BJP Future - 7 - Printable Version

+- Forums (
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (
+--- Forum: Indian Politics (
+--- Thread: BJP Future - 7 (/showthread.php?tid=237)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

BJP Future - 7 - Guest - 10-10-2010

Bharath, what is happening in Karnataka? Looks like the BJP govt is going to fall because of Cong JDs machinations?

BJP Future - 7 - Bharatvarsh2 - 10-10-2010

[quote name='Swamy G' date='08 October 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1286556899' post='108748']

Yup, I can guess based on your rants and whines here. There is no way in hell can I take you to a comprehension class. If the suggestion is for BJP to reach out, it does not preclude Muslims behavior.

Such fanatic thinking has done a whole lot more harm to us Hindus over centuries. Sad.


"fanatic thinking" <img src='<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> more like realistic assessment of the situation.

Notice that you couldn't answer any of my questions regarding these alleged "moderate Muslims" or the Muslim behavior pattern in post independence India.

When getting exposed call the other guy "fanatic", typical commie and secular tactic.

The thinking that has done by far the most damage is the "thinking" displayed by dumbasses like you who want to hold the nation hostage to the whims of a 14% fanatical group. The same tactic of "reaching out" was tried by the Congress before partition which far from placating Muslims only incited them to more fanaticism because they rightly realized that only weaklings will go court a minority even after getting spat upon.

Your kind was the same people who prevented the sensible and far less bloody solution of population exchange as proposed by Ambedkar with your multi culti dreams.

Quote:December 30, 1939

(A discipleSmile There are some people who object to “Vande Mataram” as a national song. And some Congressmen support the removal of some parts of the song.

In that case the Hindus should give up their culture.

The argument is that the song speaks of Hindu gods, like Durga, and that is offensive to the Muslims.

But it is not a religious song: it is a national song and the Durga spoken of is India as the Mother. Why should not the Muslims accept it?[2] It is an image used in poetry. In the Indian conception of nationality, the Hindu view would naturally be there. If it cannot find a place there, the Hindus may as well be asked to give up their culture. The Hindus don't object to “Allah-ho-Akbar”....

Why should not the Hindu worship his god? Otherwise, the Hindus must either accept Mohammedanism or the European culture or become atheists....

I told C. R. Das [in 1923] that this Hindu-Muslim question must be solved before the Britishers go, otherwise there was a danger of civil war. He also agreed and wanted to solve it....

Instead of doing what was necessary the Congress is trying to flirt with Jinnah, and Jinnah simply thinks that he has to obstinately stick to his terms to get them. The more they try, the more Jinnah becomes intransigent.

May 28, 1940

Have you read what Gandhi has said in answer to a correspondent? He says that if eight crores of Muslims demand a separate State, what else are the twenty-five crores of Hindus to do but surrender? Otherwise there will be civil war.

(A discipleSmile I hope that is not the type of conciliation he is thinking of.

Not thinking of it, you say? He has actually said that and almost yielded. If you yield to the opposite party beforehand, naturally they will stick strongly to their claims. It means that the minority will rule and the majority must submit. The minority is allowed its say, “We shall be the ruler and you our servants. Our harf [word] will be law; you will have to obey.” This shows a peculiar mind. I think this kind of people are a little cracked.

Quote:(Sri AurobindoSmile I am sorry they are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem. Otherwise, we are lulled into a false sense of satisfaction that we have solved a difficult problem, when in fact we have only shelved it.

Aurobindo must have been one huge fanatic!

Get a life, instead of lecturing here go lecture your local mullah about the virtues of reaching out to the "kaffirs".

BJP Future - 7 - Bharatvarsh2 - 10-10-2010

[quote name='kharavela' date='09 October 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1286649941' post='108765']

Bharath, what is happening in Karnataka? Looks like the BJP govt is going to fall because of Cong JDs machinations?


Not sure I haven't been following that issue, you will have to ask Muppalla who knows far more about the local politics than I do.

