Why I Killed Gandhi by Nathuram Vinayak Godse- must read


this may be a repeat but read on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti

 

Subject: WHY I KILLED GANDHI by NATHURAM VINAYAK GODSE

Gandhiji’s assassin, Nathuram Godse’s Final Address to the Court.

WHY I KILLED GANDHI - Nathuram Godse's Final Address to the Court.WHY I KILLED GANDHI – Nathuram Godse’s Final Address to the Court.

Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinated Gandhiji, based on a F. I. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the Tughlak Road Police staton at Delhi . The trial, which was held in camera, began on May 27, 1948 and concluded on February 10, 1949. He was sentenced to death.

An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find favour and the sentence was upheld. The statement that you are about to read is the last made by Godse before the Court on the May 5, 1949.

Such was the power and eloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla, later wrote, “I have, however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought a verdict of ‘not Guilty’ by an overwhelming majority”

WHY I KILLED GANDHI

Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchability and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession.

I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Ravana, Chanakiya, Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England , France , America and Russia . Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the moulding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.

All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hindudom and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India , one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and programme, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan , my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.

Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji’s influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them.. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day.

In fact, honour, duty and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita.. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relationsincluding the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.
In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India . It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history’s towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear, a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to them.

The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very good in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way.

Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him. He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma’s infallibility. ‘A Satyagrahi can never fail’ was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible.

Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. Gandhi’s pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India . It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India , Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani.. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma’s sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India . His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.

From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League members right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi’s infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947.

Lord Mountbatten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and Governor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mountbatten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls ‘freedom’ and ‘peaceful transfer of power’. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a theocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called ‘freedom won by them with sacrifice’ – whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country – which we consider a deity of worship – my mind was filled with direful anger.

One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan , there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi.

Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation. But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty inasmuch as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty. He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah’s iron will and proved to be powerless. Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost all my honour, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan . People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building.

After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was unfairly favourable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.

I have to say with great regret that Prime Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preachings and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi’s persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism levelled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weigh my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.

 

Advertisements

Why MODIfied India will give jitters to alienated Bharatwasis?


Subject: Why MODIfied India will give jitters to alienated Bharatwasis?
Modi: Enemy at the Gates

Modi has arrived and arrived in style, notwithstanding the bombastic resistance from the Congress and their paid agents in the BJP and Media. Delhi is finally on NaMo’s radar and his troops can see the domes of South Block, which he will hopefully occupy by May 2014, if not earlier.

The political career of the senior BJP leadership is over. They did not see the writing on the wall and have now been removed by their cadres. The BJP President, Rajnath Singh, handled it well, but in hindsight, his efforts were completely unnecessary. The lesson for the future is to let the leadership come out through open internal elections where the village, district and the state level leaders vote. Had there been a contest to choose the PM candidate, it is evident that Modi would have easily vanquished the rest. Unanimity is not required. This is true democracy.

The Congress is notably jittery. During Modi’s recent visit to Jaipur, the Rajasthan CM had the electric supplies shut so that the village folk did not see the live telecast. Their impending doom will now translate into incoherent actions. Where in the world has anyone ever heard of an opposition leader, who is only a state CM, being discussed thoroughly be it TV, print media, cocktail circuits, vegetable vendors, taxi drivers etc. NaMo is taking away 80% of their time. Nobody wastes time on the ruling dispensation. Does anybody even discuss MMS, PC, SG, RG etc? The discussions on them are generally negative and the junta only wants to know if they are likely to go to jail.

From the Aam Admi’s point of view, NaMo had made an important statement on a Zee TV program “Kahiye Janab”. He stated: “*Na mein kahta hoon, na kisi ko kahne deta hoon*”. No wonder, the levels of corruption in Gujarat is comparable to that of Singapore.

Modi at the gates of Delhi augurs well for the Indian State.
a) Sycophancy and nepotism will soon be an era of the past.
b) Good bye to vote bank politics.
c) Bureaucrats will fall in line.
d) NGOs who operate from garages of Lutyens Delhi will have to move to safe havens in Congress ruled states.
e) Many newspapers will die. The advertising budget in Gujarat was reduced by 80%.
Expect the same by the Modi Government.
f) The Armed Forces will get their much cherished “Political Control”. Issues will be solved pronto before
any soldier can say “Jack Robinson”.
g) Along with Swamy and Jethmalani, most of the black money stowed abroad will be brought back. The Rupee will challenge the Dollar.
h) NO Income Tax as per Swamy’s statement.
i) Terrorists will now have a “maut ka saudagar”. The Congress has made India the most dangerous country after Iraq and Afghanistan.
j) The Pakis and Chinese may have already gone into a huddle.
k) Modi has a good memory. The Americans had better watch out.
l) J&K will finally be Indian Territory. Enough of Article 70.

An eminent General recently wrote an article “Death of Politics”. I disagree. Modi will bring in clean politics. He has no dependents or damaad to speak of. A bright future awaits a *Modi*fied India.

