The Cure For Terrorism Is Virat Brihad Hindutva

[Pandyan]

Gsub, why did you mention reconversion as not working?

[G.Subramaniam]

<!--QuoteBegin-Pandyan+Jan 10 2009, 08:20 AM-->QUOTE(Pandyan @ Jan 10 2009, 08:20 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Gsub, why did you mention reconversion as not working?
[right][snapback]92908[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It is far easier to reconvert xtians
and many Indian xtians are mentally in the border between hinduism and xtianity
They may hate hinduism but culturally they are still hindu
Their churches are getting hinduised, their names are hindu
and some of them can be reconverted by agreeing to let them keep jesus along with the hindu pantheon

Islam is a very rigid form of brainwashing
arab name, arab dress, arab beard, arab culture

Next, I have visited some EJ forums, wherein they call islam a biological
problem,
Meaning they breed faster than they can be reconverted

When the Arya Samaj was doing shuddi, 100 years ago
India had a high death rate and the muslim differential growth was much smaller
and so shuddi could have some effect
also the Taglibi movement was not there and IMs were less arabised

I think of Nilakanta, on containing the poision

In defeating an enemy first defeat his strategy
His strategy is differential breeding
counter breed and this is defeated

Those who are too squeamish to breed 5 to stop islam, cannot repel islam street by street

[G.Subramaniam]

At present , in high caste, BJP voting families, all over north india, they
hire bangladeshi muslim women as maids and cover it up by giving them a hindu name

These maids can be induced to convert

Hindu contractors who hire the islamic workers can hinduise the atmosphere
by having ganesh temple, bells, prasad being distributed

A hungry man will eat a prasad ladoo

Prasad is very de-islamising

My sister in law distributed some Ladoo prasad at her office
she found that the lone muslim woman refused it as kufr

[Guest]

G.Subji,

If I understand the essence of what you say then Hinduism is just one step to its grave.


On Islam you said:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It took 1400 years to get to this mess and there is no quick easy solution.
Those who are too squeamish to breed 5 to stop islam, cannot repel islam street by street.
Unfortunately hindus no longer have the stomach for daily violence.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

On Xianity you said:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They may hate hinduism but culturally they are still hindu.
Their churches are getting hinduised, their names are hindu.
and some of them can be reconverted by agreeing to let them keep jesus along with the hindu pantheon.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The struggle among the Abrahamic religions are still continuing. Muslims vs. Jews vs. Christians. The very foundation of the Jewish State is due to the apprehension by the Christians of continuing violence between the Christians and Jews post WW II. So they lopped them all and sent them to the newly created Israel. Just look at the map of Israel and see the vast sea of Islamists surrounding it! Very unenviable situation! This is how the Christians have banished the Jews.

The support of the Christians to the Jews against the Muslims is because of the dreaded alternative that they may have to take the white Jews back into Europe. However the European Christians are losing out to the Muslims in their backyard by letting in unhindered immigration of Muslims from the Middle East and also dodo like resistance to conversion of their citizens to Islam. Secularist freedom of religion is the precise albetross on the neck of European Christians.

Organized resistance to Islam in the East by non-Abrahamic religions (read Hindu) was obstructed by the English colonialism in India. From 1857 on the Hindus were rightly divided on their fight against the colonialists in alliance with the Islamists. Islamist betrayal of the independence movement and the capitulation of the Congress secularists is history.

Secuarist set up post 'independence' is a continuation of this colonialism. A form of Neo-colonialism. This continues, not abandons our resistance to Islam as the secularists are wanting us to do. In the meantime we must not also fail to notice that what the British have not succeeded in converting the Hindus to Christianity in their 250 years of rule, the secularists succeeded in converting the whole of North East India and many burrows in the rest of India in the last 60 years.

The containment of Islam (and Christianity) in India would take place in India only when Hindus ascend to power. The secularists and their constitution is the biggest hinderence and is proving fatal in some parts of the country. Street fighting with the Muslims to reduce the number is an unviable option and would prove to be detrimental. The main enemy is the secularists (the successors of the colonialists) and their (Christian) constitution. That should be our focus.

The solution to Christian and Muslim onslaught on the Hindus lie in identifying which is it that which helps the Christians and the Muslims and then rooting it out. The identification is quite simple. It is the seuclarist constitution. <b>Secularism is Christian in origin and content that soft pedals on Islam. </b> We have been ignoring this and were fighting the Muslims and the Christians and lo and behold! the result is the strengthening of the secularists. Take an example, tell me how long can Modi withstand it? Can his successor be as smart and successful as he is? Remember, his sweep is only in Gujarat.