BJP Future - 7 - Bharatvarsh2 - 10-10-2010

Some more writings from the Hindu fanatics using facts:

Quote:On August 4, 1920, Mahatma Gandhi had written as follows in his Young India: “My advice to my Hindu brethren is: Simply help the Mussalmans in their sorrow in a generous and self-sacrificing spirit without counting the cost and you will automatically save the cow… Islam is a noble faith. Trust it and its followers. We must hold it a crime for any Hindu to talk to them about cow-protection or any other help in our religious matters, while the Khilafat struggle is going on.”1

But one day during his 21 days fast in September 1924, he confessed his error to Mahadev Desai in the following words: “My error? Why, I may be charged with having committed a breach of faith with the Hindus. I asked them to lay their lives and their property at the disposal of the Mussalmans for the protection of their Holy Places. Even to-day I am asking them to practise Ahimsa, to settle quarrels by dying but not by killing. And what do I find to be the result? How many temples have been desecrated? How many sisters came to me with complaints? As I was saying to Hakimji [Ajmal Khan] yesterday, Hindu women are in mortal fear of Mussalman goondas. I had a letter from… How can I bear the way in which his little children were molested? How can I now ask Hindus to put up with everything patiently? I gave the assurance that the friendship with Mussalmans was bound to bear fruit. I asked them to befriend them, regardless of results. It is not in my power to make good that assurance. And yet I must ask the Hindus even to-day to die rather than kill. I can only do so by laying down my own life. I can teach them the way to die by my own example.”2

This was the behaviour pattern of a gentleman who had put his trust in the pledges given by the foremost Muslim leaders in India while they were seeking his support for a Pan-Islamic cause. The gentleman had discovered that he had been duped. But still he was in no mood to call for a repudiation of his reading of Islam, or for revenge. Many people at that time had found fault with this behaviour pattern, as many other people continue to do today. But no one has ever questioned the sincerity of the Mahatma’s motives. And it has been conceded by everyone that he was not out to deceive the Muslims, that he had no ulterior designs, and that he never harboured any intention of using the other party as a pawn for his own purposes.

On the other hand, we have the behaviour pattern exhibited by Abdul Bari, the leading Mullah from Firangi Mahal in Lucknow, and the topmost spokesmen for the Muslims during the Khilafat agitation. In September 1920, he had advised the Muslims as follows: “The Muslim honour would be at stake if they forget the co-operation of the Hindus. I for my part will say that we should stop killing cows, irrespective of their cooperation, because we are children of the same soil. As a maulvi I say that in voluntarily stopping cow-killing we shall not offend against the canons of our religion. Nothing has so helped the Hindu-Muslim unity as the Hindus’ co-operation with us on the Khilafat question.”3

The same Abdul Bari spoke in a different tone in September 1923. Professor Francis Robinson reports: “Abdul Bari, the erstwhile apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity, came to the fore again. Now he spoke the language of the zealot. He urged the Muslims to sacrifice cows without regard to Hindu feelings, and declared: ‘If the commandments of the Shariat are to be trampled under foot then it will be the same to us whether the decision is arrived on the plains of Delhi or on the hilltops of Simla. We are determined to non-cooperate with every enemy of Islam, be he in Anatolia or Arabia or at Agra or Benares.”4

The immediate provocation for Abdul Bari’s outburst was the Shuddhi Movement started by Swami Shraddhananda in the summer of 1923. Swamiji in turn had been led to pursue this path in response to a book, Fãtimî Dãwat-i-Islãm, by Hasan Nizami, another Muslim Mullah hailing from the dargah of Nizam-ud-Din Awliya, the famous Sufi of Delhi. Swamiji had written a pamphlet, The Hour of Danger, in which he had warned Hindu society to be on its guard against mischievous Muslim machinations. According to his biographer, J.T.F. Jordens, “In his pamphlet the Swami went on to show how Nizami in his own introduction referred to his consultations with many Muslim leaders, including the Agha Khan, and how all had agreed that the publication of his work should remain a carefully kept secret, within the Muslim community. The single purpose of the pamphlet was to describe all the means, fair and foul, by which Hindus could be induced to become Muslims. It said that the attack should strongly concentrate on the untouchables because ‘if all untouchable castes become Muslims then the Muslim part (of the population) will become equal to that of the Hindus’. The Swami felt that he had uncovered a giant conspiracy. His pamphlet consisted practically entirely of quotations from Nizami’s work, showing how all Muslims should be involved in the fight for the spread of Islam: how pirs, fakirs, politicians, peasants, zamindars, hakims, etc. could be used and what their allotted task should be. It also stressed the need for secrecy and for an extensive spy network.’5

Abdul Bari clean forgot that Swami Shraddhananda had unconditionally supported the Khilafat agitation under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. It was Swamiji who had bared his breast in Chandni Chowk on March 30, 1919, and dared the British soldiers to try their bullets on him. It was Swamiji whom the Muslims of Delhi had invited to address them from the mimbar of the Jama Masjid on March 31, 1919. Abdul Bari should have denounced Hasan Nizami who had hatched a plot against the Hindus without any provocation whatsoever on the part of the latter. But the self-righteous Mullah and the authoritative interpreter of the Shariat, had done just the opposite. He had joined his voice with that of the other Mullahs in egging upon a Muslim fanatic to murder Swami Shraddhananda. The Mullahs of Deoband had offered special prayers for the soul of the assassin.

