. Jinnah called Muslims “a nation”, stressing their distinct religion, culture, language, and civilization and calling on them to “live or die as a nation”. He even described the League flag as “the flag of Islam”, arguing, “You cannot separate the Muslim League from Islam”.

 

In an address to the Gaya Muslim League Conference in January 1938, Jinnah began mapping out his new worldview. He said, “When we say “this flag of Islam “, they think we are introducing religion into politics, a fact of which we are proud, Islam gives us a complete code. It is not only religion but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. In fact, it contains everything that matters to man from morning to night.”

 

In his address at the Patna session of the Muslim League (December 26-29, 1938) he declared: “The behaviour of Congress ministers in the six or seven provinces in which they had gained power under the 1935 Act was that they had compelled Muslim children to accept Vande Mataram as their national song though it was idolatrous and a hymn of hate against Muslims.”

 

For Jinnah, “the creation of a State of our own was a means to an end and not the end in itself. The idea was that we should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own lights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play.”

 

In his historic declaration for Pakistan in the Muslim League Conference in Lahore in 1940, he spelled out his reasons for reaching out towards the “Pakistan” goal arguing that, “Islam and Hinduism…. are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are… different and distinct social orders”; that “the Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literature”; “to two different civilizations”; that they “derive their inspiration from different sources of history… (with) different epics, different heroes, and different episodes.”

 

In his marathon talks with Gandhi in September 1944, Jinnah demanded the constituency for the plebiscite to decide upon the demand for Pakistan that would comprise only the Muslims, and not the entire population of the areas concerned.

 

After Independence, as head of the State he had founded, Jinnah talked in the same strain. He talked of securing

 

(a) “liberty, fraternity and equality as enjoined upon by Islam” (August 25, 1947);

(b) “Islamic democracy, Islamic social justice and the equality of manhood” (February 21, 1948);

(c) “sure foundations of social justice and Islamic socialism which emphasised equality and brotherhood of man” (March 26, 1948);

(d) “the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles” (August 14, 1948);

(e) “the onward march of renaissance of Islamic culture and ideals” (August 18, 1947).

 

These are very “Secular” acts indeed.

 

He called upon the mammoth Lahore audience in October 30, 1947, to build up “Pakistan as a bulwark of Islam”; to “live up to your traditions and add to it another chapter of glory”, adding, “If we take our inspiration and guidance from the Holy Koran, the final victory, I once again say, will be ours” (October 30, 1947).

 

As for the specific institutions of the new State, he exhorted the armed forces to uphold “the high tradition of Islam and our national banner” (November 8, 1947); and commanded the State Bank research organization to evolve ” banking practices compatible with Islamic ideals of social and economic life” and to “work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on the true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice” (July 1, 1948).

 

For Jinnah, “the creation of a State of our own was a means to an end and not the end in itself. The idea was that we should have a State in which we could live and breathe as free men and which we could develop according to our own rights and culture and where principles of Islamic social justice could find free play” (October11, 1947). He told students of Edwards College, “this mighty land has now been brought under a rule which is Islamic, Muslim rule, as a sovereign, independent State” (April 18, 1948). He even described Pakistan as “the premier Islamic State” (February 1948).

 

Jinnah”s broadcast to the people of the United States (February 1948) was in a similar vein: “I do not know what the ultimate shape of this Constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1,300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy… We have many non-Muslims, Hindus, Christians, and Parsis, but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.”

 

This is the repetition of what Jinnah said on August 11, 1947, which was quoted by many as the proof that Jinnah was “secularist par excellence”, but it is misleading, to say the least. Jinnah had said clearly that he wanted equal treatment of people of all religions within an Islamic State, not in a secular State.

 

While he laid a good deal of stress on Islamic ideals and principles, he ruled out theocracy, saying, “Pakistan is not a theocracy or anything like it. Islam demands from us the tolerance of other creeds.” Technically speaking, theocracy means a government by ordained priests, who wield authority as being specially appointed by those who claim to derive their rights from their sacerdotal position.”

 

Of all of Jinnah´s pronouncements, his August 11, 1947 address has received the greatest attention since the birth of Pakistan, and spawned a good deal of controversy. That address was: “I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

 

Jinnah´s pronouncement was purely a political speech designed to please the gathered British elite of some of the highest ranks, including Lord Mountbatten and to appease the Hindu minorities in Pakistan in order to protect the Muslims from the growing threat of communal violence in India.

 

Partition could be attributed to Jinnah´s personal ambition of becoming the overlord of a part of India, when he knew that he could never be in charge of India as a whole.