In a nutshell, we need to wage idealogical fight against secularism and surely ascend to power of a Hindu nation. Not advocate street fight with alien religions as a panacea.

[G.Subramaniam]

If nothing changes, by 2100, we will have Mughalistan in north India
and a defensive rump in south India like Vijayanagar

Yes we are 1 step from extinction

The main driver is demographics
Have 5 or be islamised

I once spoke with a hindutva punjabi woman who was resettling
BD hindus and she was very contemptous about hindu women who
are housewives producing kids
I told her, In 1760, hindus were 60% of United bengal
and the hindus educated their women while the muslims breeded their women and resulting in muslim majority united bengal by 1881

Another career hindutva woman who only had 1 kid, said I will adopt some
That doesnt solve the problem
Orphans are only 1% of the total

Another career hindutva woman said, i will have 1 or 2 quality kids
Sorry doesnt work, the 10 muslim quantity kids will halal their 1 quality son
and abduct their 1 quality daughter into an islamic harem

For basic good health you need diet and excercise
For first step in stopping islam, kafirs need to breed 5


All these ideological fights against secularism will take centuries
in the mean time muslims will breed their way to power in decades

The only way to stop islam
1. counter breed 5
2. boycott hindu secularists
My favorite idea is to take these liberal hindu women and women from yadav vote banking castes into guided tours of the local muslim ghetto
so they can see islam up close,
to weaken secularism
3. economic boycott
4. Boycott 'moderate' muslims
Real apostates like Taslima are OK,
Fake moderates like MJ.Akbar, Asghar Ali, etc must be boycotted
These fake moderates are doing taqiya to fool hindus about real islam
5. boycott muslim hero movies
When I was with VHP, I saw dozens of hormone ridden hindu females were
eloping with muslims thanks to islamic bollywood
6. Educate hindu masses and intelligentsia that there is no quick fix except
centuries of attritional low level war with islam
Subramaniam Swamy and much of the Sangh parivar seem to think
quick fixes work

7. Hindu unity does happen, but it happens too late
for example in Kishengunj, 66% muslim, rest 34% hindu
the bjp wins 31% of the vote
The key is to get the hindu awareness in neighboring districts
maybe by organising tours of mini-pakistans

[G.Subramaniam]

I am advocating defensive attritional warfare

When the muslims expand from their local ghetto, they
start a small riot in the next street and the local hindus move away

Darul islam expands street by street
What we need is bitter street by street resistance to contain darul islam

The roman senator Cato said after every speech

Carthage delando est

( and finally carthage must be destroyed )

My ending is
have 5 or be islamised
This applies whether one is in residual India or is NRI

[G.Subramaniam]

Hindus seem to think that quick fixes will work with islam

such as Ayodhya demolition or post Godhra reprisals

Look today, Muslims are much stronger than in 1992
The muslim % has risen from 12% to 14%
10 districts in the north east has gone muslim majority

Muslim gangsters like Ansari are ruling UP

The UPA is giving 20% reservations to muslims in CRPF

I am all in support of Ayodhya etc,
AFTER defanging and containing islam

[Guest]

I reiterate:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The containment of Islam (and Christianity) in India would take place in India only when Hindus ascend to power. The secularists and their constitution is the biggest hinderence and is proving fatal in some parts of the country. Street fighting with the Muslims to reduce the number is an unviable option and would prove to be detrimental. The main enemy is the secularists (the successors of the colonialists) and their (Christian) constitution. That should be our focus.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The containment of Islam (and Christianity) in India would take place in India only when Hindus ascend to power. You may not know this but the Muslims and Christians and their secularist allies know this very very well. That is one reason they are together and united against us. That leaves us no choice but to abandon their rule book (constitution) to come to power. Since our ascending to power is more likely through extra-constitutional means the scenario is more likely a civil war than a street fight. This certainly presupposes seizure of power and declaration of independence. Isn't this a very likely scenerio?

Under this constitution only Hindus cannot appeal to religion to court votes while the Muslims and Christians do. Remember Bal Thakre was banned from voting? These things happen when the secularists are in power and they will always assert. You are bound to lose and won't recover for a very long time.