In fact, the Mullahs had been fretting and fuming ever since Mahatma Gandhi had withdrawn in February 1922 the Non-Cooperation Movement which he had led in support of the Khilafat agitation. They were in search of an excuse for reversing their fatwa against cow-killing and for co-operation with the Hindus. That fatwa had gone against the whole history of Islam in India in spite of the brave face which the Khilafat leaders had put on it.6 The Shuddhi Movement had provided that excuse and the Mullahs had plumped for it. They were swift to terminate what Ishtiq Husain Qureshi has called “A Brief Honeymoon”.7 Now they incited Muslim mobs to stage riots all over the country. Hindus were to be taught how to behave towards the ‘master race’.

This was the behaviour pattern of hoodlums who got extremely annoyed with the donkey which had carried them so far but which did not have the strength left to carry the load any farther. This was the behaviour pattern of gangsters who felt frustrated because the victims of their deep-laid designs had seen through their wiles and refused to be duped any longer. But, at the same time, these Mullahs were in the forefront of Muslim society. Leading politicians like the Ali Brothers had bowed before them in reverence. The behaviour pattern of the exponents and custodians of Islam, therefore, cannot but lead us to the inescapable conclusion that Islam itself has always been, and remains, a thinly veiled theorisation of gangsterism.


One aspect of this behaviour pattern had been noticed by the great poet, Rabindranath, who was reported as follows in an interview to The Times of India published on April 18, 1924: “Another very important fact which according to the poet was making it almost impossible for Hindu-Mohammedan unity to become an accomplished fact was that the Mohammedans could not confine their patriotism to any one country. The poet said that he had very frankly asked many Mohammedans whether, in the event of any Mohammedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbours to defend their common land. He could not be satisfied with the reply he got from them. He said that he could definitely state that even men like Mr. Mohammed Ali had declared that under no circumstances was it permissible for any Mohammedan, whatever his country might be, to stand against any other Mohammedan.”8


At about the same time Lala Lajpat Rai came to the conclusion that this behaviour pattern had its primary source in the Quran and the Hadis. Lalaji wrote as follows in a confidential letter to Deshbandhu C.R. Das: “I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim Law and I am inclined to think that Hindu-Muslim unity is neither possible nor practicable... Assuming and admitting the sincerity of the Mohammedan leaders in the Non-Co-operation Movement, I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of the kind. There is no finer Mohammedan than Hakim [Ajmal Khan] Sahab, but can any Muslim leader override the Koran? I can only hope that my reading of the Islamic Law is incorrect and nothing would relieve me more than to be convinced that it is so… I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity and desirability of Hindu-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Koran and the Hadis? The leaders cannot override them.”9


Shri Sarat Chandra Chatterji, the noted Bengali novelist and a Congressman of long standing, had commented on the overt behaviour of Muslims ever since Islam arrived in India. Pained by the humiliations which Muslim hooligans had heaped on Hindus in the countryside of East Bengal, he had written as follows in October, 1926: “If we go by the lessons of history we have to accept that the goal of Hindu-Muslim unity is a mirage. When Muslims first entered India, they looted the country, destroyed the temples, broke the idols, raped the women and heaped innumberable indignities on the people of this country. Today it appears that such noxious behaviour has entered the bone-marrow of Muslims. Unity can be achieved among equals. In view of the big gap between the cultural level of Hindus and Muslims which can hardly be bridged, I am of the view that Hindu-Muslim unity which could not be achieved during the last thousand years will not materialise during the ensuing thousand years. If we are to drive away the English people depending upon this elusive capital of Hindu-Muslim unity, I would rather advise its postponement.”10


In an article in Young India dated May 29, 1924, Mahatma Gandhi had himself noted that “my own experience confirms that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully”. Only he did not trace this Muslim behaviour pattern to the tenets of Islam which continued to be a “noble faith” for him till he himself was consumed by the flames ignited by this faith. But the Mahatma was neither the first nor the last Hindu to commit this mistake about Islam. Hindu society has been a wilful victim of this folly ever since Islam arrived India on the shoulders of Arab armies in the second half of the 7th century AD.

This imperialist ideology of terrorism has been in India for the last thirteen centuries and more. But with the exception of Swami Dayananda and the Arya Samaj, no Hindu thinker or organization has made a serious or systematic study of its mind or methods. The Hindu response to Islam has invariably been a series of slogans - Ram and Rahim are one and the same, Allah and Ishwar describe the same Supreme Power, Kashi and Ka‘abah are equally holy, the mosque is a variation of the mandir even when the former has been built on the site and with the debris of the latter, namãz is another name for upãsanã (worship), in short, Islam is as good as Sanãtana Dharma.

