The Best Immigrants

[I wrote this blog a long time back , 2009 to be exact, and posted it on a blogging site which i don't believe exists now. When it ceased to exist it took away all my blogs with it, and I was aghast, natuarally, but coiuold do nothing about it. Then, very recently and miraculously I found this blog on my facebook page. How it came there -- don't ask me]  

I am in the US now on a private visit to see my daughter’s family, and had been to Canada for a few days to see an old friend. In 2007 I had come on a similar visit to Switzerland and had also visited Austria, Germany and Belgium. In 2006 I visited the United kingdom. Every time, everywhere in the first world, there is one feature that strikes you : the sheer number of old men and women. The baby boomers of the mid-and late-1940s are now into their sixties, retired or about to retire. And the young men and women are not having enough children, despite incentives by a number of countries, to replace the baby boomers. With the result that the average age is going up. Now each such country requires young men and women to run the economic and technical engine in the country and to fill the armed forces. As a result, each such country is faced with the need to bring in immigrants.

Now, no country wants to do this, because immigrants mean trouble. Immigrants do not assimilate. Immigrants stick out like a sore thumb. Immigrants live in ghettoes, do not try to absorb the culture of the country, get into fight with ethnic bhumiputras (Malay word of Sanskrit origin, meaning ’son of the soil’). Yet immigrants are required. Hence the question : who make the best immigrants?

Certain countries in the world have sent out more immigrants than the others. Out of these, the Western European countries and Israel can be counted out today for purposes of getting immigrants from. The English, the Scots, the Irish, the Germans, the French, the Dutch, the Italians, the Swedes, the Jews — in short Western Europeans, plus the Jews — who had made the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa prosperous are prospering in their own countries now, which are themselves short of manpower. They will not emigrate. Ditto for Spaniards and Portuguese to Latin America. Arabs from oil-rich countries will obviously not emigrate. So who does it leave?

It leaves the following groups :

(1) Eastern and Southern Europeans from relatively less prosperous, especially non-EU countries : Belarus, Albanians, Bulgarians, Moldovians, Bosnians, Turks.

(2) Arabs from non-oil producing countries, like Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians.

(3) Christian Africans, e.g. Kenyans, Southern Nigerians, Ghanaians.

(4) Muslim Africans, e.g. Moroccans, Sudanese, Somalis.

(5) People of African descent, mostly Christian, from developing countries, e.g. Carribeans

(6) South Asians, mainly Indians, professing Hinduism or other religions of South Asian origin, namely Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists

(7) South Asian Muslims, mainly Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis.

(8) South-east Asians from developing countries, like Cambodians, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Myanmarese.

(9) Chinese.

We may now examine these categories one by one. In this examination, it has to be remembered, perception plays as big a role as facts. But, it is also to be remembered that perception owes its origin to at least one set of facts, though very often not to the entire set of facts.

Category 1, i.e. Eastern and Southern Europeans from EU countries are welcome in the highly developed economies of Western Europe which have a EU-imposed requirement to employ them to the exclusion of other immigrants. So they need not go anywhere else. Even for these Western European countries, however, it is doubtful whether their manpower requirements can be fulfilled by the EU-member Eastern and Southern Europeans alone. So more immigrants would be needed by them -- and also by North America, Australia and New Zealand. Citizens of non EU European countries would be welcome in these countries, primarily because of the colour of their skin (though no first world country would admit this), but they would have two major problems: First, they do not speak English, French or German; and secondly, they are educationally backward. .  

Category 2, that is Arabs from non-oil producing countries, like Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians; category 4, that is Muslim Africans, e.g. Moroccans, Sudanese, Somalis; and  category 7, that is South Asian Muslims, mainly Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis — let’s face it — would be unwelcome anywhere other than the oil-rich Arab countries, simply because they are Muslims, and 9/11 (together with 7/7 of london and 26/11 of Mumbai) is a reality today. Muslims multiply fast, because they do not believe in small families. Muslims do not assimilate AT ALL but after a while they demand separate schools, separate dress codes, even separate Laws. Add to that the duties of Jehad, that is waging war on non-Muslims — imposed on every Muslim, and the promise of virgins in heaven after they have killed non-Muslims, and you have damn good reasons for there being unwelcome.

They are not all the same, of course. The Arabs and South Asian Muslims learn fast, are less likely to make a nuisance of themselves and are culturally more advanced than the African Muslims. The Bangladeshis are moreover not particularly orthodox or crime-prone, and work hard. But few countries will make such fine distinctions, and prefer one group of Muslims over others.

Category 3, that is Christian Africans, e.g. Kenyans, Southern Nigerians, Ghanaians, Congolese, etc. and category 5, that is People of African descent, mostly Christian, from developing countries, e.g. Carribeans, do not pose a religious problem, but they do pose a law and order problem. Again there are distinctions among them, and it is not as if they create law and order problems everywhere or others do not create law and order problems. But this is all a question of perception, based to an extent on gross facts, and to an extent (let’s face it) on prejudice.

Category 8, that is South-east Asians from developing countries, like Cambodians, Vietnamese, Filipinos and Category 9 that is the Chinese are often lumped together because of facial and racial resemblances. They are largely free from the problems with which the earlier mentioned categories are associated — that is to say they are not religious fanatics and they do not create law and order problems, nor are they likely to make a nuisance of themselves in petty ways. However some complaints persist against them. They do not assimilate well — the presence of Chinatowns in cities ranging from New York to Kolkata is enough proof of that. They are also said to be secretive and inscrutable. In these respects the Cambodians, Vietnamese or Filipinos fare better than the Chinese, and the countries that do appreciate these differences are likely to be more welcoming to them than to the Chinese.

That leaves the Hindus, including Sikhs and Jains — mainly from India, but also other countries where the Hindus have lived or migrated to, such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Trinidad, Guyana, Fiji or Surinam. Sri Lanka Buddhists are in this respect in the same category, as they are ethnically the same as Indians and religiously close, just as the Sikhs and Jains are. ‘Close’ of course does not mean they are not different — but not all that different. Are the Hindus religious or ethnic fanatics? Of course not — they are essentially pluralists and bear no ill-will against any other religion or ethnicity. But more than that, they assimilate like no one else does. True, there are ‘Little Indias’ in Southall (a suburb of London) and Toronto — but Indians want to move out of there as soon as they can and live where the ethnic British and majority Canadians live. They will never dream of demanding separate areas, dress codes or laws. They are hard-working and law-abiding. One never hears of Hindu criminal gangs or ‘Secret Societies’ (a Chinese speciality). And they bring credit to the nations they migrate to — look at the Nobel Laureates Hargobind Khurana (US), Subramanyam Chandrasekhar (US), Sir Vidia Naipaul (Trinidad and Tobago), and the latest, Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (US). Look at the statesmen Sir Sewoosagur Ramgoolam of Mauritius, Chhedi Jagan of Guyana, Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana (later converted to Christianity), Ujjal Dosanjh, the Premier of British Columbia. Look at the British industrialist Lord Swraj Paul, the economist Lord Meghnad Desai (an atheist though, but a Hindu all the same). This capacity to assimilate has been a trend with Hindus right through the ages. The Hindus of Bali (Indonesia) or of Trinidad, Mauritius or Fiji do not look back at New Delhi for succour. To them home is Denpassar, Port of Spain, Port Louis or Suva.