A close study of all of Jinnah´s pronouncements during 1934-48, and most of his pronouncements, during the pre-1934 period, shows that the word, ´secular´ (signifying an ideology) does not find mention in any of them, even when confronted with the question, he evaded it, as the following extracts from his July 17, 1947 press conference indicates:

 

Question: Will Pakistan be a secular or theocratic State?

“M.A. Jinnah: “You are asking me a question that is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic State means.”

 

A correspondent suggested that a theocratic State meant a State where only people of a particular religion, for example, Muslims, could be full citizens and non-Muslims would not be full citizens.

 

M.A. Jinnah: “Then it seems to me that what I have already said is like throwing water on a duck´s back (laughter). When you talk of democracy, I am afraid you have not studied Islam. We learned democracy thirteen centuries ago.”

 

Two-Nation Theory and Jinnah

 

Pakistan is the result of the ´Two-Nation Theory´ propagated by Jinnah in the Lahore Conference of the Muslim League in 1940, where Jinnah clearly expressed that the Hindus and the Muslims could not live together in one country as they are of separate nations. Mohammed Iqbal was credited with coming up with the Two-Nation Theory in his speech at Allahabad in 1930 to the Muslim League.

 

“I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind, and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Moslem State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Moslems, at least of North-West India.”

 

Jinnah supported Iqbal´s idea wholly. During 1937-39, several Muslim leaders inspired by Iqbal´s ideas, presented elaborate schemes for partitioning the subcontinent according to Two-Nation Theory. It all culminated in the 1940″s Lahore declaration for the creation of Pakistan.

 

The life of Jinnah and his activities demonstrates very clearly that he was a man driven by the idea of an Islamic State for the Muslims although it would mean destruction of lives of millions.

 

Jinnah and the exchange of population

 

Muslim League leaders, Jinnah included, had long advocated exchange of population between Muslim and non-Muslim India. All those, who advocated the establishment of a Muslim State Pakistan, also advocated, as its necessary corollary, the exchange of population. Rahmat Ali, Syed Adbul Latif, and Jinnah, all of them expressed strong and unmistakable views over the exchange of Muslim and non- Muslin population so as to make the future Muslim state more homogeneous, and to solve the minority problem.

 

In August 14 1946, Jinnah called the Muslims to get Pakistan by swords, while Nehru, Maulana Azad and General Wavell, the then Vice-Roy of India were trying their best to avoid the partition. The result was an organized mass murder of at least 50,000 Hindu and Sikh in Calcutta and in the southern districts of East Bengal, Noakhali and Chittagong in particular. Jinnah had never condemned it but said, referring to the driving out of the Hindus from Noakhali in 1946, that the transfer of population was already in action, and some machinery should be devised for affecting it on a large scale.

 

At a press conference in Karachi on November 25, 1946, Jinnah appealed to the central as well as provincial governments to take up the question of exchange of population between future Pakistan and India, based on religion.

 

The Dawn, then edited by Jinnah himself, in December 3, 1946 published a statement, entitled ´Exchange of population a most practicable solution,´, by Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot, President of Punjab Muslin League. The Dawn, on December 4, 1946, said the Muslim League demanded exchange of population and Sind Premier, Ghulam Hussain Hidaya-tullah had offered land for the Muslims of northern India. Sir Feroze Khan Noon, who later became the Prime Minister of Pakistan, while addressing the Muslim League legislators in Patna, had gone to the extent of threatening re-enactment of the murderous orgies of Chengiz Khan and Halagu Khan if non-Muslims did not agree to an exchange of population. Shaukat Hayat Khan, son of the famous Sir Sikander Hayat Khan, had also given out threats to support transfer of population.

 

Post-Partition Pakistan rapidly exercised its terror mechanism to expel and decimate the Hindu-Sikh-Buddhist population probably in expectation of Muslims from India to arrive, under the full view of the then Governor General of Pakistan Jinnah. When Pakistan became a serious political proposition after the statement of Clement Atlee, the then British Prime Minister, on February 20, 1947 and progressively as August 15, 1947 approached, the Muslim pace of eliminating non-Muslims from Pakistan was accelerated. Just on the eve of August 15 and after, when Jinnah was proclaiming his secularist credential in his speech, it became a ruthless driving out, an all-out campaign. Jinnah, as the first Governor General of Pakistan, had all the means to control the situation, but he was then busy preparing for the invasion of Kashmir, which took place on October 20 1947.

 

Exchange of population or even driving out of the Hindu and the Sikh population from the Muslim State, was inherent in the very conception of the State of Pakistan. When Pakistan was established, this inevitable finale to the process of its establishment was executed with equal zeal and collaboration by the people (Muslims) and Government of Pakistan. The process of elimination of minorities went on without check by the Muslim police, officials, and military, all under the control of Jinnah. On the contrary, they abetted the process. No responsible Pakistan or Muslim League leaders condemned such attacks on Hindus, Buddhist and Sikhs.