What is worse, Hindu society has fallen into an inveterate habit of white-washing and wishing away the dark deeds of Islam by dressing them up in Hindu verbiage. Hindus never allow the spokesmen of Islam to speak for themselves. Instead, they interpret Islam in terms of the Indian spiritual traditions, and try their utmost to force this diabolical creed into divine moulds. And they flaunt this habit as a sine qua non of their liberalism and large-heartedness, their capacity to digest and transform into nector even the most potent poison.

Hindu society has never paused to find out how Islamic theologians respond to its cherished slogans and sentiments. It has always been in a hurry to sell some patent prescriptions like sarva-dharma-samabhãva so that the slogans may be put into practice unilaterally. That is why all Hindu slogans have so far fallen on deaf ears, or have invited contempt from the Muslims who know their Dîn A to Z. That is why all Hindu prescriptions have proved to be costly mistakes. That is why a great Hindu like Mahatma Gandhi who succeeded against all other odds, ended as a total and tragic failure when it came to the followers of Islam.

We blamed the British for Hindu-Muslim conflict so long as the British controlled this country. Then we lulled ourselves into the fond belief that the ‘communal problem’ had been finally solved by the Partition in 1947, and that we could settle down to solving the problems of poverty and social injustice. But the belief has been shattered by the increasing frequency of riots staged by Muslim hooligans. And the British are no more there to take the blame except for those morons who will continue to explain in terms of British machinations everything that goes wrong in India till the end of time.


The Muslims in India are, by and large, the same people as the Hindus, except for a microscopic minority which takes pride in its descent from foreign forefathers. The Muslims in India share a lot with the Hindus in such externalia as race, language, dress, mores and manners. What is it, then, which divides the Muslims from the Hindus and sets them as a people apart? A correct answer to this question will go a long way in putting the problem in its proper perspective.

The answer is obvious as well as inescapable, unless we fall victim to the Marxist metaphysics according to which the Hindus are the haves and the Muslims the have-nots, and the conflict between the two is a disguised form of class conflict. There should be no doubt that it is Islam which divides the Muslims from the Hindus. Hindus would have to understand Islam if they want to understand Muslim Separatism, and thus rise to the challenge with an adequate response.

Quote:Lala Hardayal said:—

"I declare that the future of the Hindu race, of Hindustan and of the Punjab, rests on these four pillars: (1) Hindu Sangathan, (2) Hindu Raj, (3) Shuddhi of Moslems, and (4) Conquest and Shuddhi of Afghanistan and the Frontiers. So long as the Hindu nation does not accomplish these four things, the safely of our children and great-grandchildren will be ever in danger, and the safety of the Hindu race will be impossible. The Hindu race has but one history, and its institutions are homogeneous. But the Musalmans and Christians are far removed from the confines of Hindustan, for their religions are alien and they love Persian, Arab and European institutions. Thus, just as one removes foreign matter from the eye, Shuddhi must be made of these two religions. Afghanistan and the hilly regions of the frontier were formerly part of India, but are at present under the domination of Islam. . . .Just as there is Hindu religion in Nepal, so there must be Hindu institutions in Afghanistan and the frontier territory; otherwise it is useless to win Swaraj. For mountain tribes are always warlike and hungry. If they become our enemies, the age of Nadirshah and Zamanshah will begin anew. At present English officers are protecting the frontiers; but it cannot always be. . . .If Hindus want to protect themselves, they must conquer Afghanistan and the frontiers and convert all the mountain tribes."

Almost everyone of these men worked on for the elusive Hindu-Muslim unity earlier in their life before they realised the utter futility of their efforts.

Lala Hardayal was one of the founders of the Ghadar Party, no doubt a dirty Hindu fanatic out to alienate the peaceful Muslims...

BJP Future - 7 - Pandyan - 10-15-2010

[quote name='Swamy G' date='08 October 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1286556899' post='108748']

Yup, I can guess based on your rants and whines here. There is no way in hell can I take you to a comprehension class. If the suggestion is for BJP to reach out, it does not preclude Muslims behavior.

Such fanatic thinking has done a whole lot more harm to us Hindus over centuries. Sad.


Shut the fuck up, faggot. Go wear a sari and some bangles and perform mujra for your muslim masters.

Oh yea, admin you can edit my posts all you want but the fact remains that ramana is a fucking bitch and sulla cock licker who celebrates eid and propagates urdu. and acharya is a senile geriatric fuck who doesn't know what the fuck is going on most of the time.