What does all this lead us to? To the conclusion that Hindus make the best immigrants in the world, and every nation short of manpower should welcome them.

This has to be got across to the rulers of the first world nations in need of manpower.

This is a review of the film 'Haidar' against which there are serious complaints that the film is anti-National and anti-Indian Armed Forces, received over email. This is being temporarily put on my blogging site so everyone can see it.

A Soldier Reviews ‘Haider’ movie

October 19, 2014 By Agniveer 47 Comments

I am an ex-armyman. I was stationed in Kashmir in mid-nineties. This was the same period when hordes of militants from across the border infiltrated in Kashmir to spread terror. Lashkar-e-Taiba, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen and scores of other terrorist groups were having a free-for-all rampage in Kashmir. They would infiltrate from Pakistan, recruit cadre, take them to Pakistan for training, bring them back and perform heinous acts of terror.

This was the same period when half a million Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs were massacred and forced to flee the valley.

This was the same period when Kashmir burnt under fundamentalism. It was next to impossible to differentiate between a peaceful nationalist and a killing-machine.

Whenever a cricket match would happen between India and Pakistan, Pakistani flags would wave across the valley as if we were sitting in heart of Pakistan. Any minority voice who dared to wave the Indian flag would be silenced immediately by militants.

It was during such a reign of terror, that Indian Army had to douse the fire in Kashmir with their own blood.

If someone suffered most severe human-rights violation in history of mankind, it was the Indian Army in Kashmir. We left our families in different parts of India and survived under harshest of conditions. For days we would sleep over guns in harsh climate and remotest locations just to keep tab on infiltrating militants. Anyone of us could be bombed away in a sudden attack of fundamentalism. Innumerable among us lost our lives. I lost my hand like so many others who lost their limbs or eyes. To die in a bomb blast was considered lucky. Because if you chanced to be captured by the militants, you would be slowly and mercilessly tortured to death. Militants and their supporters took pride in this gruesome ‘halal’ ritual.

Remember Saurabh Kalia? He is definitely not as popular as Vishal Bharadwaj or Shahid Kapoor. Because he was not a film star who made money by exploiting national interests. He was a humble Indian soldier who gave his life for motherland. He was captured by fundamentalists along with 5 more soldiers. They were taken across Line of Control and tortured as a religious ritual.

Pakistan army tortured their prisoners by burning their bodies with cigarettes, piercing ear-drums with hot rods, puncturing eyes before removing them, breaking most of the teeth and bones, fracturing the skull, cutting the lips, chipping the nose, chopping off limbs and private organs of these soldiers besides inflicting all sorts of physical and mental tortures and finally shooting them dead after twenty-two days, as evidenced by the bullet wound to the temple.

This made the killers “Ghazi” – who as per these fundamentalists gets highest number of most beautiful virgins in Heaven. All you need to do to be a Ghazi is to celebrate killing of a non-believer.

These five soldiers were after all the worst of creatures in world in eyes of jihadis. They were Indians, soldiers and idol-worshippers. What could be greater sin!

I was lucky because I could have been in Saurav’s place. Had I not lost my hand, instead of Saurav Kalia, I would have been ‘halal’ed to make someone Ghazi.

This was the same period when Indian Army made greatest sacrifice to save India and humanity from reign of death and blood.

And it is the same period around which the film “Haider” by Vishal Bharadwaj, Shahid Kapoor and anti-India jihadi writer Basharat Peer has been made and adored by “critics”.

No struggle for liberation in Kashmir

Everyone on ground knows that there is no struggle for liberation of Kashmiris in Kashmir. If that had been so, why native Kashmiri Pandits would have been massacred?

You need to spend just a few days in the valley to understand the true nature of struggle that lies hidden under this garb of Kashmiriyat.

It is simply a ploy to extend the reaches of Islamic fundamentalism. The same fundamentalism of Al-Qaeda and ISIS that is shaking the entire world.

Kashmiri militants are brainwashed to believe that they will go to Paradise only after India is conquered by an army of Jihadis. Listen to speeches of Masood Azhar, founder of Jaish-e-Muhammad. He talks of Ghazwa-e-Hind prophecy where Prophet made conquest of India a precondition for opening doors of Heaven.

In name of religion, the same poison is spread in minds of Kashmiri youth to make them militants.

Go and ask opinion of any Kashmiri liberation member. No one will say that idol-worshipper can also be a good human blessed by Allah. On contrary, they believe that idol-worshippers are worst of creatures. The real hatred is against non-Muslims because as per them, Islam is the only acceptable religion. All non-Muslims must convert to Islam or deserve hatred. This is exactly the same ideology that ISIS and Al-Qaeda follow.

The war against terror is a war against this fanatic mindset. None other than the Indian Army has sacrificed more to fight this war. We fought not only with arms but with love and service. The flood relief efforts in Kashmir in recent past is a clear example of the same.

Enemy within and outside

Yet Indian Army continues to face bullets from enemies and abuses from family. Today, on one side Pakistan is targeting Indian Army and minority locations in Kashmir with bullets. And around the same time, our own country-men create a film like “Haider” that paints Indian Army a villain.

On one hand, flags of ISIS are waved in Kashmir, and at same time, “critics” laud anti-nationalism of Haider as marvel of art.

Such co-incidences give ample evidence that somehow our enemies and certain elements from within our country consistently orchestrate great timing and coordination among each other that it is hard to believe that it was just a mere coincidence.

In Army, we are trained to observe such remarkable coincidences, understand what goes behind, and yet silently sacrifice ourselves for the mission of nation.

Haider shook me to core

I have myself faced irrepairable loss in saving motherland from anti-national militants. And my fellow armymen have made much larger sacrifices for the same cause. Thus the film Haider shook me to core.

It made me question for the first time – Whom are we fighting for? Whom are we defending? The same people who could make this film because of Army’s protection collude with an anti-national Jihadi writer to make a villain of Indian Army?

Is this the reward of our sacrifices that we continue to make? Are commercial gains and so-called artistic expression more important than motherland and humanity?

What if we had not fought terrorism by tooth and nail in nineties? What if we had not arrested the spread of terror to other parts of country through our own lives?

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

This is not a film-critics review. This is a review from perspective of an armyman, a lover of humanity and a son of India. A true secular who refuses to believe that God hates idol-worshippers so much that they will go to Hell. And aspires to fight against ideology that directly or indirectly nurtures such fundamentalist elements.

This is not rhetoric in jingoism

Unlike Haider, which is an experiment in fundamentalism, don’t consider the article to be a rhetoric in jingoism.

Yes, I love my country. I love my country more than I love anything else in life. I love my country not because I was born here or I am a native of this nation. It is not because I love the design of the map of India. It is because its timeless cultural and philosophical heritage that is built on core foundations of tolerance, acceptance and justice. So jingoism has no place for a nationalist and son of soil.