Thinking of forcing people to breed?! Isn't it a day dream. Also herding people on a tour!? Do not these have to have a definite frame? Who can and how can we hold this time frame with an iron hand? Let's discuss something more practical!

If Maoists and Jihadists can organize, my question is why can't the Hindus? They should now know that there is no prosperity awaiting them at any cost. Hindus! your back is on the wall! You have no room to retreat!!

[G.Subramaniam]

Gujurat is now a hinduised state

For decades gujus were gandhists

However, they matched muslim breeding,
and muslims will never exceed 10% in gujurat
and once moditva took hold, hindu rashtra is established in gujurat

As contrast kerala
hindus failed to breed and muslims expanded from 17% in 1951 to 25% today simply by breeding and are 33% by birth
kerala hindus are screwed even if by some miracle hindu awareness happens at some point


I am not forcing anyone to breed
but rather spread awareness of the consequences of non-breeding

Replacement fertility is 3
And hindus are below replacement fertility 2.65
Now every hindu must ask themselves why they are not
at least at replacement fertility

regarding extra constitutional methods - sorry will never happen
hindu society is in state at present that initially only passive defence will work - and counter breeding is passive defence
getting the mass mentality to go to extra constitutional methods will take decades and each day the demographics balance is making it worse

A look at extra constitutional methods in USSR
the soviets forced secularism, but the muslims simply breeded
from 9% in 1939 to 19% by 1990 and the russians dumped the CIS states
to avoid internal islamic takeover

Does hindu society have the ruthlessness of stalin?
70% of sovietism failed to roll back islam

My pessimistic scenario is by 2050, India will give up Assam, West Bengal and kerala and to reduce internal muslims from 17% t o12%

[Guest]

<b>A strategy to deter terrorism</b>

By Subramanian Swamy

Most prominent national security analysts have argued that in countering terrorist threats, deterrent strategies as formulated for conventional warfare have no significant role to play in combating terrorism. A 2002 Rand Corporation study asserts: "The concept of deterrence is both too limiting and too naive to be applicable to the war on terrorism."

Within the coming four years, we have to prepare to pre-empt this holocaust by making meaningful allies and drawing up a strategy. This necessarily means an US, Israel, and India compact. The LeT has delivered in effect that message to the world by brutal murders on 26/11 and thus written the message for us in blood.

In the human body, when the cells start to grow independently of the brain, we say that the body has cancer. Pakistan as a nation thus is suffering from political cancer. After another few, may be four, years this cancer will become terminal.

In four years, I reckon that the Taliban, Mullah, ISI and Army government will unite to form a unified jehadi government. Zardari will then have to return to Dubai and the rest of the prominent members of Pakistani civil society will end up as kafirs in a morgue. Thereafter, India will have nothing left to piously debate about Pakistan on 24/7 TV channels because a jehadi nuclear war will be on the cards. Hence if we do not risk a war with Pakistan at a time of our choosing, we shall have a war anyway of the united jehadi government after four years at the time of their choosing.

Hence, within the coming four years, we have to prepare to pre-empt this holocaust by making meaningful allies and drawing up a strategy. This necessarily means a US, Israel and India compact. The LeT has delivered in effect that message to the world by brutal murders on 26/11 and thus written the message for us in blood.

I do however think our neighbour, and Pakistan's unwavering benefactor, China, has to be kept in the loop, and won over. It can be done because China cannot survive as an economic power without the US. The recent financial crisis has proved that convincingly. Moreover, China has a Islamic fundamentalist problem brewing in Xinjiang, and would be interested in ending it, particularly the infiltration from Kazhakstan and Turkmenistan.

But the core countries of our strategic planning have to be those who have been long identified by Osama bin Laden as the enemies of Islam: US, Israel and India.

Today destiny has bound us together for a common purpose: the extermination of terrorism from the face of the earth by going to its festering source: Islamic fundamentalist theology embedded in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. The hardliners are in control, and their inspiration is Umar of the Caliphate.

All the humane sounding verses quoted by apologists from Koranic texts are really reserved for "believers" i.e., Muslims. For others especially non-kitabis, only brutality, murder and reducing to degrading dhimmi status are prescribed. Let us therefore not be under any illusions. There is therefore no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim. Either one is a Muslim or a renegade equivalent to a kafir. There is no room in Islamic theology for a third alternative believer.