BJP Future - 7 - G.Subramaniam - 10-16-2010

BJP kissing muslim ass in Bihar

Firstly BJP leader Shahnawaz Husain, married a Hindu girl and popped out lots of muslims from a Hindu womb

Next, JD-U has admitted in Taslimuddin- a noted ISI agent, Mafioso, and part of the Tainted Ministers of UPA-1‘Minorities-ready-to-side-with-Nitish’.html

It was only the other day that Bihar BJP chief CP Thakur made an appeal to the minorities "not to be afraid of us or hate us...we mean you no harm."

For the Muslims of Purnia, Kishanganj, Araria and Katihar, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is almost an icon who has initiated the process of opening a branch of Aligarh Muslim University in the area.

"There has been a scramble among the Muslim community to get the ticket from JD (U) because of Nitish Kumar and his image among us," said Pravez Ahmed of Thakurganj in Kishanganj. Ahmed also pointed out that it was the same reason which persuaded local leader Mohd Taslimuddin to join the party.


Hindus are harassed in the Purnia-Kishengunj, Araria, Katihar area and thats why they vote for BJP to protect themselves, not for BJP to kiss muslim ass

BJP Future - 7 - G.Subramaniam - 10-17-2010

Kanchan Gupta criticising BJP - Six-and-a-half decades later, Hindus, it would seem, are no longer moved by the plight of Hindus. The pseudo-secularism aggressively peddled by political parties of all shades — even the BJP has begun to subscribe to the bunkum made fashionable by the Left-liberal intelligentsia in the hope of ridding itself of its ‘communal’ (read Hindu) tag — and the divisive politics of caste identity have made Hindus inure to the plight and sorrow of fellow Hindus. Nothing else explains the indifference of Hindus towards their hapless co-religionists in Deganga who, after suffering the “organised fury of the Muslim mob”, led by Trinamool Congress MP Haji Nurul Islam, have been virtually abandoned by both community and state to their fate.

BJP Future - 7 - Guest - 10-17-2010

<img src='<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Huh' /> <img src='<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Huh' />

BJP critics are more inside the sangh parivar than outside. The size and punch-line of these critics is far way more than actual anti-nationals, islamists and INC types together. In fact INC types needs no extra work as sangh parivar supporters are enough for doing their job free of costs. I am really surprised to see these folks are so happy to have Sonia+MMS and Bhukari types at the helm of India's power as opposed to the "corrupt and sold out" Advani, Jaitley, Sushma etc. This is the typical dharmic behavior over several ages since the times of Ambhi Kumar (who willingly allowed Alaxander to avenge other kingdoms).

What difference it makes for these great orators to just blidly support and rally around Sushmas, Jaitleys, Yeddis or for the matter Reddy bros too in the short run until the Sonia system is collapsed powerwise before taking on the internal "corrupt and soldout"? Wining an argument-point is more important than the actual cause itself.

BJP Future - 7 - ramana - 10-18-2010

In this they resemble the Islamists in search for purity of thought and action. Will do willful harm to damage their own leaving the filed open for the other. We saw that on BRF with numerous pure seekers branding the NDA as sold out!

BJP Future - 7 - Guest - 10-18-2010

[quote name='ramana' date='17 October 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1287354442' post='108927']

In this they resemble the Islamists in search for purity of thought and action. Will do willful harm to damage their own leaving the filed open for the other. We saw that on BRF with numerous pure seekers branding the NDA as sold out!


Actual decision makers in BJP are not "purists" as they want to take advantage of opportunities open up to them. Are these "purists" by any chance planted people?

Here is an interview of Venkaiah Naidu where he says they want avail any chances they get like in Karnataka even though he is BJP idealist/purist.

ABN RK Open Heart With Venkaiah Naidu

BJP Future - 7 - G.Subramaniam - 10-18-2010

So why is the BJP and not just BJP, entire sangh parivar is silent on Deganga, except for an organiser article

One would have thought that Deganga was in a sense, vindication of Sangh = IMs cant be trusted and your daughters arent safe

from lecherous IMs

BJP Future - 7 - Guest - 10-18-2010

[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='17 October 2010 - 07:43 PM' timestamp='1287362118' post='108930']

So why is the BJP and not just BJP, entire sangh parivar is silent on Deganga, except for an organiser article

One would have thought that Deganga was in a sense, vindication of Sangh = IMs cant be trusted and your daughters arent safe

from lecherous IMs[/quote]

You tell why? If they are silent means == sold out or pseudo seculars? (Note - I am not blaming you as I also get several emails from many others with similar thoughts. I am trying to see the point of view of those who criticise certain leaders.)