My nationalism does not make me aspire to conquer the whole world. It inspires me to enlighten the whole world. It inspires me to promote brotherhood across the globe and strive for “One World, One Family.” It inspires me to make India lighthouse of the world. I joined Indian Army not to conquer the world, but nurture and protect Peace that defines foundation of India.

I am not a movie-watcher. My mission never allowed me the luxury to fit movies or serials in my priority-list. But I made an exception for Haider.

 

 

 

 

 

Summary Review of Haider

While I will provide details later, let me state upfront – I find “Haider” to be a shameless commercialization of anti-nationalism.

No its not a rhetoric. This is the most “polite” way in which I can summarize the review of this film.

The more “practical” review summary is already being demonstrated by my Indian Army by appropriate retaliation to Pakistani misadventure of cross-border firing. Salutes to my Army for this. Am proud to lose my arm for you. And regret that I could not gift my life for you.

The Detailed Review of Haider

A. This is perhaps the first anti-Indian film that has been produced in India by Indians. Just as the film producers chose to showcase Army as criminals, I would prefer to call the film-maker and its sympathizers Jaichands.

B. The film has been written by Basharat Peer – a Kashmiri separatist based out of New York. Basharat Peer is well acclaimed for his hatred of India. He lived, studied and made career from what India gave him. But in influence of fanaticism, fundamentalism and perhaps some money, he chose to hate India. He openly claims that he holds an Indian Passport only due to compulsion.

Of course it is a pity that Vishal Bhardwaj and Shahid Kapoor and the rest of the gang who eat their bread from India chose to select a vocal anti-national to write their plot.

No, Basharat Peer is not a professional film writer. On contrary, this is his first such project.

In garb of producing Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the film team has done what Jaichand or Mir Zafar did, all for petty commercial gains.

C. The film has a clear anti-India tone. The protagonist is son of a doctor who also is a member of militant gang of Kashmiri separatists. The wife and brother of the doctor report presence of terrorists in home to military. Military catches the doctor and kills all the militants. The hero “Haider” is supposed to take revenge for this.

In entire film, all dialogues and all characters make one clear assumption – that anything and anyone who supports India is a bad guy. Anything and anyone who hates India or Indian Army or is a militant is a good guy.

The greatest crime of bad guys is that they believe in Indian democracy or chose to support Indian Army instead of militants.

D. Indian Army is shown to be tyrants. They torture even innocents brutally. In one scene, they castrate a young man during torture even though they knew he was innocent.

E. In one scene, Army asks all militants to shout “Jai Hind”. The father of Haider refuses to shout so, and hence is punished. In anger, he asks his companion to inform his son that he must take revenge for all this. Thus a “hero” is born from Haider whose only agenda in life is to kill those who love India. This continues without remorse till end of the film.

There is no mention of the fact that thousands or even lakhs of militants had infiltrated India during the same period. Only an anti-national can complain about use of “Jai Hind” to segregate militants from ordinary citizens. I can understand Basharat Peer to have hatred against “Jai Hind”. But why Shahid Kapoor and Vishal Bharadwaj?

For humble soldiers like me, “Jai Hind” is the only call for which we live and die. This alone is our mantra, our kalma, our slogan.

F. In last scene, after all killing and destruction, the hero heads towards Pakistan.

G. In the interim, there is an incoherent monologue by Haider on how India cheated Kashmiris and has illegally occupied Kashmir. He raises slogan among public who shout back that they want independence from India. This anti-India speech is supposedly a high-point of the film.

H. Kashmiri women have been portrayed as lose characters. Haider’s mother starts sleeping with her brother-in-law immediately after she gets her husband arrested by military for hiding militants. And immediately after death of her husband is confirmed, she marries. Further, she has questionable feelings for her son which is exemplified by unnecessary kiss scenes.

I. Another Kashmiri woman, Haider’s girlfriend is shown to have utter disdain for her religion. She refuses to touch Quran for vow and instead decides to sleep with Haider despite objections from her brother and father. She is confused between her love for Haider and love for India. And that confusion leads to problems for Haider.

J. These are the only two women in the film. Basharat Peer has played a very smart move here. It is evident that he has insulted Islam as well as denigrated Kashmiri women apart from insulting India. His real goal is not the benefit of Kashmiris. He seems to be inspired by Pakistan instead. That is why the hero finally leaves for Pakistan. Any Muslim who has slightest soft-corner for India is shown as someone against Islam.

K. In fact there is another set of characters who mimic Salman Khan – an Indian actor. They are shown to be friends of Haider who turn traitors and try to kill him under orders of police. But Haider kills them instead.

L. The father of Haider’s girlfriend is shown to be a spineless policeman who knows India is wrong in illegally capturing Kashmir and yet works against “Kashmiri freedom fighters”. He is the one who gives orders to kill Haider in encounter.

M. There is a repeated use of word “Chutzpah”. It serves two purposes. First it fulfills the fetish of film crew to speak out an abusive word indirectly. Secondly, it is supposed to rhyme with AFSPA – Armed Forces Special Powers Act – that gives special powers to Army in Kashmir to fight terrorists. In one scene, Haider is seen mocking AFSPA along with his friends by mentioning it along side Chutzpah.It is used to ridicule India’s ‘illegal’ control over Kashmir.

The director ignores the fact that Chutzpah is a Hebrew word that is pronounced as “Hutspah” or “Khutspah” and not with “CH” as director’s fetish propelled him.

The irony is that AFSPA alone is the reason why the makers of Haider could make the film today!

N. Even apart from the obvious focus on anti-Indianism, there is nothing that the movie offers apart from long yawns and drags. There are scenes and situations where one is confused whether to laugh or take seriously. For example, two comedians who mimic Salman Khan suddenly turn villains. Some elderly grave-diggers near Pakistan border suddenly start singing and dancing out of context. They are revealed to be militants later.

O. There is a song “Bismil” where idol of “Satan” has been put on gates of Martand Temple in Anantnag and the hero sings and dances like devil. It is an obvious reference to the oldest Sun temple of world being a haven of Satan. After the song, hero attempts to kill his uncle. Several Hindu organizations have protested against this insulting depiction of a revered temple.

P. The hero refers to Anantnag as Islamabad when an army-man asks his destination. This is an obvious reference to affection for capital of Pakistan and refusal to speak the original Hindu name.

The film makes no mention of the fact that the name Kashmir comes from Rishi Kashyap – one of the most revered Sapta Rishis as per Hinduism. The name Anantnag comes from Ananta of Naga tribe, who also happened to be son of Rishi Kashyap. Both these words predate “Islamabad” and the demands for separation of Kashmir by thousands of years. Kashmir has been the most important center of Shaiva philosophy – one of the most important components of Hinduism – way before even religion was born.