A study by Peter Hammond concludes that where Muslim population in a country is less than 5 per cent, that population does not agitate for a separate law, the Sharia, in fact the community totally integrates itself with the majority in society. He cites the US and Australia as examples. Where the population of Muslims is between 5 per cent and 15 per cent they start agitating on religious grievances and separate identity. He gives India, France and UK as examples. When the population crosses 15 per cent and reaches 40 per cent, then an aggressive struggle by Muslims for autonomy starts. Thus India is at the threshold percentage today. Hammonds analysis corresponds to the classification of countries in Islamic theology: Darul Islam where Muslims rule, Darul Harab where Muslims are not in power but as a minority can agitate by fair or foul, hook or crook, to convert these countries to Darul Islam, and Darul Ahad (or Taqqiya) where a Muslim in minority risk the wrath of the majority, and hence Muslims must be compliant to the wishes of the majority for survival. Islamic theology does not, however as Hammond does, classify nations according to percentage of Muslim population but according to the nature of the majority—whether it is united and aggressive or divided and passive. India is in the latter category, and hence even where Muslims are less than five per cent as in Tamil Nadu, in pockets in the state where Muslims are in majority such as Thondi in Ramanathapuram district or Melvisharam in Vellore district, Muslims have established Darul Islam where Hindus are denied all civic amenities and live defacto as dhimmis. In Kashmir, where statewise they are in a narrow majority, they have engaged in religious cleansing to achieve Darul Islam by driving out half a million Hindus and Sikhs and made them refugees in a 83 per cent Hindu country. Only the Indian army is holding back the establishment of Darul Islam in Kashmir.

I do not blame Islam for this behaviour but find fault with the Hindus for not understanding the nature of Islamic theology even after a 1000 year experience of brutal Islamic rule, or by the betrayal by Ali brothers of Mahatma Gandhi following the foolish Khilafat movement, or the religious cleansing in Kashmir. Globally today, no Muslim nation permits any other religion to be practised even inside one's home, nor permits gender equality as even a goal, or regards democracy as a human value.

No Muslim can be a "moderate" unless he risks becoming a kafir. The experience of Rushdie and Taslima should leave no one in doubt about this. That is why I insist that unless an Indian Muslim proudly acknowledges that his ancestors are Hindus, and hence Hindu civilisation is his or her legacy too, he or she cannot be treated as an equal citizen in India. We need this commitment from the Muslims of India to secure our nation and civilisation from jehadi terror from abroad. According to me, even if half the 83 per cent Hindus unite above caste and linguistic divisions, Muslims will accept this historical truth of being descendents of Hindus. India then can become through the democratic process a virat brihad Hindu nation, where Hindus and Muslims can live securely as blood brothers.

At the same time, let us be clear not to go overboard, as we are prone to do, in forging the US-Israel-India compact against Islamic terrorism. The US interest will always remain to make India into another Australia or Japan, a reliable, pliant, and neutered poodle. But Indian mindset must never waver on the basic goal of a virat brihad Hindutva, and to make India a power of global reach.

Every concession to the US therefore must be negotiated as a return for India's emergence in the global power structure as a pole. India has one asset that the US or Israel does not have, but urgently needs—a huge labour surplus of gifted and intelligent individuals—our demographic dividend now available thanks to the resounding defeat of the Congress in 1977 by the Janata Party and thus putting an end to its horrid nasbandi campaign.

Hence, wherever there exists a "demographic hole" in these two societies, we must offer to fill it. That means readiness to make available our best brains for R&D, and to deploy our army, airforce, and navy in any theatre that they cannot adequately. In return, we must get them to build our infrastructure, modernising our armed forces, and develop our agro-industries with market access.

This bonding is sufficient to make the US-Israel-India compact durable and rewarding for us. Without India the other two cannot fight Islamic terrorism in the most important theatres of the world.

With this compact in place, our virat brihad Hindu identity or Hindutva clearly defined and assimiliated, India can formulate a strategy for deterrence against terrorism that nullifies the political objectives of the patrons of terrorists.