Author/ Source not known
~
Lets us work and make our…
Government – Proactive
Media – Reactive
Political Parties – Elective
Voters – Selective
Crowds – Constructive
Youth – Creative

MMS, the closet spiritualist
The widely respected economist and scholar has been credited with heralding a new era of economic liberalisation in India with his laissez-faire policy. Yet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been at the receiving end of late. Criticisms include use of adjectives like “ineffective”, “pusillanimous” and “understated” to “spineless” and “puppet PM.”

“It astonishes me that Manmohan Singh should talk so little and be so barely visible that we might be forgiven for thinking thatIndia has an imaginary Prime Minister,” wrote a celebrity-journalist in his blog a few months ago.

It is difficult to believe that the architect of India’s laissez-faire could be all that vulnerable, naive or “imaginary”. The non-committal, non-controversial and understated disposition that characterises the gentleman could be a veneer that conceals a far more evolved and enlightened approach towards his duties and responsibilities – in the current situation, as prime minister – that enables him to navigate life without much ado.

In a speech he gave at a public conclave held in the Capital, Manmohan Singh said: “I do not want India to be a super power; I just want India to stand in the comity of nations.” So he doesn’t seem to display any signs of being power-needy.

Perhaps he has no dark side, then. Manmohan Singh could, in all likelihood, be an advanced spiritualist who perceives himself as having absolutely no stake – neither in the country, in the species nor in the planet! He also shows great resilience in adverse situations, whether in a political, social or economic exigency. To be detached like a yogi even while living among fellow beings in the rough and tumble of politics and economics is no easy task. Guru Nanak described such a one as ‘raj mein jog’ – that is, the one who can achieve enlightenment in civic life. He also said: “The lotus in the water is not wet / Nor the water-fowl in the stream. / If a man would live, but by the world untouched, / Meditate and repeat the name of the Lord Supreme.”

Extolling the attributes of the one who has cultivated studied non-attachment to highs and lows, Guru Tegh Bahadur sang thus: “…He who has neither gluttony in his heart / Nor vanity nor attachment with worldly things, / He whom nothing moves, / Neither good fortune nor ill, / Who cares not for the world’s applause, / Nor its censure, / Who ignores every wishful fantasy / And accepts what comes his way as it comes… / He knows the righteous path…”

Some might conclude that Manmohan Singh’s proclivity for remaining a ‘Nirlep Narayan’ makes him out to be one without a stake and therefore he has nothing to win or lose. If he makes promises, they’re bound to be ones that concern issues that would get resolved if not now, later and if not later, even later, perhaps… or not.

It might not be in order to compare Manmohan Singh with King Janaka, who is the only one Krishna praises in the Bhagwad Gita for having transcended everything even while administering a kingdom. However, there are tantalizing similarities between the PM’s studied ‘indifference’ and the non-attachment and transcendence of someone like Janaka, that leads one to conclude that Manmohan Singh is laissez-faire by nature, in the spiritual sense.

How will all this pan out if Manmohan Singh and his party lose the next round of elections? He might just quote from the Ashtavakra Gita: “From one lifetime to another, kingdoms, sons, wives, appearances and pleasures to which you were attached have been lost… For innumerable births have you undertaken work, painful and exacting, with your body, mind and speech. Hence find rest at least now.”

 
~
Narayani Ganesh is a senior editor with The Times of India. She writes on issues concerning the environment, science and technology, travel and tourism, heritage, philosophy, and health. She edits The Speaking Tree Sunday newspaper and daily column of that name, and is a leader writer with the Times of India opinion pages.

 

“An History of India as it Happened (not as it was written)”:


 “An History of India as it Happened (not as it was written)”:

CHAPTER 6 : NEGATIONISM AND THE MUSLIM CONQUESTS (Part II)
It is not only Indian historians, who are negationists, but also western historians and India-specialists. We know that the first historians of Indian – the Britishers – twisted India’s history to suit their theory that they had come to civilize a race which was not only inferior to them, but also was supposed to have been heavily influenced in its philosophies or arts by European invaders – read the Aryans or Alexander the Great. But what is less known is that today many western historians not only still cling to these old outdated theories, but also actually more or less will fully mislead the general European public, who is generally totally ignorant and takes these “knowledgeable” comments about India as the absolute truth. One example is France, which has a long tradition of Indianists, who devote their time and life to the study of India. The main school of historic research in France is called the CNRS (National Center of Social Research), which has a very important South Asia section, of which India, of course, is the main component. Unfortunately, many of these India-specialists are not only Left-leaning, that is they are very close to the ideas of the JNU historians, with whom they are anyway in constant contact, but are also specialists of the Mogul period of India history, which is to say that they are sympathetic to Islam’s point of view on India, while they often consider Hindus as fanatics…