Q. The movie claims to highlight the ‘Kashmir cause’ but the makers restricted themselves to Indian Kashmir only completely forgetting the Pakistan and Chinese Occupied Kashmir and rights of Kashmiris therein. Perhaps because it was again the Indian Army alone that allowed these snakes to shoot the movie in its area which was not possible in China or Pakistan. And in the end, the snakes bit the hands that fed them. Makers of Haider left no stone unturned to demonize Indian Army but not a single word has been uttered against the rogue Pakistani Army or Chinese PLA.

R. Soft corner for separatists but not even a single mention of ethnic cleansing of half a million Kashmiri Hindus from valley in 1989 in whole movie. Clear attempt of fueling false sense of victim-hood among the already radicalized separatists but deliberately hiding the real Kashmiri issues. It is clearly the Pakistani line on Kashmir that the makers of Haider have toed. The movie complains that army would inspect, threaten and torture Kashmiris. But movie offers no solution to how else the army should have dealt with those who hide militants in home, hate India, are ashamed to say ‘Jai Hind’ and has every other member in family as a militant or receiving terror-training in Pakistan. When thousands of militants have infiltrated the border, Pakistani flags are waved en-masse during Indo-Pak match, and half a million non-Muslims are killed or forced to flee, what else can army do to stop terror from killing more innocent lives? It does not matter whether it is Kashmir or Kanyakumari. If any person or group supports terrorists, or has family members indulged in terrorism, or are ashamed to say “Jai Hind”, then they deserve most thorough scrutiny and punishments. This is necessary to contain terrorism. This is not human rights violation. This is protection of human rights of innocent millions.

In general this movie has one agenda – to portray the following as villains:

• Muslims who love India
• Women who love India
• Hindus who love India
• Armymen who love India
• Kashmiris who love India

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

No I don’t call for ban on the film. The era of information control through bans is far over.

What I call for is to use this film as a lever to educate our fellow Indians and world about Kashmir. How militants destroy peace in Kashmir, how Pakistan destroys peace in Kashmir, how filmmakers mock true Kashmiris, true Muslims and true Hindus, how paid journalists like Basharat Peer bring bad name for Kashmir as well as India despite being Kashmiri. And how Indian Army has made greatest sacrifices in history of humanity to protect peace in Kashmir.

It is time to create national awakening on Kashmir issue, fight Pakistan and Kashmiri separatists in most ruthless manner to bring peace in valley and India. Indian Army is doing a fabulous job on the border. Lets do within the border and internationally to support their sacrifices.

Many critics and “experts” have claimed that “Haider” is a bold masterpiece. One reason why many frustrated minds are calling it masterpiece is obvious – despite their predictions, a so-called right-wing party came to power with absolute majority in recent elections. This is despite their top-of-the-mouth out-of-the-court pronouncement of judgement that the incumbent Prime Minister is a mass-murderer. Somehow public could not be conned by these fake allegations. And the massive victory frustrated them to core. So they will leave no option to proclaim any crap as masterpiece so far it is against the proclaimed stand of incumbent party. In case of Kashmir, it is also clear that this stand of zero-tolerance for militancy in Kashmir is also voice of people.

As far as it being a “bold” movie, I fully agree. It is indeed a bold experiment. Almost as bold as Pakistan’s recent bold experiment of cross-border firing in Kashmir. Or their “chutzpah” in 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1998 that eventually bankrupted the rogue country.

And I agree that such boldness be better countered with even more boldness.

Please note that I am not against Pakistanis or Kashmiris who are fed up with violence. My love for nation makes every peace-lover in the world my best friend. But for sake of this peace, my love for nation calls for total annihilation of those forces or voices that promote militancy in any manner whatsoever.

As far as liberation of Kashmir is concerned, all this talks about plebicite or Nehru’s promise in 1948 is completely irrelevant. It was a blunder that few weak voices were allowed to partition the country whose borders have been decided since ages by nature and which nurtures the oldest civilization and culture of world uninterrupted till date.

No more partition can be tolerated. Period. If majority in Kashmir want separation, then the same rule should apply to every house, every lane, every mohalla of India. Tomorrow I may claim that 6 people of my home want to be independent country – we form full majority – hence grant us freedom. This is foolish talk.

Kashmir was always integral part of India. And shall remain so. The entire drama of separatism in Kashmir is a ploy to annexe a major part of India for fundamentalism – in lines of ISIS and Al Qaeda. The whole world is seeing results of rise of this fundamentalism. It is time we join together to crush it.

If a few silly films like Haider come up to rake up and further the cause of fundamentalists, we must use them as well to further the agenda of peace, tolerance and integral India.

My humble appeal would be to not waste your time and money watching such anti-national “pseudo-intellectual purgation”. Better donate it for Indian Army or PM Relief Fund to help Kashmiris suffering from floods and ignite the cause of nation.

I appeal all to support Agniveer, promote Agniveer, join Agniveer and become Agniveer to work for cause of nation. There is no other way.

This article is dedicated to Indian Army which has scripted the most befitting review of “Haider” and all such anti-national antics through its valor in Kashmir. My salutes to these heroes of nation.

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram

BENGAL FAMINE OF 1943, AND A CRAZY BLOG

One Ajit Vadakayil has posted a blog on, among other subjects, on the Bengal Famine of 1943. The blog  at http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2011/09/amartya-sen-gets-nobel-prize-for.html?m=1 is such an enormous load of nonsense that I felt obliged to write something. Much of it is based on total misinformation or some half-digested facts. First of all, although I am Bengali, I am not a total admirer of Amartya Sen -- I rate him highly as an economist, but I thoroughly dislike his habit of poking his nose into every facet of life -- as if, just because he got a Nobel Prize, he knows everything. He doesn't, and moreover, he has lived abroad most of his life, so he has no way of knowing what happens here in India. In respect of the Bengal famine of 1943 I would much rather rely on the account of Ashok Mitra ICS, later Census Commissioner of India, who, as an SDO of a famine affected subdivision, had an insider's view of what caused the famine. According to him it was a policy of 'Denial and Evacuation', really a 'scorched earth' policy, followed by the British government in mortal fear of a Japanese takeover of Bengal, coupled with a terrible combination of a cyclone and Tsunami in a place called Kanthi in the present Purba Medinipur district of West Bengal. And the main person responsible, according to Mitra, is the half-crazed British governor of Bengal, Sir John Arthur Herbert, who was responsible for this cynical policy. Prime Minister Churchill, Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery and Viceroy Lord Linlithgow are primarily guilty of apathy and negligence. The blog contains a lot of other rot. Amartya Sen's first Hindu wife Nabaneeta Deb-Sen did not leave him because of his pro-Western views -- in fact she still sports his surname 'Sen' bears witness to the fact that it is not so. I know what caused their divorce, but I shall never make these domestic matters public. Ajit appears to be an anti-Semite, which is why he blames Rothschilds for all the ills of the world. The Rothschilds are powerful, but not that powerful. That Santiniketan, the ashram built by Rabindranath Tagore's father Debendranath,was built with opium money, or that Edwina Mountbatten was a Rothschild is pure baloney. He says Ramanujam, the mathematical genius, was "whisked off to England and then discarded like a curry leaf". Total rot. Ramanujam's talent was discovered not by any Indian, but by Hardy and Littlewood, two English mathematicians. What Ajit exhibits is called xenophobia, an irrational fear of everything foreign, in support of which he tries to marshal all this misinformation. The blog just teaches us what a lot of nonsense makes its rounds on the internet. One has got to be very,very careful.