By the way BJP sent its own members to get the first hand report.Chandan Mitra was part of the team. In fact the sangh wings in that area are working their best in relief.

Probably a deeper analysis would give us some answers. Probably there is no quick or easy answer/solution to current islamic onslaught. Just because a Advani or a Jaitley or a Sushma or even Mohan Bhagawat makes a direct statement or a satyagraha about Deganga will not result in anything.

I hate to say this but there is no other way except capturing power by hook or crook. Borrow, beg and steal too. As long as the power is in INC led government there is no point in discussion Degangas and even the Amarnath trecheory. At the least try to be one who can influence on somethings though you fail miserably in others.

All those who cricise hasn't give a single alternative to what should be done to capture power.If pressed for solutions, the criticizers even go to the length that it is okay not to have power and as long as we are happy doing Varun type stuff our cause will win. Some even say that Advani is worse than Sonia.<img src='<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />

Our electoral system is so skewed and even if we are able to make an extra 10% of mullahs sit at home will give enoroumous dividends as opposed to being a Varun Gandhi on the street. In Bihar, Modi not going to campaing and allowing Nitish to be soft on Mullahs is a strategy to make sure that not all mullahs will vote to just one party but could make some of them confused and not vote and in addition divide some votes between INC and RJD+Paswan.

The purists live in a la la land and think that there is some invisible Hindu-vote bank and the bank is not voting to BJP because of disgust due to some sellouts in the system. Even in 1989, 1992 or 1996 there was never a Hindu vote bank that can give electoral dividends. I can go on and write the analysis to prove the point. It was the Mandal that worked in a way which has created an illusionary Hindu-vote bank. This illusionary one is a double edged sword and makes a lot of warriors think that something is wrong with the leadership of sangh and otherwise we would be in power with some 400/570 seats.

The argument goes all the way to say that had Govindacharya, Uma Bharati etc are not sidelined we would have been in power. They fail to answer that all these stalwarts lost miserably when they went out of BJP. Kalyan Singh when he tried to create aa rally at Ayodhya just before verdict only a 1000 turned up. Where is the bank for Uma or kalyan? The point is a lot bring in those names just to criticise Jaitleys and Sushmas because they assume that Kalyans and Umas have more electoral vote capturing power than Sushmas or Jaitleys.

There is no use to such arguments except that we even destroy the engine (just engine and not the one that has a chance) to fight the massive INC+anti national machinery. All of them are useful and there is a need not to call names and rather unite and fight.

The criticim layers goes in a peculiar way:

(1) BJP is soldout and RSS or VHP is fine

(2) Even RSS is sold out

(3) Just criticise anyone and everyone and everything

If (2) is correct then what is the point? It is just internet warriorship and waste of everyone's time. It is like giving up the fight without a shot been fired.

To me these folks (sangh parivar including BJP) are fighting a completely lost battle. There won't be any victories but just some rays of hope. We have only one way that is blindly follow whoever are leaders. The rays can make pathways and then we can fight to see who is best to lead us through the paths. If we just fight the later fights now then it is giving up and nothing else.

Comments welcome.

BJP Future - 7 - G.Subramaniam - 10-18-2010

OK, so the BJP is the best of the bad lot

However, in Deganga, the work is being done by Hindu Samhati, run by Tapan Ghosh, ex-pracharak of RSS, who quit sangh parivar because it was ineffective in West bengal and formed his own outfit

The next major whine is the lack of a BJP TV Channel, when even PMK and ADMK have their channel

Actually my analysis shows that there is an anti-muslim vote bank spontaneously generated, whenever muslims cross 20% of the electorate, thanks to their riotous behavior and wherever BJP has a good organisation, it taps into this and rides the anti-muslim wave.

Note that BJP gets 75% of the Hindu vote in Hyderabad and 2% elsewhere in Andhra

Agreed Varun is too abrasive, however, there needs to be introspection on why the BJP manages to get 75% of Telegu Hindu vote in Hyderabad, and 2% Telegu Hindu vote elsewhere

The other thing about Deganga is that per Kanchan Gupta article, these Hindus were voting 100% for CPM for decades

and only 2% of Sangh parivar cadres are from West Bengal

BJP Future - 7 - Guest - 10-18-2010

[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='17 October 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1287377162' post='108936']


Note that BJP gets 75% of the Hindu vote in Hyderabad and 2% elsewhere in Andhra

Agreed Varun is too abrasive, however, there needs to be introspection on why the BJP manages to get 75% of Telegu Hindu vote in Hyderabad, and 2% Telegu Hindu vote elsewhere



Just a side note. BJP chances in Hyderabad have dwindled with the rise of non-Telangan people coming into Hyderabad over last 30 years as Hyderabad is Telugized from both language and cultural viewpoint. While AP has EJ problem, Islamic problem effectively got diluted due to raise of local cultural people.