Take for instance one of the recent Indian History books published in France “Histoire de l’Inde moderne” (1994 Fayard / Paris), the authors (there are seven of, all famous Indianists), having subscribed to the usual Aryan invasion theory, accuse Shiva “to incarnate obscure forces” (Introduction III) and of course use the word “fanatics” to describe the Hindus who brought down the Ayodhya mosque. Basically, the book does an apology of he moghol period in India; while keeping quiet about all their crimes. In the chapter dealing for instance with Vijaynagar, the last great empire of free India, which symbolized a Hindu Renaissance after nine centuries of savage Muslim conquests, one cannot but perceive the enmity of the authors for Hinduism. The two young princes, founder of Vijaynagar who were converted by force to Islam when in captivity, are accused of “duplicity”, because they reverted back to Hinduism as soon as they were free; then the French historians highlight the “ambition of Brahmins, who used these two young princes to reconquer the power that at been lost at the hands of the conquering Muslims” (page 54); the book then mentions “the unquenchable exigencies of the (Hindu) central power in Vijaynagar”, forgetting to say that that for the first time in centuries, Hindus could practice freely their faith, that they were not killed, their women raped, their children taken as slaves and converted to Islam. And all this to finally sum up in seven words the terrible end of Vijaynagar, which has left a wound in the Hindu psyche even up to today: “looting and massacres lasted for three days”…

But the authors of “Histoire de l’Inde moderne” do not only run down Hindus, they also glorify Muslims, particularly the Moghols. Babur for instance, this monster who killed hundreds of thousands of Hindus and razed thousands of temples becomes at their hands a gentle hero: “ Babur did not like India and preferred to isolate himself in the exquisite gardens he had devised, with their geometrical design, their crossed canals, which evoked to him the rivers of paradise”. Oh, God what a sensitive poet! And to make it sound even more glorious, the author adds: “there he translated a manual of Koranic law and a Sufi treaty of morals”. Oh, what a saint and lover of humanity… Aurangzeb, the cruelest of the Moghul emperors, has also the full sympathies of the authors: “Aurangzeb seems to have concentrated on himself the hatred of militant Hindus, who attribute to him systematic destruction of temples and massive conversion drives. But this Manichean impression has to be seriously countered (page 126)”… Unfortunately for the authors, as we have seen earlier, Aurangzeb was not only proud of what he was doing to the Hindus, but he had his scribes note each deed down for posterity… In 2006 the same authors published “L’Inde contemporaine”, with the same prejudices and bias against Hindus and their political parties.

These French Indianists have also a tradition of speaking against the BJP, which they have always labeled as “fundamentalist” and dangerous for the “secular” fabric of India, although the BJP has been in power for quite a few years and nothing dramatic has happened to the secular fabric of India. The problem is that these Indianists not only write lengthy and pompous articles in France’s main newspapers, such as Left-leaning Le Monde, explaining to the ignorant reader why is India on the point of exploding because of fanatic Hindus, or how the Harijans in India are still the most downtrodden people on earth (this is why when President Narayanan visited France in April 2000, all the French newspapers chose to only highlight that he was an untouchable and that religious minorities in India were persecuted, nearly provoking a diplomatic incident between France and India), but unfortunately they also advise the French government, who like his citizens, is often shamefully ignorant and uninterested by India. This is why, although there has been a lot of sympathy for the French in India because of their tolerant response to the Indian nuclear tests of 1998 (whereas the whole western world reacted hysterically by imposing absurd sanctions), France has not yet bothered to capitalize on this sympathy and has not managed to realize that India is the ideal economic alternative to a very volatile China.

It would be nice to say that Indian journalists are not blind to this influence of French Indianists and the adverse impact it has on Indo-French relations, but when Christophe Jaffrelot, for instance who wrote many a nasty books on Hindu fundamentalism and is most responsible for the bad image the BJP in France, comes to India to release the English translation of his book, he is feted by the Press corps and all kind of laudatory reviews are printed in the Indian Press. So much for secularism in India.

And, ultimately, it is a miracle that Hinduism survived the onslaught of Muslim savagery; it shows how deep was her faith, how profound her karma, how deeply ingrained her soul in the hearts of her faithfuls. We do not want to point a finger at Muslim atrocities, yet they should not be denied and their mistakes should not be repeated today. But the real question is: Can Islam ever accept Hinduism? We shall turn towards the Sage, the yogi, who fought for India’s independence, accepting the Gita’s message of karma of violence when necessary, yet who had a broad vision that softened his words: “You can live with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is “I will not tolerate you? How are you going to have unity with these people?…The Hindu is ready to tolerate; he is open to new ideas and his culture and has got a wonderful capacity for assimilation, but always provided India’s central truth is recognised.. (Sri Aurobindo India’s Rebirth 161,173)
Or behold this, written on September 1909: “Every action for instance which may be objectionable to a number of Mahomedans, is now liable to be forbidden because it is likely to lead to a breach of peace. And one is dimly beginning to wonder whether worship in Hindu temples may be forbidden on that valid ground (India’s Rebirth p. 55). How prophetic! Sri Aurobindo could not have foreseen that so many Muslim countries would ban Rushdie’s book and that Hindu processions would often be forbidden in cities, for fear of offending the Muslims. Sri Aurobindo felt that sooner or later Hindus would have to assert again the greatness of Hinduism.