MISDEEDS OF MOHANDAS GANDHI AND JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

@NirbhayasIndia and I had become involved in a lengthy debate on twitter about Mohandas Gandhi (I prefer to call him ‘Mohandas’ because of the proliferation of Gandhis lately, the admonition of  @NirbhayasIndia notwithstanding). It began with a debate on Mosques and Temples, and got on to a debate about Muslims and Islam. I said there were millions of very good Muslims, some of whom were my friends, but Islam has a problem: the concepts of ‘Kafir’ and ‘Jihad’, which do not permit idol-worshippers like me to live. Then this gentleman (or maybe a lady, no way to know his gender) began to lose his or her shirt and said that he or she (this is getting bothersome, so henceforth I shall assume masculine gender) doesn’t take lessons on Islam from me, because he takes it from Mohandas. I very humbly said that I take my lessons from the Qur’an and the Haadis (Traditions) and do not accept the politically correct views of Mohandas. Then the debate switched to Mohandas and also to Nehru, and he contended that since I was a lot shorter (he clarified it later as shorter in terms of stature, not centimeters) than both, I had no right to criticize them. At this point @a4ahlan joined in and quite sensibly suggested that the debate can go on. But the other person was incensed, and called me a fat Hindu fundamentalist. I was really astounded, because I am really fat (BMI 33.5) and how on earth did he get to know it? But I’m getting distracted. He dared me to name two persons in BJP who were anywhere near Mohandas and Nehru.

But first let me get on to the misdeeds of these two late lamented gentlemen.  Mohandas was a great mass leader, of that there is no doubt. The sway he had managed to get over his party was really enviable. But having said that he also did the following:

1. Supported the retrograde Khilafat Movement in the 1920s and supported the rabidly fundamentalist Ali Brothers. This is one of the factors which drove pork-eater Jinnah into the fundamentalist camp. Read Mohamedally Currim Chagla’s autobiography ‘Roses in December’ for more details on this.
2. There were two particularly horrible communal riots at this time, the Moplah rebellion of Malabar (Kerala) and the one in Kohat (now Pakistan), and several such in Dhaka (now Bangladesh). In every such Hindu-Muslim riots he took the side of Muslims in the hope that this will bring in Hindu-Muslim unity. The opposite happened. The Muslims became even more emboldened, and the climax was reached in the Great Calcutta Killings of August 1946, directly engineered by the then Premier of Bengal, H.S.Suhrawardy.
3. He made no efforts to save Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru from the gallows, calling them misguided patriots.
4. He, on the advice of C. Rajagopalachari, in 1944 when all other Congress leaders were in jail, went and met Jinnah and practically conceded Pakistan.
5. He did not visit Calcutta after the Great Calcutta Killings of August 1946 in which an estimated 15,000 people were killed, for fear that he might be seen as favouring Hindus.
6. He elbowed out Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose from the Presidency of the Congress at Tripuri in 1939 although the latter had won the presidency by election.
7. He did bizarre sexual experiments with young girls, his grand-nieces Abha and Monu Gandhi, by sleeping naked with them during his trip of Noakhali in East Bengal in 1946.

Who can measure up to Gandhi? Guruji Golwalkar, any day. Also Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Deen Dayal Upadhyay. Guruji got charge of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh from the embryonic stage in which Dr. Hedgewar, the founder, had left it and built it up to become possibly the biggest voluntary organization in the WORLD! Gandhi inherited the Congress when all its great leaders– Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal, Surendra Nath Banerjea, were dead or very old. C.R.Das also died shortly afterwards.

And Nehru? Who in the BJP would have made a better Prime Minister than Nehru?

I suggest Subodh Das.

But who is Subodh Das? Why, he is the person who makes tea at our BJP state office.

Isn’t this preposterous?

It is not. Read on.

Nehru had, in spite of having ruled India for seventeen years, and out of that having enjoyed practically unchallenged power over the nation for no less than fourteen years (1950-64, from Patel's death to his own), failed to address the problems of food deficit, population explosion, governmental corruption and illiteracy ; despite his great predilection for foreign affairs willfully acquiesced in the Chinese annexation of Tibet and removed what could have remained as a buffer state between the two countries, and could have effectively ruled out any Chinese aggression of the type that took place in 1962 ;  aided by his trusted friend Krishna Menon, turned India into a virtual Soviet satellite, and made enemies of all western nations ;  needlessly internationalised the Kashmir dispute ; taxed the nation to its gills, gave birth to a ‘Black Economy’, and frittered away all that tax money in creating a semi-Stalinist command economy based on state-owned heavy industries – real white elephants – that he fancifully called ‘temples of tomorrow’ ; and finally foisted a hereditary rule on the country and his party, the latter continuing to this day in the person of his Italian-born granddaughter-in-law.

Even during Patel's lifetime he had committed the incredible folly of calling off the Indian Army in Kashmir in 1948 when they were in hot pursuit of the fleeing Pakistani irregulars, and declaring a cease-fire unilaterally. He is believed to have done this because he believed Lord Mountbatten implicitly, much more than he did his own Generals, and it is on his advice that he did this. We need not go into the romantic aspect of this belief, that is to say the relationship between him and Lady Edwina Mountbatten – even without that the folly had been committed. There must be very few instances indeed in the history of mankind where a nation, about to taste victory in a war not of its doing, has acted in such an inexplicable manner. Had the army been allowed to chase the irregulars out of the hills of Kashmir on to the plains of Punjab - which they would have done in another forty-eight hours - the Pakistanis would have lost all the advantage of the heights, and probably there would have been no Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and no Kashmir problem today.

His abandonment of the Hindu refugees of East Bengal (or East Pakistan has not received a fraction of the publicity it deserved. The facts are as follows: Unlike in Punjab, there was no mass exchange of population between the two sides following partition of the province of Bengal in 1947. There was, however, considerable  pressure from the East Pakistani government on the Hindus in the form of forcible requisitioning of their properties, etc. Many well-to-do Muslims in West Bengal at this stage had also decided to move to Pakistan, and in the period between 1947-50 there was a lot of amicable exchange of property between the two Bengals. However, in February 1950 the East Pakistan government, led by its Chief Secretary Aziz Ahmed (described as ‘notoriously anti-Hindu’ by B.K.Nehru in his autobiography), started a pogrom against Hindus as a result of which more than 50,000 Hindus were killed, and an enormous number of women raped and property destroyed. Nehru showed unspeakable vacillation in dealing with this crisis, but ruled out an exchange of population on the Punjab model or military action against Pakistan when the same was proposed by his cabinet colleague Syama Prasad Mookerjee. Then he signed a pact with Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan whereby it was agreed that either country will look after its minorities and take back the displaced ones. Pakistan treated this pact as no better than toilet paper and continued its pogroms, though on a milder scale, against the Hindus. But Nehru pinned his personal prestige to the success of this pact, as a result of which he refused to take any action for the rehabilitation of the east Bengali Hindu refugees. Syama Prasad Mookerjee and K.C.Neogy, the two Bengali ministers in the central cabinet, resigned in protest against the pact. As an act of political naïveté few acts could compare with this pact – it could not have been unknown to Nehru that the Pakistan government had engineered this pogrom, yet he entrusted the safekeeping of the Hindus to the very same Pakistan government!    