India is today infested with a host of terrorist insurgency. The JKLF, SIMI, ULFA, the PWG, the Maoists, the Tripura TNA, the Naxalites, the Naga terrorists, the Manipur terrorists, etc., etc. They can be crushed quickly except for one factor: The support given to them by Pakistan and Bangladesh. Pakistan's support is via the ISI, a wing of the army, which engages also in fake Indian currency to finance such activities. Pakistani involvement is not because its civil society wants it, but because of the Islamic fervour in the army that is not reconciled to the defeat of its forces in Bangladesh. The same Islamic fervour has turned the Bangladesh establishment against India, and hence with the help of the ISI, AI Qaeda has through it's Indonesian wing established a base to help these terrorists and also to develop the HuJI which is emerging as the human infrastructure of the terrorists in India. Thus, Islam is the heart and Pakistan is the brain of terrorism devil in India. Challenging Islam in the realm of ideas, without diluting the debate with secular platitudes, jamming the brain of terror, and destructing its human infrastructure embedded in Indians the core of a strategy to deter terrorism. This means sanitising Pakistan and truncating Bangladesh is required.

Most prominent national security analysts have argued that in countering terrorist threats, deterrent strategies as formulated for conventional warfare have no significant role to play in combating terrorism. A 2002 Rand Corporation study asserts: "The concept of deterrence is both too limiting and too naive to be applicable to the war on terrorism.1' US President's National Security Strategy document states: "Traditional' concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy".

Of course. I am not concerned here with "traditional concepts" but with new ideas to combat the new form of warfare—clandestine violence under the name of terrorism.

This overwhelming consensus against efficacy of deterrence has now been challenged by two US based scholars, Robert Trager and Desseslava Zagorcheva [in "Deterring Terrorism - It can be Done" International Security Journal (Harvard-MIT publication, Vol.30. No. 3, 2006)]

According to them the case against the use of deterrence strategies in counter-terrorist campaigns appears to rest on three pillars. First, terrorists are thought to be irrational, and therefore unresponsive to the cost-benefit calculation required in successful deterrence. Second, many terrorists are said to be so highly motivated that they are willing to die, and so not deterred by fear of punishment or of anything else. Third, even if terrorists were afraid of punishment, they cannot be deterred because they lack or have a shifting "return address"1 on which retaliation can be visited. Therefore if terrorists' base cannot be found, the use of force against them is useless, eounterterrorist strategies that advocate addressing "root causes", such as by "winning hearts and minds'', economic packages and promoting human rights, are for the long run. The required cure is however for the short run.

Trager and Zagorcheva argue that neverthrelress even the most highly motivated terrorists can be deterred by holding at risk the political goals of their patrons and financier rather than by threatening the life or liberty of the terrorists themselves.

Thus from a policy perspective, my view is that the ability of a terrorist targeted nation to put political goals of the patrons of the terrorists and their benefactors at risk stands the best chance deterring terrorism, and hence is the most important objective of counter-terrorism policy.

The structure of a counter-terrorism policy and the selection of instruments for implementation of this policy has to be targeted nation-specific and terrorist organisation- centric. There cannot be a general global strategy of deterrence against terrorism.

Harvard scholar and Nobel Laureate Thomas Schelling, in his Arms and Influence, (pp.70-71), contrasts deterrence (the threat to take hostile action unless the adversary acts).

Traditional view of deterrence in strategic studies literature implies the scope for a bargain: both sides agree to co-operate on a state of affairs that both prefer to alternatives they face. This is called cost-benefit analysis. Deterrence, therefore, is not just about making threats; it is also about making offers. Deterrence by punishment is about finding the right combination of threat and offer.

Source: www.organiser.org

[Guest]

<b>This war is against Indian culture</b>
By Subramanian Swamy

The Islamic terrorists in India have only one goal: To convert the Dar-ul-Harab India of today into the Dar-ul-Islam of tomorrow. Judging by the secret writings in circulation amongst clerics in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim clerics consider as unacceptable the failure of 800 years of Islamic rule in India to convert India into a 100 per cent Muslim nation, as they did in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt etc.

In 1989, to obtain the release of Mufti Mohammed Sayeed's daughter, Rubaiyya who had been kidnapped by terrorists, five terrorists in Indian jails were set free by the VP Singh's government. This made these criminals in the eyes of Kashmiri separatists and fence sitters as heroes, as they had brought India's 'Hindu establishment' on it's knees.

In the case of terrorist menace, because of their ideological and religious beliefs, many terrorists place extreme value on their political objectives relative to other ends (e.g., life and property). For this reason, it appears impossible that a deterrer could hold at risk something of sufficient value to terrorists such that their behavior is affected.