And here we must say a word about monotheism, for it is the key to the understanding of Islam. Christians and Muslims (and Jews) have always harped on the fact that their religions sprang-up as a reaction against the pagan polytheist creeds, which adored many Gods. « There is only one real God they said (ours), all the rest are just worthless idols ». This « monotheism versus polytheism business » has fuelled since then the deep, fanatic, violent and murderous zeal of Islam against polytheist religions, particularly against Hinduism, which is the most comprehensive, most widely practiced of all them. It even cemented an alliance of sorts between the two great monotheist religions of the world, Christianity and Islam, witness the Britishers’ attitude in India, who favoured Indian Muslims and Sikhs against the Hindus; or the King of Morocco who, even though he is one of the most moderate Muslim leaders in the world, recently said in an interview: « we have no fight with Christianity, our battle is against the Infidel who adores many gods ».
But as we have seen earlier, Hinduism is without any doubt the most monotheist religion in the World, for it recognises divine unity in multiplicity. It does not say: « there is only one God, which is Mohammed. If you do not believe in Him I will kill you ». It says instead: « Yes Mohammed is a manifestation of God, but so is Christ, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Confucius ». This philosophy, this way of seeing, which the Christians and Muslims call « impious », is actually the foundation for a true monotheist understanding of the world. It is because of this « If you do not recognize Allah (or Christ), I will kill you », that tens of millions of Hindus were slaughtered by Arabs and other millions of South Americans annihilated by the Christians. And ultimately the question is: Are the Muslims of today ready to accept Hinduism ? Unfortunately no. For Muslims all over the world, Hinduism is still the Infidel religion « par excellence ». This what their religion tell them, at every moment, at every verse, at the beginning of each prayer : « Only Allah is great ». And their mollahs still enjoin them to go on fight « jihad » to deliver the world of the infidels. And if the armies of Babar are not there any longer; and if it is not done any more to kill a 100.000 Hindus in a day, there is still the possibility of planting a few bombs in Coimbatore, Mumbai or Varanasi, of fuelling separatisms in the hated land and eventually to drop a nuclear device, which will settle the problem once and for all. As to the Indian Muslim, he might relate to his Hindu brother, for whatever he says, he remains an Indian, nay a Indu; but his religion will make sure that he does not forget that his duty is to hate the Infidel. This is the crux of the problem today and the riddle if Islam has to solved, if it wants to survive in the long run.

We will never be able to assess the immense physical harm done to India by the Muslim invasions. Even more difficult is to estimate the moral and the spiritual damage done to Hindu India. But once again, the question is not of vengeance, or of reawakening old ghosts, but of not repeating the same mistakes. Unfortunately, the harm done by the Muslims conquest is not over. The seeds planted by the Moghols, by Babar, Mahmud, or Aurangzeb, have matured: the 125 million Indian Muslims of today have forgotten that they were once peaceful, loving Hindus, forcibly converted to a religion they hated. And they sometimes take-up as theirs a cry of fanaticism which is totally alien to their culture. Indeed, as Sri Aurobindo once said: “More than 90% of the Indian Muslims are descendants of converted Hindus and belong as much to the Indian nation as the Hindu themselves”…(Rebirth of India, p.237) The embryo of secession planted by the Mahomedans, has also matured into a poisonous tree which has been called Pakistan and comes back to haunt India through three wars and the shadow of a nuclear conflict embracing South Asia. And in India, Kashmir and Kargil are reminders that the Moghol cry for the house of Islam in India is not yet over.

One of the main reasons I have decided to build in Pune a Museum of Indian History, dedicated to the great Shivaji Maharaj (who is depicted in Indian History books as a petty chieftain and a plunderer), is that it will not be enough to rewrite Indian History in books, it will also have to be done in STONE. Please see our website fact-india.com and contribute financially, if you can, to the making of that Museum (we have US, UK and Indian tax exemption). We are also looking for IT persons to donate time to do presentations, animations & GAMES based on the lives of India’s Hindu heroes: Shivaji Maharaj, Maharana Pratap, Rani of Jhansi, Ahilyabhai, the Vijaynagar empire, etc. You can contact me at fgautier@rediffmail.com

courtesy  Francois Gautier, a french author and journalist, who has been covering India and South Asia for the last 35 years. All throughout his reporting years, he noticed that most western correspondents were projecting the problems, warts and shortcomings of India. Hence when Francois Gautier got a journalism prize (Natchiketa Award of excellence in journalism) from the Prime Minister of India, he used the prize money to mount a series of conferences & exhibitions highlighting the magnificence of India and the threats to its sovereignty.

HOW TO REVIVE INDIAN ECONOMY WITHIN 3 MONTHS?????