Nehru’s role before independence in bringing about the partition of the country is also reprehensible. Maulana Azad’s remarks (Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, India Wins Freedom, Orient Longman, Madras, Complete Version, Reprinted 1993) on the man in the context of his press interview which gave Jinnah an opportunity to retract his acceptance of the Cabinet Mission proposals, are quite instructive in this regard. These details have been deleted from our history books by the so-called historians receiving largesse from Nehru’s government (read Arun Shourie’s  Eminent Historians, Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud, ASA, New Delhi, 1^st  Ed., 1998). Very briefly, what happened is this: in 1946 the British Cabinet sent a very high-powered team under the leadership of Lord Pethick-Lawrence to negotiate with Indian leaders (principally those of the Congress and the Muslim League) the modalities of granting independence to India. The team had talks with the leaders and came up with a plan in June 1946 which was called the ‘Grouping Plan’. The sum and substance of this plan was that India would remain one. There would be a weak centre with a few subjects such as currency, foreign affairs and communications, and the remaining powers would all vest in the provinces. The Congress accepted the plan and so did the Muslim League, though somewhat reluctantly. At that time Maulana Azad had just relinquished the presidency of the Congress in favour of Jawaharlal Nehru. However Nehru in a press conference held on July 10 in Bombay resiled from this position and declared that the Congress would enter the Constituent Assembly ‘completely unfettered by agreements and free to meet all situations as they arise’ ; and also that grouping of provinces, as proposed by the mission, will not work. Consequent upon this, the Muslim League on July 29 withdrew their acceptance of the Cabinet Mission proposals.

Maulana Azad has termed this act of Jawaharlal Nehru an ‘astonishing statement’ and “one of those unfortunate events that change the course of history”. He also deeply regretted that on April 26, 1946, while stepping down from the Presidency of the Congress he had issued a statement proposing the name of Jawaharlal Nehru as the next President of the Congress, and had appealed to all Congressmen that they should elect him unanimously. He called this the greatest blunder of his political life. He goes on to say that his second mistake was not supporting Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel who, had he become the Congress President, would never have committed the mistake Jawaharlal made, and which gave Jinnah the opportunity of sabotaging the Cabinet Mission plan. The book was first published in 1958, after his death, but in accordance with his wishes, thirty pages of the book were withheld, to be published thirty years later. In this part of the book he writes “Jawaharlal Nehru was one of my dearest friends and his contribution to India’s national life is second to none. I have nevertheless to say with regret that this was not the first time that he did immense harm to the national cause. He had committed an almost equal blunder in 1937 when the first elections were held under the Government of India Act 1935 when he refused to honour a pre-election understanding with the Muslim League. M.C.Chagla in his autobiography has also been critical of this terrible mistake of Nehru.

Together with withdrawal of acceptance of the Cabinet Mission proposals the Muslim League also announced that August 16, 1946 will be a day of ‘Direct Action’ by the League in support of Pakistan. No explanation was forthcoming as to what would constitute such ‘Direct Action’. This Direct Action eventually turned out to as bloodbath known as the The Great Calcutta Killings of 16-20 August 1946.

Another very astute and knowledgeable person who saw him at close range is the relatively unknown Benoy Mukhopadhyay, Chief Press Adviser and Registrar of Newspapers, Government of India, around 1947 and later Secretary, Press Council of India. Mukhopadhyay is known in Bengali literature by his pseudonym Jajabor, and is credited with writing the classics Drishtipat and Jhelum Nodir Tire.  In an interview to the Bangla fortnightly Desh, he has described Nehru as a 'Political Somnambulist', a person living in his own dreamland of political make-believe. He reminisces on the Nehru-coined slogan of the 1950s, 'Hindi-Chini bhai bhai' (Indians and Chinese are brothers) which culminated in the Chinese attacking India in 1962. The attack was preceded by frequent border incursions by the Chinese across the McMahon line, a fact that Nehru simply chose to ignore, because it did not fit in with his pre-set notions of Sino-Indian friendship. Mukhopadhyay describes Nehru as imagining 'secularism' (one of the most misused words in India) to be the panacea for all centrifugal and divisive tendencies. He chose to forget that there was such a thing as pan-Islamism, that Islam called upon all its followers to unite regardless of nationality, that Allahu Akbar was not merely a religious slogan but a political exhortation as well.

All his misdeeds could be forgiven if, with his untrammeled power and his foreign exchange reserves in the form of ‘sterling balance’ he could take the country forward economically. Alas, he did no such thing. He did not believe in the creation of wealth or the profit motive as being the driving engine behind economic development. Thus, a strange phenomenon was manifest: while countries like Germany, Japan, Singapore and South Korea (which, unlike India did not have a single building intact in their country in 1947) went ahead with development and raised themselves to the first world in no time, India was left languishing with its begging bowl in hand, forever a poor country. Meanwhile Nehru, who had become something like an international busybody, created a ‘Neutralist Bloc’ with Tito of Yugoslavia, Nkrumah of Ghana and Sukarno of Indonesia, while at the same time losing his credibility by adopting a duplicitous policy between the Suez crisis and the Soviet invasion of Hungary, both of which took place at around the same time in 1956.   

What more is there to say? I personally think Mohandas Gandhi’s greatest misdeed was choosing Nehru over Patel as the first Prime Minister of independent India. 

ISLAMIC TAKEOVER OF WEST BENGAL AND THE NORTHEAST

I am regularly on twitter, and a few days back I had tweeted two observations of mine: (a) That Muslims are buying real property in Kolkata and environs at a brisk pace, and often paying prices for them well above that prevailing in the market; and (b) That huge Mosques are springing up in remote corners of this state. I also observed, within the confines of twitter, that it would be extremely naïve, even dishonest, to suggest that there is no pattern behind this.

The response to these observations was quite large, even overwhelming. Two things stand out from these responses. First, a lot of people, including one in the real estate business, confirmed and reconfirmed my observations. Secondly, a number from Kerala confirmed that the same phenomenon was manifest in Kerala also in a big way. Interestingly, no one contended that it’s not happening, that there is no such phenomenon, that it is just a ‘communal’ fulmination on my part; nor, ‘so what’ if Muslims do take over? But then, those types are not among the 3000-plus who follow me on twitter.

Two observations, two important responses, and now two questions: Where is the money for purchasing all these properties and setting up all these mosques coming from? And whoever is spending this money: WHY is/are he/she/they doing it?