 

Governor Mudie of West Punjab revealed in his letter to Jinnah his determination to throw Sikhs out of Pakistan at all cost. Jinnah did not have a word to utter about the murder of over 800 Sikhs in Karachi on January 6, 1948 nor for the matter of that, a word about the massacres of Noakhali, the Northwestern Frontier Province, Rawalpindi, Multan or any other mass slaughtering of the non-Muslims.

 

Jinnah´s Islamic credential

 

Partition had its genesis in the Muslim refusal to live as equal partners with the non-Muslim in India after having ruled over them for centuries from 664 AD before the European took over. Partition could also be attributed to Jinnah´s personal ambition of becoming the overlord of a part of India, when he knew that he could never be in charge of India as a whole.

 

The Two-Nation Theory has its roots in Islam´s two-world theory that splits humanity into Momins and Kafirs….. Believers and Infidels. It is the history, the political culture, and the passion of the Muslims to live in Dar-ul Islam, or the Abode of Islam. Muslims everywhere have always striven to live within it. Islam even makes it the onerous duty of every Muslim, should he be unfortunate enough to find himself therein, to quit Dar-ul-Harb (the House of War, or Non-Islam) and to seek refuge in a land ruled by a Muslim State. Pakistan was the dream of the Muslims in India before 1947 and Jinnah made that dream into a reality.

 

In the national legislative elections held in 1945 across British India, the Muslim League captured all the 30 seats reserved for the Muslims in the Central Assembly; and in the elections for state legislatures in 1946, the Muslim League won 439 of the 494 seats allotted to Muslims in all British Indian states. Congress had then ceased to represent the Muslims.

 

The Cabinet Mission Plan of May 16, 1946 was intended to divide India into the states grouped into Hindu and Muslim majority groups: (a) Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Central Province, Bombay and Madras;(b) Assam and Bengal; (c) Punjab, North West Frontier Province and Sindh. The Congress party agreed to this scheme. The Muslim League accepted it first, but rejected it subsequently, and announced in August 1946, its plan of Direct Action, as announced by Jinnah himself. This led to the outbreak of riots against the non-Muslims in Calcutta in August 1946 and in Noakhali in Chittagong area of East Bengal.

 

The riots soon spread through Bihar to Rawalpindi in Punjab, and the North West Frontier Province. The statement in the House of Commons by Clement Attlee on February 22, 1947, that Britain was handing over power by June 1948, set the smoldering fires into a full blaze. Riots broke out in Rawalpindi district in March 1947, and Nehru flew over the riot affected areas, and was shown the deep well into which the Sikhs and the Hindu women had jumped to save their honour. He then agreed to the principle of partition of Punjab, which had been vigorously demanded by the Sikhs all along in Punjab and later by the Hindus in Bengal as well. Jinnah had never condemned the riots or the massacres.

 

When Jinnah was proclaiming his secularist credential in his speech, campaign against the non-Muslims became a ruthless driving out, an all-out mass-murder. Jinnah, as the first Governor General of Pakistan, had all the means to control the situation, but he did not.

 

Conclusion

 

Although Gandhi and Nehru were not directly responsible for the partition, but they perhaps had contributed towards it by their actions or inactions. Before Gandhi came to India, Hindus and Muslims were united in their struggle for freedom. The song Vande Mataram became the national song because of Muslim Abdul Rasul, who was presiding over the Bengal Congress Provincial Conference session of 1906 in Barisal when hundreds were struck down and grievously injured by the British police for singing Vande Mataram. That brutality at Barisal popularized the song overnight; Surendranath Banerjee, then the leader of The Congress joined in an unprecedented procession of Hindus and Muslims singing national songs and crying Vande Mataram. That unity was destroyed when Gandhi started his Khilafat Movement in 1919 to support a murderous despotic Sultan of Turkey, who had committed genocide by killing 2.5 million Armenians and Greeks in the Ottoman Turkey and who was deeply unpopular in the Arab world subjugated by the Turks. It was a reactionary movement, which had strengthened the hands of the most violent backward-minded Muslims, and split The Congress party. Most of the leaders of The Congress, Anne Bessant, Chittaranjan Das, Surendranath Banerjee, Motilal Nehru, and Bipin Pal left Congress, which was paralyzed by Gandhi, and the Muslim League became stronger.