 

How to lift the Rupee from its dumps..
Every news channel, every newspaper, every economist worth his/her salt has a panacea to stop the rupee tailspin and bring back some sanity. All, either shooting in the dark or vague, wishy-washy solutions – the TOI, the “world’s largest paper”, so the high priest of journalism grandly recently wrote the country needs ‘structural changes” without pinpointing what they are.
Amidst all these cacophony, only HT’s Chanakya (Sunday, 25/8/13) gives concrete steps that, to one, seem to work…
“This situation calls for a change in script. What we need are big bang measure that take effect immediately – as opposed to stpes that will begin to bear fruit six months later – to lift sentiment. Traditional monetary measures have failed and incremental steps to stop dollar outflows have proved counter-productive.
First, ban gold and silver imports (for, say, six to nine months). This will tell the world that India is serious about addressing its current account deficit problem. (Me: Gold import now attracts custom duty at about 30%. This won’t work, given an average Indian’s appetite for gold regardless of its price. By banning imports, the price in the country may further escalate.So what? Let the Indians be ready pay for it)
Raise petrol and diesel prices by Rs.4-5 per litre to help the government to pare its deficit.
Set aside $25-30 billion from India’s foreign exchange reserves to defend the rupee against speculators. (Me: This is a suggestion put forward by Montek Ahluwalia, the Dy. Planning Commission Chairman).
Settle the Vodafone tax case to signal to the world that their investments here will not be subject to whimsical and politically-motivated policy changes. (Me: absolutely spot-on. The proposal to tax Vodafone billions of dollars on their acquisition of the then cellphone brand, Hutch, from the Hongkong-based company was the single most important factor that stopped MNCs in their tracks from making further investments in the country. Our policy makers and/or the tax sleuths are singularly myopic)
Force real estate companies to cut prices to make housing affordable. This sector has linkages with more than 200 industries. And if it revives, it will set off a virtuous cycle by generating demand in hundreds of feeder industries. (Me: the real-estate companies have been exceedingly greedy and been jacking up prices every two months so much so flats have become unaffordable to middle-class buyers.)

Forget all above suggestions:

Now read few suggestions from me
 
1. Declare Economic Emergency
2. close all virtual markets trading in commodities, currencies. forex markets with immediate effect. No trading to be allowed for at least six months. Forex to be released to only genuine requirements.
3. Seal all foreign accounts of all the politicians and businessmen and declare the same as National property.
4. Declare death penalty for economic offences.
 

it would be much simpler than that if India brings back all the money stashed outside by politicians and businessman from foreign countries making Indian Rupee dearer and hard for them to save their own currencies. Will Mr PC or our great economist PM Shri MMS do it?

 

WHY YOU SHOULD SUPPORT NARENDRA MODI AS PM IN 2014 ? PL. READ


 