The first question is simple to answer. It is coming from Saudi Arabia. No other country (well, maybe Kuwait and Qatar, too) has the money to do all this. And most importantly, no other country has the MOTIVATION.

The second question, is equally simple – unless one has rendered oneself blind by the Nehruvian brand of secularism. The question WHY concerns the motivation  behind this. And that motivation can only be trying to turn a section of Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam. For those unfamiliar with the terms, the first means ‘Land of Strife’, in other words, where Islam has not been accepted by all and Islamists are busy doing Jihad to establish that rule. And the second, ‘Land of Peace’, where Islamic rule has established and therefore everyone is happy and peaceful. Now don’t you question what is happening in countries like Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, countries where practically everybody has accepted Islam, why Muslims there are killing one another – we’re all sure that is a different matter altogether, that there is American or other capitalist provocation behind all this. It is the duty of every Momin (ardent believer in Islam) to wage Jihad and convert  every bit of Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam. Now, this is important: Unbelievers are allowed to live in Dar-ul-Islam provided they are not idolaters. Jews and Christians are allowed to repair their churches and synagogues, but not erect any new church or synagogue; and in the existing ones no ostentation is permitted. In other words there is no question of any Hindu, Buddhist or Zoroastrian being allowed to live and worship in Dar-ul-Islam. A very good way to do all this is to acquire property in Dar-ul-Harb, and then kill, shoo away or, still, better, convert the unbelievers living there. This very process seems to be under way.

What is the process and how does it work? Several ways. First the straightforward way, where a Muslim appears on the scene and offers a price for a Hindu-owned property well above the market price. The Hindu cannot resist the temptation and sells it to him. In this way several properties in a locality are acquired by Muslims. Suddenly one sees a lot of skull-cap clad men and burqa-clad women where there were none before.

Then one of the properties is converted into a Waqf. Then a Mosque is built on that property. Then Muslims congregate there regularly. Azaan is read from that Mosque five times a day over a loudspeaker without caring for decibels, although neither the Quran nor any Haadis enjoin the use of loudspeakers for the purpose. The first Azaan is at some unearthly hour in the morning. Hindus cannot sleep – but then they are Hindus, so they grumble but do nothing else. Some, the more ‘secular’ among such Hindus even justify it as ‘minority rights’ and extol the virtues of early rising. One of two approach the local councillor, MLA or police, beginning their complaint with, “We fully accept the rights of Muslims to etc. etc. but….”.  The local councillor, MLA or police smile, tell them the same story about minority rights and extol the virtues of early rising.

Then a butcher shop selling beef is opened there. The sight of the carcasses and the yellowed fat glistening on the bodies of what used to be pavitra gomata disturb the Hindus. The smell of beef being cooked wafts all over the locality and enters the nostrils of Hindus. Young Muslim men, in lungis and banyans, or Black pyjama suits strut about, on foot and motorcycles. Occasionally they look at nubile Hindu girls, smile lewdly and sometimes scratch their privates. The Hindus, especially the fathers and brothers of the girls, are upset. But being Hindus, they grumble and do nothing else.

Then on Id day, a cow is slaughtered in full view of the Hindus. The blood runs down the roadside gutter and some of it collects in front of a choked gullypit. The stench of stale bovine blood is everywhere.

Now some of the Hindus begin to do something more than grumble. They put their property up for sale. They send their girls away to hostels or to relatives living in Hindu-majority areas. The property for sale is lapped up by Muslims at lucrative prices. Both sides are happy. The Hindus move out. The area becomes completely Muslimized.

There is a variant of this. The Muslims hunt through land records and discover lands which had been made Waqf in the ancient past, usually in the 1950s when a lot of Muslims moved to East Pakistan. Those lands were abandoned by the Muslims when they moved to Pakistan in the 1950s, and had been transacted.  The Muslims reclaim those Waqf lands. The administration is all help. Then the above cycle begins.

In this way the land is converted from Dar-ul-Harb into Dar-ul-Islam. Bit by bit, piece by piece. From an exclusively Hindu locality to an exclusively Muslim one. They elect a Muslim councilor, Muslim MLA. A Muslim MP is just one step away. The political parties all oblige. The Hindus all move out peacefully, one by one. And if somebody protests his or her protest is drowned in a din of ‘secularism’.

No one ever dreams of making a political issue out of this. After all, minority rights are a scared thing in a secular state, isn’t it? And every major political party (possibly with one exception) has its tongue hanging out for Muslim votes, which come in a block.

Then, when a chunk of territory is converted into Dar-ul-Islam, the time for overt action arrives. The ‘secular’, Hindu-led political parties are kicked out and virulent Islamist parties emerge. Parties like the Mehbooba Mufti-led PDP in Jammu and Kashmir, the IUML in Kerala,  

Badruddin Ajmal-led AUDF in Assam. Mullahs-turned-political leaders take centrestage. Leaders like Siddiqullah Chowdhury of West Bengal wait in the wings.

‘Secular’ political parties like Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress in West Bengal, who are bending over backwards to get Muslim votes, and had gone overboard with measures like allowances for Imams and Muezzins and reservations for Muslims, now pull out all stops. They engineer anti-Hindu riots and openly help and encourage the rioters.

Some men among Hindus die, some women are raped. The remaining Hindus, highly ‘secular’, of the state couldn’t care less. It is no skin off their backs, just some unconfirmed reports of ‘some incidents of a communal nature’ somewhere in the outback. The media obliges. No news leaks out.

Is a communal, BJP-wala Tathagata Roy imagining all this? It has happened in Deganga, in Distt. North 24-Parganas, West Bengal, where Trinamool MP Haji Nurul Islam of Basirhat landed with a bunch of goons to loot Hindu property on 6^th September, 2010. It has happened in Gobra in Kolkata City in June 2010 where a small plot of land in a Hindu pocket was suddenly declared Waqf, and Muslims descended on it to offer Namaz. In the same Gobra, in October 2009 during Jagaddhatri Puja immersion Muslims attacked a procession and desecrated the idol of Devi Jagaddhatri. In Canning, in Distt South 24-Parganas, in February 2013 houses of Hindus were looted and burnt and Hindu idols were desecrated.

Another drama is played in West Bengal and Assam, simultaneously with the above described land grab operation. Between 1951 and 2011, the percentage of Hindus in Bangladesh / East Pakistan has gone down from 29% to about 9%. This is only natural, because Bangladesh / East Pakistan is a Muslim majority country, and there they will naturally persecute Hindus – what is so surprising about that? But, very interestingly, the percentage of Hindus in the Hindu-majority Indian state of West Bengal has also gone down – from 80% to 70%. In Assam it has gone down from 84% to less than 60%. Three districts in West Bengal, Eight in Assam, and even three in Bihar – Katihar, Araria and Kishangunj – have become or are about to become Muslim majority. And all this is due to Muslim infiltration from Bangladesh as well as greater procreation by Muslims.