 

In 1938, when Subhas Chandra Bose was elected the president of the Congress party, the most popular leader of the Muslims in Bengal Fazlul Haque wanted to collaborate with the Congress, but was rejected by Gandhi. When Subhas Bose was expelled from The Congress by Gandhi, Fazlul Haque joined hands with Jinnah. With Fazlul Haque in The Congress, Muslim League would not be able to partition Bengal. Similarly, Gandhi has rejected Khan Abdul Gaffer Khan and his North West Frontier Province, which had a Congress majority but was included in Pakistan. Asad Khan, the representative of the Khan of Kalat, the ruler of Baluchistan came to Gandhi so that Baluchistan could be within India, but Gandhi rejected him too. General Wavell had tried until the last moment to keep India united, but Gandhi sent a telegram to Clement Attlee, the then Prime-Minister of Britain to replace General Wavell. Sri Aurobindo had advised Gandhi to accept the Cabinet Mission Plan to keep India united, but Gandhi asked Sri Aurobindo not to interfere in political matter. It is still a mystery why Gandhi wanted partition so much, that, according to BR Ambedkar, even in 1940, Gandhi had accepted the Pakistan-proposal and in 1943 in collaboration with Chakravarty Rajagopalachari, had drawn up a detail plan to partition India. Perhaps he though if he could give in to the demands of the Muslim League, lives of the non-Muslims would be spared. However, that does not wash out the sin of Jinnah, who had unleashed a terror campaign against the non-Muslims of British India to create his beloved Pakistan.

 

The life of Jinnah and his activities demonstrates very clearly that he was a man driven by the idea of an Islamic State for the Muslims although it would mean destruction of lives of millions and uprootment of millions more. The revisionists Pakistani historians like Ayahs Jalap along with the pro-Pakistani American historian Stanley Wilbert, journalist NorAm of The Hindu and The Frontline had tried to put a lot of emphasis on the life of Jonah before 1937, however a close analysis of that life would show a deeply devoted Muslim living in an Anglo-Saxon world and trying to gain acceptability from the British rulers by emulating the outward styles of the ruler. He was a perfect example of the type of Muslims, Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of the Aligarh University, had advocated to enhance the interests of the Muslims in British India.

 

As a successful lawyer Jinnah was a very good actor, giving different speeches to satisfy different audience, yet at the same time was extremely ruthless and determined to achieve his target to create a state only according to Islam, where the non-Muslims would have to accept the supremacy of the Islamic way of life. This is not secularism in any sense of the term. The constitution of Pakistan, which he had proposed and was implemented in 1955, was for the Islamic State of Pakistan, not a secular State.

 

By all accounts, Jinnah has committed crimes against humanity. He was a ruthless killer, because of whom millions of non-Muslims were killed, dishonoured and became destitute in 1947. All these because he wanted to fulfill the dream of Iqbal, the fanatic Muslim poet, the Pakistan, the land for the Muslims only. It is a criminal offence in Europe and in Germany in particular if anyone would try to justify or minimize the crime of Hitler and his Nazi party. Similar criminal law should be implemented in India as well for those who want to glorify Jinnah, a mass-murderer of the same level as Hitler, and his Muslim League.

 

Dr.Dipak Basu

 

Lok Pal Bill in a nut shell

Lok Pal Bill in a nut shell

 

From: Meera Curam <mcuram@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM
Subject: Fwd: [toskar] Fwd: Fwd: Fw: IMP- Lok Pal Bill in a nut shell
—For your education if you do not already know this —-

See how Lok-pal Bill can curb the politicians , Circulate it to create awareness

 

Existing System System Proposed by civil society
No politician or senior officer ever goes to jail despite huge evidence because Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) and CBI directly come under the government. Before starting investigation or initiating prosecution in any case, they have to take permission from the same bosses, against whom the case has to be investigated.

 

 

Lokpal at centre and Lokayukta at state level will be independent bodies. ACB and CBI will be merged into these bodies. They will have power to initiate investigations and prosecution against any officer or politician without needing anyone’s permission. Investigation should be completed within 1 year and trial to get over in next 1 year. Within two years, the corrupt should go to jail.
No corrupt officer is dismissed from the job because Central Vigilance Commission, which is supposed to dismiss corrupt officers, is only an advisory body. Whenever it advises government to dismiss any senior corrupt officer, its advice is never implemented.

 

Lokpal and Lokayukta will have complete powers to order dismissal of a corrupt officer. CVC and all departmental vigilance will be merged into Lokpal and state vigilance will be merged into Lokayukta.
No action is taken against corrupt judges because permission is required from the Chief Justice of India to even register an FIR against corrupt judges.

