Guest post from T.R.Ramaswami
The recent terrorist attacks and the fact that no information or intelligence is forthcoming from the local Indian Muslim population is indeed a matter that needs to be examined. There was no India/Hindu/Muslim concept till the 19th. century. Many are not aware that Mohammed Ghazni, one of the most reviled persons by some political parties, had an army that was one-third Hindu with half a dozen Brahmin Generals. However history books are doctored to hide this. In the 1430s, King Devaraya II of the Sangama dynasty that ruled Vijayanagar held a council meeting to find out why his army did not do well against the Muslim Bahmani kingdom. The conclusion was that Muslims were not allowed to join his army. He immediately changed the rules. In fact after Ashoka the most renowned ruler of India is definitely Akbar and he never salted away wealth in Islamic countries like “patriotic” Indian leaders today do in Swiss Banks.
The Indian Muslim divide goes back nearly 200 years. It was in 1837 that the British introduced English and removed Persian which was, from around 1300, the official language of the rulers in India. Overnight Muslims became jobless and even powerless and to some extent they felt that the Hindu majority had a role to play in this. The British killed two birds with one stone. One – they brought in their language (which perhaps they may be regretting now) and two they strengthened their divide and rule policy. The seeds of the Muslim League and partition were sown in 1837. The next blunder was made by Mahatma Gandhi. In 1919 when the Caliph was removed he unnecessarily supported the Khilafat movement. Even Islamic nations were not worried about the Caliph. This gave the Indian Muslim an extra-territorial identity, and in the very next year one of the worst communal killings – the Mopallah Rebellion in Kerala took place.
Partition was the next event. Although it is stated that it took place on the basis of religion, the truth is that it was a result of the egos of Nehru and Jinnah. If it was on the basis of religion then it was not clean. Nehru did not want 40 million Muslims to leave India as otherwise Pakistan would have been justified in asking for more territory – ie Kashmir. It was contiguous to Pakistan and had a Muslim majority. But Nehru did not want his Kashmiri Pandits to become refugees, while he hardly was concerned about the Punjabis, Sikhs and Sindhis. We therefore had an unnecessary sham partition. To woo Muslims the “secular” agenda was formulated which became a political vote catching formula. A few castrated posts like President, Vice President etc were also thrown to the minorities. Not a single Muslim officer was recruited into the intelligence forces by the “secular” Congress government from 1947 to 1977. To further strengthen the minority vote bank, at the cost of the country, millions of Bangladeshis were allowed to remain in India as Mujibur Rehman refused to take back anyone who came before 22nd.March 1971. In fact an agreement which was not then revealed was signed. Many state governments bordering gave these refugees ration cards and voter status provided they left that state. The descendants of these refugees could well be the local links for the brains located in Pakistan and Bangladesh. We are seeing the results of all the above in the last 15 years.
There seems to be mistaken notion that the link between religion and terrorism is something recent. Far from it. Religious terrorism is as old as religion itself. First there was only one religion – the oldest – Hinduism. Was Hinduism a peace loving religion? Not if you go by its two most well known epics – the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. In both there are wars whose duration and numbers involved were substantial. The next was Judaism. But Hinduism and Judaism were separated by vast distances and it would be interesting to know when they came to know of each others existence. Buddhism, Jainism and Zoroastrianism came about almost simultaneously. While there was probably no religion in Iran then, we do not know whether the birth of Buddhism and Jainism was entirely peaceful.
The non-violent transformation of Hinduism came during Ashoka’s reign. Within 200 years came the first invasion by the Kushans. It was around this time that Christianity came into existence. There is no history to show that there was any organized violence on the basis of religion till 600 AD. In any case Christianity spread to the west – to Europe and did not encounter Hinduism till 1498 AD. It is only after the birth of Islam, whose meager adherents found that everyone beyond Saudi Arabia already had a religion – hence forced conversion to your God was the only method to spread the name of your God. It was the first religion to have a term for “religious war”. And it was to counter Islam that the first religious wars – the Crusades – were fought in the 11th. and 12th. centuries. It was only after Spain and most of Europe was freed from Islam that Christianity started looking for other areas – Asia and the Americas. Unable to counter the Christian kingdoms Islam turned east towards Central Asia and India.
Religions have had strange relationships in the last two wars – Germany had an Islamic ally in the First World War – Turkey and a Buddhist-cum-Shinto ally in the second war – Japan. Germany’s main foes in both wars were all Christian nations. Islamic nations were protected by Christian allies – but that is only because of a new dimension in religonomics – oil. Thus we now have a strange balance – with the militarily and economically strongest being Christian nations who depend on the oil on which Islam literally sits! Both with about 2 billion adherents. India, with its Hindu majority and more Muslims than all Islamic nations except Indonesia (which ironically was once Hindu) and China with Shintoism are the balancing items in this act. Is God laughing?
– T.R.Ramaswami