Whatever your political inclination , this article is worth a read ..
>>
>>TODAY as we are poised to look ahead, and forward, with HOPE to a better INDIA …
>>
>>Why I shall Support Modi in 2014…
>>By Avay Shukla – Retired IAS officer
>>
>>
>>I have been getting more and more worried over the last year or so at the direction( or lack of it) in which our country is headed. It is
>> like a runaway plane falling from the skies and we are plummeting past one alarming indicator after another– inflation,economic slowdown, falling rupee,complete break-down of law and order, ever emboldened Naxalites, total internalization of corruption, an administration that answers to no one,complete lack of governance, cronyism on a scale never seen before, a brazen lack of accountability, public  intimi-dation of constitutional authorities, a judicial system that has all but collapsed, environmental disasters that no one knows how to cope with, complete paraplegia of decision-making at all levels in government, appeasement of †minorities†and Other sections that are reachingridiculous and dangerous levels, dynastic politics at the Centre and the states reminiscent of the Mughal era…….
>>
>>I could go on and on but after some time the mind becomes numb and registers only one emotion – IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE. Another five years of this and we would be well on our way to becoming a failed state and joining the ranks of Pakistan, Haiti and Somalia.
>>
>>The general elections of 2014 offers us one last chance to redeem ourselves. I have been on this mortal coil for 62 years and have never voted for the BJP but have, after much thought, decided to support MODI in 2014. This is considered a heresy in most neo-liberal circles in India today but we have to go beyond mere labelling and stereotypingto understand my decision.
>>
>>But before I go on to Mr. Modi himself, let us review the context in which this decision has been taken. The state of the country is self evident in para one above.
>>
>>
>>The next question then
is: What are the alternatives or choices that we as voters have?
>>
>>The Congress will only perpetuate the present mess-even more worrying and dangerous is the fact that, were the Congress to return to power, it would consider it to have a renewed mandate to carry on as before.
>>
>>In any case, who in the country would lead the Congress- a reluctant dynastic or an ageing economist who has discovered his true skills lie in politics, or a backroom puppeteer? Or, God forbid, all three? ( Seriously, this is a possibility- after all not one of these three want to shoulder sole accountability, and they may reason that if a dual power center can ensure two terms, a triple may be good for even more!) No, to my mind the Congress is not an option.
>>
>>Who else, then?
>>
>>Well, if we scrape the bottom of the barrel assiduously we will come up with Mamta Banerjee[ TMC], Mulayam Yadav[ SP], Nitish Kumar[JDU], Naveen Patnaik[ BJD], Jayalalitha[ AIADMK], Sharad Pawar[ NCP] and Mayawati(BSP). There is no need to discuss their achievements or ideologies at a national level (incidentally, not even one of them has a remotely national outlook or ideology since they cannot see beyond pandering shamelessly to the vote banks in their respective states) because they are state (not even regional) leaders and none of them can hope to be Prime Minister on the strength of their own Parties.
>>
>>They all realize this, of course, hence the idea which periodically emerges like a skin rash, of a Third or Federal Front. This didn’t work even when a Third Front could agree on a leader (as in the case of I.K. Gujral or Deve Gowda). How on earth will it work when every one of the state leaders mentioned above feels that he or she has been reincarnated precisely to become the Prime Minister of India?
>>
>>The negotiations for choosing a PM (if the Front comes up with the numbers, that is) will resemble one of those WWF fights where about six hunks are put into the ring to beat the daylights out of each other till one of them is left standing to claim the crown. I cannot see all of them agreeing on even one policy issue, whether it is reservations, industrial stimulus, foreign policy, dis-investtment, environmental protection, center-state relations etc. If they come to power at the Center, the paraplegia of today will become quadriplegia tomorrow.
>>Fortunately, in any case, they can never muster the 274 seats required-it will be difficult for them to reach even hundred even if they do very well in their states.
>>
>>So a Third Front is a
non-starter, and voting for any of these parties will only help the Congress by dividing the anti-congress vote. [You will have noticed that I have not mentioned Mr. Karat of the CPM. That’s because he’s become like a flat bottle of Coca-Cola – earlier he was all fizz and no substance: now even the fizz has gone].
>>
>>That leaves only the BJP, with its historical baggage of the RSS, Hindutva, Ramjanmbhoomi (by the way, this baggage also includes five years of exemplary governance under Vajpayee from 1999 to 2004) – perhaps enough baggage to dissuade me from voting for the party. Except that this time the BJP has an add-on: Narendra Modi. And that, to my mind, adds value to the party and makes the crucial difference.
>>
>>Modi has been reviled ad-nausea m by the “secular†parties and sections of the elite media for many years for the 2002 riots in Gujarat, by the former not because of any love for the Muslims (as I hope to show later) but simply in order to appropriate the Muslim vote, and by the latter because they have to keep whipping somebody in order to get their TRPs – in India only extremes succeed. Modi has been tried and condemned by them not on the basis of facts but by an opportunistic mixture of innuendo, presumption, speculation, half-truths, hear say. Look at the facts. There was a horrendous orgy of killing of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 where about 2000 of them were massacred. Some of Modi’s ministers and many BJP/ VHP workers were involved: quite a few of them have also been convicted, the trials of many still go on.
>>
>>The Supreme Court set up at least three SITs and is itself monitoring the investigations. Many PILs have been filed in the SC and the High Court accusing Modi of master-minding these massacres. In not a single case has either the Supreme Court, the High Court or the SITs found any evidence of Modi’s personal complicity.
>>
>>Yes, they have held that he could have controlled the situation better- but nothing beyond that in-spite of ten years of frenetic drum beating and sustained vilification.
>>
>>Now look at the other set
of facts. Under Modi’s current watch, perhaps for the first time in India, people have been actually convicted for communal rioting and murder- more than 200 convictions, with about 130 of them sentenced to life imprison-ment. All the communal massacres in India since Independence have not
resulted in even one tenth of these convictions.