The Islamic terrorists in India have only one goal: To convert the Dar-ul-Harab India of today into the Dar-ul-Islam of tomorrow. Judging by the secret writings in circulation amongst clerics in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim clerics consider as unacceptable the failure of 800 years of Islamic rule in India to convert India into a 100 per cent Muslim nation, as they did in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt etc. Leave alone 100 per cent. Akhand Hindustan could not be converted more than 25 per cent. Thus, it was a passive victory of the Hindus and a blow to the imagined invincibility of Islam.

Hence, Islamic theologists consider the US a meddling nation that is corrupting the social morals of Muslims, Israel to represents a reversal of Islamic conquest of territory in West Asia by Jews who were hated by Prophet Mohammed, and Hindustan a challenge to the invincibility of Islam.

India has a huge population, and worse has begun to develop quickly. Thus India must be targeted by terrorising Hindus and make them to submit. The mad mullahs are thus on a rampage, and we Hindus have to wake up to the real challenge of Mumbai 26/11 and all that preceded it.

Therefore, recognising that targeting of Hindus is the political goal of the Islamic terrorists, while Muslims of India are largely just passive spectators, and that the foreign patrons of Islamic terrorists are beginning to engage in terrorist acts that could put Muslims against Hindus in nation¬wide conflagration and possible civil war as in Serbia and Bosnia, hence the first lesson to be learnt from recent history is that for tackling terrorism India should recognise that the Hindu is the target, and that Muslims of South Asia are being programmed to slide into suicide against Hindus.

The recent of Al Qaeda video tapes in Bihar seeking recruits for terrorism against the ';US-lsrael-India axis" is an indication of this. It is to undermine the Hindu psyche and create fear of civil war that terror attacks are organised. And hence since the Hindu is the target, Hindus must collectively respond as Hindus against the terrorist and not feel individually isolated, or worse be complacent because he or she is not personally affected. If one Hindu dies merely because he or she was a Hindu, then a bit of every Hindu also dies. This is a necessary part of an essential menial attitude of a virat Hindu [for fuller discussion of the concept of virat Hindu, see Hindus Under Siege: The Way Out, Haranand, 2006] required in formulating a deterring strategy against terrorism which is Hindu-centric in it's targets.

Therefore we have to have a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the terrorist. In this response, Muslims and Christians of India can join the Hindus if they genuinely feel for the Hindus. That they really do so feel, cannot be believed unless they acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims or Christians, their ancestors are Hindus. It is not easy for them to acknowledge this ancestry even though that is the truth, because the Muslim Mullah and Christian Missionary would consider it as unacceptable according to the Koran and the Bible.

That realisation of oneness with Hindus would also dilute the religious fervour in their faith and thus create a mental option for their possible re-conversion and return to the Hinduism. Hence, their religious leaders preach hatred and violence against the kafir and the pagan i.e.. the Hindu [for example read Chapter 8 verse 12 of the Koran] to keep the faith of their followers. The Islamic terrorist outfits, e.g., the SIMI being the latest has already resolved that India is Dar-ul-Harab. and they are committed to make it Dar-ul-Islam. That makes them free of any moral compunction whatsoever in dealing with Hindus, including in massacring them.

Bul still, if any Muslim or Christian does so acknowledge his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj. which constitutes Hindustan. India that is Hindustan is thus a nation of Hindus and those others whose ancestors are Hindus. Even Parsi and Jews in India have Hindu ancestors. This is the true identity of India, known as Hindustan. Others, those who refuse to so acknowledge or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration can remain in India, but should not have voting rights [which means they cannot be elected representatives] .

Hence, to begin with, any policy to combat terrorism must first begin with requiring each and every Hindu becoming collectively committed or a virat Hindu. By this it is meant that it is not enough commitment if one individually claims to be Hindu, or goes to temples, does pujas, and celebrates festivals. That is not sufficient to be a committed or virat Hindu. To be a virat Hindu one must have a Hindu mindset.

The second lesson for combating the terrorism that we face today is: since demoralising the Hindu and undermining the Hindu foundation of India in order to destroy the Hindu civilisation, is the goal of terrorists in India we must never capitulate and never concede any demand of the terrorists.

Terrorists are encouraged by appeasement but never satisfied by it. Therefore, no matter how many Hindus have to die for it, the basic policy has to be: never yield to any demand of the terrorists. That necessary resolve has not been shown in our recent history. Instead ever since we conceded Pakistan in 1947 under duress, we have been mostly yielding time and time again.