 

Lokpal & Lokayukta shall have powers to investigate and prosecute any judge without needing anyone’s permission.
Nowhere to go – People expose corruption but no action is taken on their complaints.

 

Lokpal & Lokayukta will have to enquire into and hear every complaint.
There is so much corruption within CBI and vigilance departments. Their functioning is so secret that it encourages corruption within these agencies. All investigations in Lokpal & Lokayukta shall be transparent. After completion of investigation, all case records shall be open to public. Complaint against any staff of Lokpal & Lokayukta shall be enquired and punishment announced within two months.

 

 

 

Weak and corrupt people are appointed as heads of anti-corruption agencies.

 

 

Politicians will have absolutely no say in selections of Chairperson and members of Lokpal & Lokayukta. Selections will take place through a transparent and public participatory process.

 

 

Citizens face harassment in government offices. Sometimes they are forced to pay bribes. One can only complaint to senior officers. No action is taken on complaints because senior officers also get their cut.

 

 

Lokpal & Lokayukta will get public grievances resolved in time bound manner, impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay to be deducted from the salary of guilty officer and award that amount as compensation to the aggrieved citizen.

 

Nothing in law to recover ill gotten wealth. A corrupt person can come out of jail and enjoy that money. Loss caused to the government due to corruption will be recovered from all accused.
Small punishment for corruption- Punishment for corruption is minimum 6 months and maximum 7 years.

 

Enhanced punishment – The punishment would be minimum 5 years and maximum of life imprisonment.

 

 

Spread it like wildfire;

our Nation needs us..please Contribute..

This is not just a forward, it affects the future of our Nation

 

Who is a Hindu & What is Hinduism

Who is a Hindu & What is Hinduism
by S. ‘Vyas’

Hinduism is an incorrect name of Sanaatana Dharma or Varna-ashrama Dharma.  “The Lord makes all the laws and orders, and these laws and orders are generally called dharma or religion.  No one can create any religious formula.”  – Srimad Bhagavat 1.8.4 Purport by Sri Prabhupada.  The Vedas are the books of Hinduism, and the Vedas are given to Brahma, the first created being, by God Himself.  This means that a Hindu (or Arya, meaning a believer in the Vedas) is surely a theist person, and Hinduism is a theist religion.  Bhagavad Gita is the summary of the Vedas given by Bhagavan Krishna Himself.  Therefore, Gita is well known as The Book of Hinduism.

Hinduism is not sectarian.  It is true for all times, places, and peoples.  Some religious scholars have said that Hinduism is the complete science of spirituality.  Just as the laws of physical science are absolute, the laws of spiritual science are also absolute.  They are always true, whether you believe or not.

Hinduism or Gita provides all possible ways how to know and worship and go to God or His kingdom.  Some Hindus believe God is formless and soul and supersoul is same.  They are the followers of Sripad Shankaracharya’s advaita vada or mayavada.  Others believe God has a form. They worship Vishnu tattva incarnations (Narasimha, Rama, Krishna, etc.), Shankar, Ganesh, Durga, or Surya.  They are called bhaktas or devoteesPlease do not confuse them with “Bhaktas” or the followers of Kabir.

Hinduism has grown in Bharat (India).  So, to a Hindu, Bharat is deva bhoomi, the land of the devas and the Home of the Hindus.  Bharat always have thousands of holy personalities and places of pilgrimages.  A Hindu is always desires to associate with holy persons who are great devotees or have realized God.

Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism are off-shoots of Hinduism.  Buddhism is an anti vedic and atheistic religion.  Hindus do not follow it, but consider Buddha as an incarnation of God.  According to Bhagavatam, Jainism has started after Rishabhdeva, a Vishnu tattva incarnation, and it was theistic originally.  But it its current form it is atheistic.  Sikhism is a mix of Islam and Hindu faiths.  Culturally and historically, Jains and Sikhs have always lived peacefully with the Hindus.

Most Hindus keep an altar of a deity in home and practice their sadhana.  A temple is a religious community infrastructure and very dear to Hindu devotees.

To Hindus,
– tulasi  plant and pippal tree is holy.
– Ganga, Yamuna, and other rivers are holy.
– Himalayas including Kailash are holy.
– Cow is holy animal (no Hindu should kill or eat or cook cow).
– Gita, Bhagavat, and the Vedas are literary forms of God.
– Guru is God.  So much they revere guru.
– Earth, queen, guru’s wife, teacher’s wife, elder brother’s wife, and cows are mothers.

In contrast to Islam and Christianity who have used brute force to convert, Hinduism is preached to interested people only.  No one is forced to accept Hinduism just like no one is forced to love a beautiful and fragrant rose or lotus.