>>
>>Modi’s government has to be given some credit for this: yes, the investigations were carried out by the SIT and not by Modi’s police; yet Modi could, if he was so inclined, have interfered covertly in the whole process by asking his officials not to cooperate, by intimidating witnesses, influencing judges, conveying hints to prosecutors- something which, as we all know too well, governments of all political hues in India have mastered.
>>
>>Modi could have done what the Congress has done so successfully in Delhi in three other high-profile cases being monitored by the Supreme Court- the Commonwealth Games Scam, the 2G case, and Coalgate ( not to mention also the Sikh massacres of 1984): have these cases made any headway? has wrong-doing been proved in a single instance? has anyone been convicted?
>>
>>No, Sir, these investigations will drag on and on till they are lost in the mists of time. Supreme Court monitoring cannot ensure justice unless the govt. of the day allows its agencies to function – it is to Modi’s credit that he did so allow them.
>>
>>Compare this with the manner in which the police in Delhi have been emas- culated to protect some senior Congress leaders in the 1984 Sikh carnage – everyone in Delhi knows, even after 27 long years, that their hands are dipped in blood, but the evidence will never reach the courts; the recent acquittal of Sajjan Kumar only confirms this.
>>
>>The biggest stigmata on Modi is the charge that he is †communal†and not  secular†.
>>
>>All (non-NDA) political parties never tire of tom-tomming this from the roof-tops and consider this their trump card to ensure that he will never achieve his Grand-slam at the centre. But after eleven years this is beginning to wear thin and people are beginning to question the assumptions behind this charge and even the definition of what constitutes †communal†and “secular.â€
>>
>>Nirad Choudhry had long ago given his opinion that India is the Continent of Circe where humans are turned into beasts-it is also the graveyard of the Oxford Dictionary where the meanings of words are turned on their heads to suit political exigencies! So †communal† today means a Hindu who is not ashamed of saying he is a Hindu, and † secular†means a Hindu who panders to other religions in order to get their votes at the next elections!
>>
>>By this inverse definition Modi is considered communal- notwithstanding that not a single Hindu- Muslim riot has taken place in Gujarat under his watch since 2002, notwithstanding that the BJP got 17% of the Muslim vote in the Assembly elections in the state earlier this year, notwithstanding that the party won five of the eight seats which had a dominant Muslim voter base, notwith-standing that the average Muslim in Gujarat is much better off economically  than his counterpart in Assam, UP or Bihar (headed by †secular† parties).
>>
>>Compare this with the record of the Samajwadi party in UP where more than a hundred communal riots have taken place in less than two years, with the Congress in Assam where hundreds of Muslims were butchered last year and at least three hundred thousand of them are still languishing in relief camps with no hope of ever returning to their villages, with the Congress ruled Maharashtra where hundreds of Muslims were killed with the active help of the police after the Bombay blasts. ( Needless to say there do not appear to have been any convictions in any of these pogroms). And MODI is communal?
>>
>>I am a Hindu but I stopped going into any temple twenty years ago because I was sickened by the rapacious behavior of their pundits. I am no longer a practicing Hindu in a public, ritualistic sense and frankly I don’t know how many of the religious beliefs I retain, but I still consider myself a Hindu because Hinduism is more than just a religion- it is a culture, a civilisation, a way of life.
>>
>>
>>But in the Kafkaesque India of today if you were to proclaim that you are a Hindu ( even though you have equal respect and regard for all other religions) you would be branded †communal†– this is what political discourse has been reduced to by our politicians. And being †secular†no longer means treating all religions equally: it means splintering society into a myriad †minorities†( another perversion of the Oxford Dictionary) and then pandering to such of them as suit you in your naked pursuit of power.
>>
>>In the process India has been converted into a complex jigsaw of minorities, castes, tribes, classes, sections and what have you. The British could have learnt plenty from us about Divide and Rule! But more and more right thinking people are beginning to question this recipe for disaster, and I am one of them.
>>
>>India is 80% Hindu- why should one then have to be apologetic about proclaiming that one is a Hindu ? We have been ruled and exploited and vandalized for eight hundred years by Muslims and for another two hundred years by Christians, and yet we have accorded these two religions a special status as †minorities†with privileges that the Hindus don’t have. Has any other country in the world ever displayed such a spirit of accommodation and egalitarianism? Is there a more secular civilisation in the world? And yet, a Hindu who says he is a Hindu is considered communal!
>>
>>Does a Hindu have to prove his secular credentials time and again by greater levels( or depths) of appeasement of other religions simply so that they can continue to be vote bank fodder for political parties? Modi has had the courage to raise these questions and is therefore being reviled by those political parties whose apple carts he is threatening to upset. But people are beginning to pay attention. Modi is not considered secular because he is proud to be a Hindu and refuses to give doles or concessions to any religious group( including Hindus, but that is conveniently glossed over) beyond what is provided in the constitution and the laws of the land. He believes this weakens the social fabric of the country and that even handed development is the best guarantee for equitable prosperity for all. He is not considered secular ( and instead is branded as communal) because he says publicly that he is proud to be a Hindu. And
has he done anything blatantly or provocatively pro-Hindu in the last ten years? There is not a single instance of this and yet he is vilified as communal and anti-minorities by the same party that presided over more than two hundred anti-Muslim riots in the seventies and eighties in Gujarat, that massacred 6000 Sikhs in 1984, that lit the fuse in Ayodhya by installing an icon of Ram in the mosque there, that failed to take any action when the Babri masjid was being razed to the ground! Modi has carefully distanced himself from any public support of Hindutva, has kept the VHP and the Bajrang Dal on a tight leash in Gujarat ever since he came to power there, and has even incurred the wrath of the RSS for not toeing the line on their purely religious agenda. It takes time, and some mistakes, to attain maturity; the Modi of today is not the Modi of 2002: then he was still in the pracharak mould of the RSS, inexperienced in