Hindus should actively seek to dilute the Islaminc areas by opening up all areas to non-Islamic people and flood those areas with them by providing/generating incentives.

Hindu parties and organizations should try to release Hindu temples from government hands and work towards opening up all areas in India including Kashmir.

BJP Future - 7 - Bharatvarsh2 - 10-18-2010

Why do Bongs always write whiny articles like this one by Kanchan Gupta?

Why didn't they do their job in 1947 like the Sikhs and Hindu Jats did in Panjab?

Who avenged Noakhali, it wasn't the Bong's in Kolkata but the Biharis who got airbombed for it by Nehru.

Instead they have helped import millions of illegals into the country.

How about they grow a pair of balls and fight their own battles for a change instead of whining everytime and blaming BJP, RSS bla bla bla.

Since they voted for CPM for decades they should go ask help from their communist brothers, shameless losers.

BJP Future - 7 - ramana - 10-18-2010

Blaming victims is not helpful. Nobody deserves the violence they are subjected to.

BJP Future - 7 - ramana - 10-19-2010

Book Review in Pioneer

Quote:AGENDA | Sunday, October 17, 2010 | Email | Print | | Back

He foresaw tragedy, but could do nothing

October 19, 2010 1:23:20 AM

India Divided

Author: Rajendra Prasad
Publisher: Penguin

Price: 499

Rajendra Prasad understood the complexities of Partition, but had simplistic solutions, writes Saradindu Mukherji

A gentle colossus and a front-ranking freedom fighter, Rajendra Prasad was our first President. Like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, he often challenged Jawaharlal Nehru on matters of politics.

India Divided was written mostly in jail. Prasad admits that as some parts of this book were written in jail, those “naturally bear the inevitable marks of work done under some limitations”, and he had no time to revise them. That explains his reliance on books written by the likes of Tarachand, a favourite of the Nehruvian establishment, and Ishwari Prasad, and the exclusion of titans like Sir Jadunanth Sarkar and RC Majumdar. The viewpoints of the Hindu nationalists are missing.

Hence, the first chapter, ‘Two Nations: Basis of Pakistan’, begins with Mohammed Ali Jinnah. The origins of Muslim separatism and the core of the two-nation theory, however, lie in the ancient Islamic doctrines of momin, kafir, Dar-ul-harb, Dar-ul-Islam and jihad. Jinnah was merely pursuing that tradition. He succeeded, being a better negotiator than our leaders, and deftly cashed in on the reservoir of hatred against the polytheists. The British helped the Muslim separatists in every possible way by empowering them, and widening the chasm, but did not create the original split as our sarkari historians want us to believe.

The alleged transformation of a ‘nationalist’ Sir Syed Ahmed Khan into a communalist by Theodore Beck, as Prasad suggests, is unconvincing. Long before Sir Syed came under the influence of the English principal of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, which would later evolve into the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), he used to regard Patna as “Azimabad”. Syed vehemently denied that the 1857 uprising was a jihad against Christians, even while saying that “jihad was undoubtedly an “article of faith with Muslims”. Against whom, one could ask? Obviously, against the native infidels! The imputation of a double dose of “original sin” to Beck in the post-1947 historiography is mischievous.

Prasad understands the dynamics of Partition. “The Muslim public law recognises a distinction between Muslims and Zimmis (dhimmis),” he says, citing AMU’s AS Tritton, who rightly shows that dhimmis face humiliation, blatant discrimination, denial and destruction. Ironically, most of our politicians and intelligentsia, many of them refugees, are still ignorant of such basics!

Prasad repeatedly cites Muslim protagonists, saying there cannot be a nation sans religion. Conscious of the civilisational issues involved, Prasad avoids Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s statements opposing Partition. Was it because this “nationalist” Muslim was more in the Deobandi mould, who did not care about the disaster awaiting Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc, in the “Holy land”? Prasad errs in saying that Azad’s writings in Al-Hilal propagated the ideals of nationalism.

While Nehru was a consistent negationist, Prasad’s candour comes out occasionally. He, however, withholds the details of the pogrom and the forced conversion of Hindus by the Moplahs during Mahatma Gandhi’s first mass movement — the Khilafat-Non-Cooperation — and the gory details of the Great Calcutta Killing (August 16, 1946), methodically engineered by Jinnah and his company. He also refrains from saying that the policy of Muslim appeasement pursued by the Congress emboldened the Muslim League in its campaign. Prasad, after all, was a Congressman.