This is a guest post be T.R.Ramaswami
How many blasts have taken place in the last 15 years? – Here is the list which may not be complete but still sufficient – Mumbai (1993), Coimbatore, Lucknow, Jaipur, Varanasi, Mumbai (2006), Malegaon, Hyderabad, Delhi, Kabul, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, New Delhi (2008), Malegaon (2008), Modasa, Assam.
However we find that all the attention has been directed only to the Malegaon blast and we hear nothing about the rest. Why? Because the Malegaon blast was an unsecular blast. All the other blasts were evidently secular according to Secular Maataji, whose temple is said to be located somewhere in New Delhi.
Recall how netas and even the media scream that terrorists have no religion. Now how does this tie up with the plea that Mohammed Afzal should not be hanged during Ramzan? Here is a case where the police have been able to produce evidence to convince the court of his guilt. Now letting him go would be a blow to the police. And since he is a man convicted of a terrorist act, ipso facto he has no religion and Ramzan has no meaning for him. If secularism is so important, then why did such considerations not come into play when the Sankaracharyar of Kanchi was arrested on Diwali day, the most auspicious religious festival of Hindus? Evidently secularism is the art of boot-licking the minorities to garner votes.
I write with reference to Mr. Balbir Punj’s article “A 17-year 48-act farce” (Asian Age 4 Dec 2009). Mr Punj is right – Muslims and Christians are able to do in Hindu majority India what they will never be able to do in each other’s country and even in their own country. India is secular not because that word is there in the Constitution but because the majority are Hindus. Secularism has become “suckularism” because certain political parties, particularly the Congress suck up to minority vote banks because they ejaculate votes every five years. Let the Congress answer one question – if Jinnah wanted a separate country for Muslims, as is taught in school history, why were all Muslims not sent to Pakistan? That’s because Nehru was worried that if this was done then Pakistan may have got Kashmir and he did not want his Kashmiri Pandit jathwallahs to become refugees. He did not mind Sikhs, Sindhis and Punjabis being thrown from their lands.
Over the past few days we heard a number of “secular” leaders mouthing inanities like how the “non- secular forces” have been defeated etc. The fact is that no party can claim to be secular, as the country itself is not yet fully secular. Secondly, if the carnage in Gujarat in 2002 was a non-secular act how about the slaughter of Sikhs in 1984. It appears that a Congress slaughter is secular while an RSS/BJP slaughter is non-secular. Incidentally will Mr. Manmohan Singh have the secular courage to ensure that some justice is done to those who lost their relatives in 1984. After all some of the alleged accused are now MPs in his own party.
At last terrorism is also going secular. The media has the courage to use headlines like “Hindu Terrorism”. Perhaps they will soon develop testicles to also write about “Islam Terrorism.” If all Muslims are not terrorists and terrorists do not have any religion then why is this rule also not applicable to Hindus? Maybe because we are secular. There is another aspect regarding the daily and front page publicity given to Col. Purohit. Evidently the ruling party is using it an election propaganda to check the BJP. It is also stated that the netas, bureaucrats and the police are using the issue to keep the armed forces silent on the Pay Commission issue. Perhaps the police and particularly the Mumbai police, which forms the ATS, need to be reminded that it was the army that held its pants up during the police mutiny in 1980. In fact the “coffee-table” book on the Mumbai police does not have one word on this as it would probably spoil the aroma.
But let me state something in defence of Hindu terrorism. I have no objection to the term provided the media also uses the term “Islamic Terrorism.” Looked at from one perspective this country has been subject to Islamic terrorism for more than 1000 years from the days of Ghazni. So what if Hindus have started retaliating? What riles the Islamic world and many Muslims in India is that even after ruling India for more than 600 years they were unable to convert more than 30% – the only country which they could not turn Islamic in entirety. Half of these converts went to Pakistan and Bangladesh. We made the mistake of not having a clean partition on the basis that is taught as history in schools – that Jinnah wanted a separate country for Muslims. If that is so then why are there more Muslims in India? That’s because Nehru did not want all Muslims to go to Pakistan. If they did then Jinnah would have been justified in asking for more land and ideally Kashmir should have been given to Pakistan with ALL Muslims. But Nehru did not want his Pandit jathwallahs to become refugees – which they are now.
To sum up we are paying for the biggest mistake in modern Indian history – that of Nathuram Godse – he shot the wrong man.
I write with reference to the letter “Not A Secular” by Mr. Shailesh Kumar (BS 8 July 2005). Mr. Kumar states that Jinnah was not a secularist although he did not want the clerics to have a say in the government. However Mr. Kumar seems to have forgotten that it was Gandhi who gave the Indian Muslim an extra-territorial identity by unnecessarily supporting the Khilafat movement. This incident, sometime in 1919, which involved the Caliph, was not even considered important by several Muslim nations. By this one act Gandhi made the Indian Muslim feel that he was a Muslim first and an Indian second. In fact, soon after came the Moplah rebellion in Kerala when several Hindus were slaughtered. Hence any incident anywhere creates an issue here even if several Muslim nations keep quiet. A case in example – the ban on Salman Rushdie’s novel.
Regarding Jinnah’s violent methods – if we had used violence to fight for our freedom, as advocated by Bose, we would have got it at least 25 years earlier and there would have been no partition. Gandhi’s non-violent method delayed independence and is the main reason for our “soft state” image.
I write with reference to the article “Need to recruit Muslims in Intelligence agencies” by Mr. Mobin Pandit. It may be pertinent to note that from 1947-1977, not a single Muslim was recruited in the higher ranks of the intelligence agencies by the so-called secular Congress government as they were considered “untrustworthy”. This has been revealed in several books by spooks who worked in these agencies. In fact it was Morarji Desai who changed the policy but since he was there only for a year, one wonders whether it was again changed thereafter.
As regards the Wahhabism and the Deoband School, it may be noted that more than 50,000 Indians, concentrated in Bihar and UP have given Arabic as their mother tongue in the census. This is not surprising and the history behind this is intriguing. It goes back to the 16th. century when Naqshbandi Sufism was brought to India by Sheikh Ahmed of Sirhind (1563-1624). Thereafter the lines connect to Syed Ahmad of Rae Barreilly (1786-1831) who was influenced by both Sheikh Waliulah of Delhi and Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab of Nejd, Saudi Arabia. It was Syed Ahmad who was responsible for creating the Three Patna Families, whose descendants/followers are the foremost practitioners of Wahhabism in India. In fact, during British Raj, this group funded and maintained a terrorist group in the Mahbun mountain range, west of the Indus in the present Swat province in Pakistan. This group was called the “Hindustani Fanatics” who were planning a jihad which can only be launched from dar-ul-Islam (land of Faith) on the dar-ul-harb (land of the unfaithful). For more details one should read the superbly chronicled book – God’s Terrorists – The Wahhabi Cult and the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad – by Charles Allen.
– T.R.Ramaswami