the exercise of power, lacking administrative experience. He has now developed into a politician with a vision, an administrator who has delivered to his people and caught the fancy of the entire corporate world in India and abroad. Rahul Gandhi has been around in politics for almost the same length of time but has still not progressed beyond his epiphanic perception that India is a bee-hive.
>>
>>Pause a while to honestly compare Modi’s qualities with his peers in the political firmament. His integrity is impeccable, both personal and vicarious. Even Mr. Manish Tewari has not been able to charge him on this score, and that’s saying something! I am not aware of a single major scam unearthed during his term( compare this with the Congress either in Maharashtra or at the Centre: the Congress has more skeletons in its cupboard than a graveyard does).
>>
>>Modi has no family to promote or to insure against inflation for the next hundred years( compare this with any other party leader, all of whom have given an entirely new meaning to the term †joint family†– brothers, uncles, wives, sons, sons-in-law, nephews-all happily and jointly looting the nation’s resources). Modi has a vision and a road map for the future and he has demonstrated in Gujarat that he can implement his vision.
>>
>>No other major leader of
the parties that are vilifying him comes even close to comparing with him in this respect – Manmohan Singh once had a vision but his unique concept of †coalition dharma†has ensured that he now cannot see, or hear, or talk; Rahul Gandhi cannot see beyond bee-hives and boats that rise with the tide, Sharad Pawar cannot see the woods for the sugar-cane stalks, Mulayam Singh has been fixated on the Prime Minister’s chair for so long that he has now started hallucinating; Nitish Kumar’s vision is a peculiar bi-focal  which  enables him to see only Muslims and OBCs; Navin Patnaik, being erudite and sophisticated must be having a vision but he has not deigned to share it with anyone yet; Mayawati cannot see beyond statues of herself and of elephants; and as for Mamta Banerjee, she is colour blind – she can only see red. Modi’s track record as an administrator inspires confidence in his ability to play a role at the
national level.
>>
>>He sets specific goals, provides the resources and then gives his bureaucrats a free hand to operate. He has ensured water availability to towns and to greater number of farmers, Gujarat now has 24X7 power and has even offered to sell power to other states.
>>Modi has realised long before his peers that future growth can only come from the manu-facturing sector since the past stimulus provided by the service sector is now bottoming out, and has prepared his state to attract capital: perennial road-blocks which have bedevilled other states – land acquisition, labour issues, law and order, lack of decision making, cronyism – have all been sorted out. It is no surprise then that Gujarat has been receiving the second highest amount of investment funds after Maharashtra.
>>His opponents, looking for anything to denigrate his achievements, cavil that Gujarat has always been a progressive state and no credit goes to Modi for all this. True, Gujarat (and Gujaratis) have always been entrepreneurial and progressive, but any economist can tell them that the higher you are on the performance scale, the more difficult it is to make incremental gains – and these gains Modi has been making year after year.
>>Gujarat has consistently been among the top five states in just about all economic, social and human development indicators, and far above the national figures.
>>Here are some figures I picked up in the Hindustan Times of June 12, 2013:
>>
>>[a] Infant Mortality Rate
>>                                     2005        2010
>>     Gujarat                      54              44
>>     Haryana                    60              48
>>     Orissa                         5               60
>>     INDIA                        58               47
>>
>>[b]  Access to Safe Drinking Water( in %)
>>                                      2002           2011
>>      Gujarat                    84.1            90.3
>>      Maharashtra           79.8             83.4
>>      Andhra                    80.1             90.5
>>      INDIA                      77.9             85.5
>>
>>[c]  Poverty Reduction ( in %)
>>                                     2004-5         2009-10
>>     Gujarat                    31.6               23
>>     Karnataka               33.3               23.6
>>     MP                          48.6               36.7
>>     Orissa                     57.2               37
>>     INDIA                      37.2               29.8
>>
>>[d]  Annual GDP increase( in %) from 2005-6 to 2012-13
>>     Gujarat                       10.3
>>     Uttarakhand               12.36
>>     MP                               8.82
>>     Maharashtra                9.97
>>     Delhi                          11.39
>>
>>Modi is no paragon of virtue. He is arrogant, does not allow a second rung of leadership to emerge, brooks no opposition, is impatient and authoritative, is not a consensus builder. But then we are not seeking to canonize a saint but looking for a political leader who can get this country out of the morass that its present stock of politicians has got us into. We are looking for someone who can be decisive rather than justify inaction under the garb of seeking an elusive † consensus†. We are looking for someone who has the courage to have a vision and the skills to translate it into reality. We are looking for someone who will work for the country and not for his †joint family†.
>>
>>We are looking for someone who can restore our identities as INDIANS and not merely as Brahmins or Scheduled castes or Muslims or Backward castes.
>>
>>We are looking for someone who will not pander to religions and be truly secular.
>>
>>And we are looking for someone who will not be ashamed to say that he is a Hindu in the land that gave birth to the most tolerant and enlightened religion this world has seen.
>>
>>Modi may fail- in fact, there are good chances that he will. But he at least promises change, whereas the others promise only more of the same.
>>
>>He offers us Hope. Shouldn’t he be given a chance?
>>===========================================================
>>** The author retired from the Indian Administrative Service in December 2010. He is a keen environmentalist and loves the mountains – he has made them his home._
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>–
>>  ZINDAGI DA KEE BHAROSA, KADDON PATAKA BOL JAYEE, so let us ENJOY
>>
>>”To fight the darkness do not draw your sword, light a candle”
>”You can’t climb the ladder of success with your hands in your pockets”
>
>Note:
>If you  would like to forward this request to others, please do     Thank you.