Yet, Prasad warns of the fatwa-wielding mentality so common among the jihadis. “We should give up issuing ultimatums, we should cease laying down conditions precedent to any discussion — that is the only civilised mode,” he writes. How uncannily similar to the “stone-throwing mobs” in the Valley, or the ultimatum communicated after every act of jihadi terror!

Prasad uses data, maps and charts to reject the idea of Partition, but says it was inevitable. He concludes, “Any scheme of Partition, however, must fulfill two fundamental conditions. It must be fair and just to all communities.” Hence, he made a demand that Punjab and Bengal should be divided. Today, both Pakistan (with two per cent Hindu/ Sikh population, which came down from 23 per cent in 1947) and Bangladesh (with 10 per cent Hindus/ Buddhists from 30 per cent in 1947), are consolidated Muslim states, with the kafirs heading towards extinction. So, when we look at the fate of minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Congress has clearly betrayed them in their battle for survival.

Worse, Hindus have been thrown out of Kashmir Valley on the same principle that they have no right to life and honour in a Muslim-dominated State. Perhaps a similar fate awaits Hindus in Assam, West Bengal, Kerala and elsewhere.

Prasad foresees that Partition “is a solution of despair”, but it won’t solve the problem. “We should be prepared for the aftermath and not hug the delusion that thereafter all will be plain sailing,” he says. He, however, could do nothing to save Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists from the unmitigated disaster. All he did was to suggest that the problem could be sorted out by “truth as our light” and “non-violence as our support”. How simple and absurd!

-- The reviewer is professor of history, University of Delhi

BJP Future - 7 - Guest - 10-19-2010

[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='17 October 2010 - 11:54 PM' timestamp='1287377162' post='108936']

Note that BJP gets 75% of the Hindu vote in Hyderabad and 2% elsewhere in Andhra

Agreed Varun is too abrasive, however, there needs to be introspection on why the BJP manages to get 75% of Telegu Hindu vote in Hyderabad, and 2% Telegu Hindu vote elsewhere

The other thing about Deganga is that per Kanchan Gupta article, these Hindus were voting 100% for CPM for decades

and only 2% of Sangh parivar cadres are from West Bengal[/quote]

You have the answer in your post itself.

This is another thing you need to reconsider in analysis. The best you should get is the election result of first greater Hyderabad authority election held about an year ago. BJP got about 4 ( or 7? ) seats out of about 150 seats. MIM,INC and TDP came second and third which were neck to neck.

Yes BJP was a force in the Old city which is almost a muslim majority but that is not a positive "Hindu vote". It is again a takleef based vote against the islmists and it is better to call it as anti-mullah vote rather classify it as hindu vote. The regions where large scale hindus vote actually is a minority-hindu populated seats. My point again is there is no real Hindu-vote bank. It is only when push comes to shove the votebank emerges just for the issue. Once the issues settle down we again are Brahmins, Thakurs, etc.

You clearly have the answer in Deganga and all you need is to extrapolate the psyche. When the Hindus were beaten and thrown out they are Hindus and they want the help of sangh etc., otherwise they are happy to vote the sangh bashers (CPM).

What that tells is it is not the hindu, EJ or Mullah issues but we desperately need to fix two:

(1) Change of current power structure from Gandhis even if it is completely anti-hindu. Bottomline alter the current power structure

(2) Serious electoral reforms so that no one can use either caste or religion division to win elections. May be something like two rounds of elections. The final result has to be a winner from just two candidates.

(3) There got to be an incentive/disincentive based force for the electorate to vote and not sit at home.

What I belive is that a lot of non-puritants in the BJP are working towards those goals. They may not succeed but they have some successes in the ocean of failures.

BJP Future - 7 - G.Subramaniam - 10-19-2010

One of my frequent ideas is Muslim Darshan Yatra

Meaning send large scale tours of Hindus , esp hostile castes and their women to tours of the local ghetto

and create Takleef before their area becomes hindu minority

Takleef against islamists is the major reason for the BJP vote

In practise, 99% of Hindus wont rent to a muslim or allow their daughter to marry a muslim

( Not Laloo, Not Mulayam, Not Paswan, Not Karunanidhi )

However only 25% of Hindus vote BJP. The goal is to make the rest of the 99% vote BJP

BJP Future - 7 - Guest - 10-19-2010

According the Star News poll, NDA will win hands down in Bihar and Nitish on his own will be near majority.

Now will Nitish dump BJP after the polls. He would have to be a very nice guy not to do so. Yet another example of allies getting the better of BJP.