Who is a Hindu?

In an interesting decision given by the Privy council a century ago (1903) , the interpretation of the word ‘Hindu’ throws light on how liberal ‘Hinduism’ is in encompassing variety of practices and sections of people from the society and yet remain unique and unadulterated.
The Privy council in Bhagwan Koer Vs. J.C. Bose and Ors., Calcutta observed :

“We shall not attempt to lay down definition of what is meant by the term ‘Hindu’,
– to make it accurate and at the same time sufficiently comprehensive as well as distinctive is extremely difficult.

The Hindu religion is marvelously Catholic and elastic. Its theology is marked by eclecticism and tolerance and almost unlimited freedom of private worship.

Its social code is much more stringent, but amongst its different castes and sections exhibits wide diversity of practice.

No trait is more marked of Hindu society in general than its horror of using the meat of the cow. Yet the Chamaras (Scheduled castes)  who profess Hinduism , but who eat beef and the flesh of dead animals, are however low in the scale included within its pale.

Its easier to say who are not Hindus, and separation if Hindus from the Non-Hindus is not a matter of so much difficulty.

The people know the differences well and can easily tell who are Hindus and who are not ”

Now…I am wondering what differences have we brought about after one hundred years !


Selling the sinking Boat (Kashmir Chapter)

Today I will talk about the ceding of the throne of Jammu & Kashmir after the Tibet disaster.

Firstly a little briefing about the 600 states which were merged into India:

When British left India, the sub-continent was divided into 3 zones. The territory directly under the rule of British India was divided into India / Pakistan on the basis of the demography. However there were more than 800 princely states which were given freedom. By diplomatic efforts of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, all 600 states which lie under India’s jurisdiction were united. The trouble came from 3 regions:

State of Junagadh: The Hindu king wished to be independent. It was rumored that the king there was more interested in dogs than actual citizens.

The Nizam of Hydrabad: The Muslim ruler wished to join Pakistan. It would have been a major security concern for India to have a landlocked independent state in the heart of its territory. So ignoring Nehru’s instructions Patel intervened and marched into the state.