The ultimate step is what happened to the Kashmiri Pandits in the Vale of Kashmir. They get driven out. The rest of the Hindus of the country do not care. What have we got to do with Kashmiri Pandits, they ask themselves? Bloody exclusivist lot, so proud of their good looks and fair complexion! Perhaps there were historical reasons! Perhaps they used to look down on the Muslims! Kashmir is so far away! Who cares, anyway?

West Bengal is the worst affected state. The major political parties, namely Trinamool Congress and CPI(M) have, as it were, conspired to do all this. But Mamata Banerjee has surpassed all in her brazenness. Can you imagine the Hindu Chief Minister of any other state donning an Islamic Hijab and pretending to offer Namaz, and the rest of the a state practically not batting an eyelid about it! There is consciousness about this in Assam. Kerala does not have a border with a Muslim-majority country. But in West Bengal – no consciousness, yes Muslim neighbour, and yes a Chief Minister with her tongue hanging out like Ma Kali for Muslim votes!

Is there time still left to correct all this? Maybe no, maybe just. THINK!

NO ONE KILLED BARUN BISWAS

This is a takeoff on 'No One Killed Jessica Lal', and for good reason. Barun Biswas is also another person whose death remains unexplained, will possibly forever remain unexplained. But let me explain.

Yesterday I got called to the popular 'Proti-Pokkho' Bengali TV debate hosted by ABP Ananda. I go there every so often, and no such visit so far has resulted in a blog. But yesterday was different.

When I entered the studio I noticed a quiet, self-effacing man sitting at one corner whom I had never seen before. He was later introduced by the anchor as Nandadulal Das, the secretary of Association for People's Democratic Rights (APDR), Chandpara Branch. Chandpara is a village close to the sub-divisional town of Bongaon in the North 24-Parganas District of West Bengal, very close to the Indo-Bangladesh international border. Close to this village there is another village called Sutia, right on the border. APDR is an NGO I do not have much respect for -- many of their functionaries are just busybodies  But this Nandadulal Das seemed different.

The story that he told, over and above what I knew of the murder of a person called Barun Biswas, literally made my hairs stand on end and prompted me to write this blog.

Like many other towns on this largely unprotected border, Sutia had become a hotbed of criminals. Two of these criminals, Bireswar Dhali and Susanta Chowdhury, started a regime of rape in this village around 2002. Some 80 women were raped or gangraped. The rapists used to move around openly, with impunity and with arms. Obviously this could not have gone on without the connivance of the police and local politicos. Then Barun Biswas stood up in protest and organized the affected villagers into a ‘Pratirodh Mancha’ (a platform for protest). He encouraged the affected women to file complaints with the police. As a result many of the criminals were arrested, convicted and jailed.

Barun used to move around carefully, with people accompanying him. But on 5^th July 2012 the criminals who were plotting his murder from behind the bars got a chance. He was shot in full view of the public at Gobardanga railway station. This much is public knowledge.

Now comes the part which Nandadulal told us, which he said he had investigated and found out.

It appears that Barun was far from dead when he fell on the platform. He was bleeding profusely and was surrounded by a huge crowd. But two known criminals, one Khotey and another were standing guard over him, shooing off anyone who tried to help, saying that the police had been summoned, and anyone who tried to touch the body would get involved in a police case. No one dared to do anything. Meanwhile Barun was constantly losing blood. In that state he tried to lift his cellphone, but he was too weak to do so. Some people rushed to the Station Master, asking him to contact the police. The Station master contacted the Government Railway Police (GRP) at Bongaon who said it was not within their jurisdiction. He then contacted the local police. Eventually an ambulance arrived, and Barun was lifted on to it. Khotey then caught hold of a passing motorcyclist, got onto the pillion seat and asked him to go to the hospital. While they were on their way there (this bit Nandadulal gathered from that motorcyclist, whose name he would not give), Khotey’s cellphone rang and he answered it. In answer to whoever was talking, Khotey answered “There is nothing to worry about. He’s been hit by a .303 bullet. He won’t live”.

Jyotipriya Mallik (Balu), the local Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), who is also the Minister in charge of food in the state has refused to answer questions on the death.    

A FRUITFUL SEMINAR IN DELHI

Attended a very fruitful party seminar in Delhi ON 4-5 mAY 2013, which was addressed by leaders such as Advaniji, Dattatreya Hosabale, Shanta Kumar, etc. I spoke on the 'Interaction between Indian Religions and Semitic religions' and emphasized the essential difference between the two sets: that, while the former believes in the motto ‘we’ll mind our business, let them mind theirs’, or 'live and let live', and make no concerted effort to spread or proselytize, Christianity and Islam (not Judaism), by far presently the more dominant Semitic faiths are proselytizing religions to the hilt. They believe in conversion, and also believe that unless a person is converted he cannot be ‘saved’ – presumably from hell-fire. There have been tussles between Islam and Christianity on the one hand and Indian-origin faiths on the other, and some of the tussles have been bloody, and some very very bloody. This is history-absolutely incorrect to pretend that such bloody tussles never happened. However, I emphasized, that it is incorrect to equate the two proselytizing Semitic faiths, paint them with the same brush. This approach may give rise to costly mistakes. The interaction of faiths between Indian-origin faiths and Semitic faiths is required to be studied strictly separately for Islam and Christianity. 

The principal differences in approach of Christian and Islamic proselytization, according to my perception, are the following:
(a) Christianity has proselytized mostly by persuasion, which at times has included deceit or money; Islam, mostly by force.
(b) Their attitudes towards women are very different. 
(c) Christianity is not something immutable, and changes with time, which is a feature it shares with Indian faiths. Just as Hindus no longer practice suttee (widow-burning), likewise Christians do not burn heretics at the stakes as they did to Joan of Arc. However Islam is not only immutable, but takes pride in being so. The Hadith, or Islamic Traditions, are next only to the Qur’an in terms of sacredness to Muslims, and teach how the Prophet had acted, what he said, and what was done in his presence without his disapproval. Every devout Muslim is required to follow these Traditions. They contain provisions such as stoning to death for adultery – for which the punishment prescribed by the Indian Penal Code is only five years of imprisonment, and that too only for the male in case of adultery with a married woman. Adultery is not a criminal offence in most countries where Christianity is the dominant faith.
(d) Christianity does not imply internationalism, which Islam does (and interestingly, so does Communism). There is no Christian Jahan or Umma, and an Indian Christian, however devout, is not particularly upset by some Christian in some neighbouring country being killed or subjected to some injustice or some church being attacked. As everyone knows, this is not the case with Muslims – all the cases of anti-Hindu pogroms in Pakistan and Bangladesh have started with some real or imagined news about ‘Islam being in danger’ in India.

These are some of the features that have to be remembered while considering interaction. The entire point of my talk was to underscore the facts that (a) We have to live in India in amity among all religions (b) to do that it is necessary to put a stop to proselytization (c) it is incorrect to hide history and pretend everything has been smooth in this interaction and (d) the two Semitic religions will have to be looked at separately.

Good, fruitful seminar. Thanks to the organizer, our Legal Cell Chief Alok Kumarji