The state of J&K: The Hindu king Raja Hari Singh ruled over the Muslim subjects, because if the distrust for Pakistan, he decided to remain independent. Nehru honored this decision.

Now the crushing defeat of India against China raised Pakistan hopes. They send across the light infantry with a hope that locals will join hands and give it a face of popular revolt against the senile king. The march of Pakistan was unhindered and the king flew immediately to seek India’s support.

Now the interesting developments happen. The home minister (Patel) was not allowed to join in. All the terms which the king wanted (before the onset of the emergency) was accepted to and a few additional concessions were doled out.

1) There shall be a prime minister of J&K instead of the usual CM?
2) The state placed under foreign ministry instead of the home ministry. (Nehru personally looked after the foreign ministry and wanted Patel out of the whole matter)
3) Host of sops. Like free food, development plans, infrastructure projects.
4) Indians from other parts of the country cannot go and buy property. So the rules of the mainland were not applicable. Few of the Jan Sang members who protested this were arrested in Jammu for entering the state of J&K without permission.
5) Usually the area of governance of centre and state are divided into central state and concurrent list. In the concurrent list both centre and the state have powers to enact laws, but in case of a conflict, the centre rules. However it was the reverse for J&K. The state had more power and jurisdiction.
6) In UN India proudly announced that it will do a referendum to know the people’s wish. Even after repeated reminders this promise was never fulfilled and added to India’s long list of foreign affairs disaster.

It makes no common sense to bend over for a state which urgently needed your support.



Did Buddhism die out so easily?

Well according to the history, every religion requires patronage from the local king and should be able to capture the minds of the people to flourish.

Both Buddhism and Jainism were equally popular, but were still in the nascent stage in India before the time of Ashoka. Ashok’s father Bindusara and probably his grandfather Chandragupta left the kingdom and adopted a simple Jain living. Then all of a sudden Ashok adopted Buddhism and spread it across the length and breadth of the world (known to him at that time) and Buddhism in India reached its peak.

A very good indicator (although an indirect one) is the mention of religious clashes. There were various places where Ashoka asked his people not to fight against each other and maintain religious harmony. Since such reference of clashes between Buddhist and Hindus were never heard before or afterwards, it directly refers to the growing chaos and changing demography of India. After the death of Ashoka, Hindu zealots led by the Gupta dynasty re-established the Hindu rule (within 50 years of end of Ashoka’s reign of 44 years).

Was loss of political patronage the only reason why Buddhism in India peaked and died within 50 years? A remarkable point to be noted is.. tough both religions ( jain and buddism) are quite similiar, Jain never had a patronage of a king during the period of his rule. This is the reason why Jain religion never peaked, and there was an attempt to wipe it out. In a way the attempt of Indian kings to wipe out Buddhism allowed it to break the cultural and demographic barriers and spread.

Chanakya’s views —–
Did Bhuddism in India die a natural death? I cannot to believe it. If you take a look around one still finds that jaininsm still exists in some parts of the country especially in rajasthan. In restaurants we get jain foods. Jains are so powerful in jaipur/jodhpur that they were able to stop the opening of a Macdonalds there. Yet the religion which far outstripped them vanished from the very face of the country in which it was born. I cannot remember a single ruler that has patronised jainism. the death of bhuddism coincides too much with the rise of the Hindu kings – the Guptas. State apathy cannot alone be the cause of the death of a religion.

Indians have resisted change against the greatest odds. While there were so many muslim rulers never once was there a decrease in the faith so drastic that an entire religion was wiped out from a singleplace. Bhuddhism spread rapidly through China. A look into their history shows the rise to be phenomenal and very fast without patronization from the kings. A mass exodus from this country seems to be the most plausible explanation for this (at least to me). An exodus because the unfavourable conditions in india seems to me he most likely explanation.

Don’t believe it when you heard it being said that India is a very peaceful country. A country which was never an agressor. If we always had friendly relations with our neighbors they why is it that we have 15 territorial disputes with China itself. Forget Pakistan. and Bangladesh ?? The country for whose independence so many indians laid down there lives happily shoots indian jawans on any pretext. We have a very voilent past. Our religion is anything but tolerant. Ok its tolerant with comparison to other religions but like all other reliions and other countries histories we have this wonderous belief that we have nor can do wrong (but we have bad politicans though — an oxymoron if i ever saw 1)

Bhuddhuism died out because we had an enthusiastic hindu ruler. Ever notice that before akbar everytime there was widespread peace between all religions,the dynasty got wiped out in half a centuary, Yes i admit 50 years is a long time especially in the history of this country, but for a religion to die out? i dont think so.