In 1989, to obtain the release of Mufti Mohammed Sayeed's daughter, Rubaiyya who had been kidnapped by terrorists, five terrorists in Indian jails were set free by the VP Singh's government. This made these criminals in the eyes of Kashmiri separatists and fence sitters as heroes, as they had brought India's 'Hindu establishment' on it's knees. To save Rubaiyya it was not necessary to surrender to terrorist demands. There were other ways. But the then government was capitulationists in outlook, or perhaps the then Home Minister was in cahoots with the terrorists.

The third lesson to be learnt is that whatever and however small the terrorist incident, the nation must retaliate—nor by measured and"sober" responses but by massive retaliation. For example, when Ayodhya Temple was sought to be attacked, or the Institute of Science in Bangalore was targeted, these were not big terrorist incidents but we should have massively retaliated. Our Intelligence agencies keep telling us that we have clinching proof of terrorist training camps in PoK and Bangladesh, and if that is so, we should bomb them by despatching our airforce. There is some evidence that the US agency, the FBI has presented to a district court in California satellite photos that establish that five terror training camps exist near Balakot in northeast Pakistan, Indian government claims proof which has not been made public that there are 57 camps in Pakistani held territory and 36 camps in Bangladesh.

Many are advising the Hindus to deal with the root "cause" of terrorism rather than concentrating on eradicating terrorists by retaliation. And pray what is the root "cause"?

According to bleeding heart liberals, terrorists are born or bred because of illiteracy, poverty, oppression, and discrimination. They argue that instead of eliminating them, the root cause of these four disabilities in society should be removed. Only then terrorism will disappear. Moreover they argue, terrorists cannot be deterred by force since they are irrational, willing to commit suicide, and have no 'return address'.

Searching the backgrounds of some of the world's most notorious Muslim terrorists; we find:

* Bin Laden, the son of a Saudi billionaire, studied engineering.
* His deputy Ayman al-Zawahri is an eye surgeon.
* Mohamed Atta. the son of a lawyer, earned a master's degree in urban planning.
* 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed graduated from an American college with an engineering degree.
* Flight 93 pilot Ziad Jarrah's father is a Beirut bureaucrat who drove a Mercedes and put his son through prep school.

Some of the London bombers had college degrees. One was a school teacher. Another's father owned a store.

Many of the Saudi hijackers were the best and brightest in their towns.

Hani Hanjour who crashed the plane into the Pentagon, studied English at the University of Arizona. Family members were wealthy merchants from Taif, a resort city in Saudi Arabia.

Most Palestinian suicide bombers have come from middle-class homes.

They didn't do what they were expected to do to escape poverty.

And some of the most radical imams in America have doctorates.

Muslim Fundamentalists have an education and an economic future, yet they still terrorise hate. They're literate enough to liberally interpret their holy books, yet they still embrace jihad against kafirs.

The fourth lesson to learn is that more than the activities of the terrorists in India, the more sinister corrosion of our nation state occurs from within. This corrosion provides 'a force multiplier' to the terrorists.

That is, the terrorists are able to leverage the influence of highly placed individuals in the government, media and academia, who have been compromised by the terrorists and blackmailed on sex, drug money and illegitimate favours, into collaborating with them.

One thing is for sure—terrorists in India of all hues and background have their compromised moles in the India's establishment, and hence no anti-terrorist policy can succeed unless these fifth column elements are weeded out. The IB/RAW/MI/CRPF all have files on them and so identifying them is no problem. The political support these traitors have to withdrawn and some have to be made an example of.

It is thus a ridiculous idea that terrorists cannot be deterred because they are irrational, willing to die, and have no 'return address. Our inference here is that terrorist master-minds have political goals and a method in their madness. An effective strategy to deter terrorism is therefore to defeat those political goals and to rubbish them by counter-terrorist action.

Source: www.organiser.org

[G.Subramaniam]

This man married off his daughter to a muslim
and helped Sonia toppled the first ABV govt

His specific method for islam
- asking muslims to recognie their ancestors were hindus
- sorry wont work, they already know that and are happy that
they were tortured to enter the 'one true religion'

- asking muslims to limit themselves to the koran
- sorry wont work either, 50% of the koran has anti-kafir verses

Having said that, I agree that secularism is mild xtianity
and elite hindus - liberal - convented - smoking drinking beef-eating are wogs

Secular Liberalism is like buddhism, looks great on paper but leads to extinction
in the face of criminal
and half-xtian

[Guest]

Most regional parties either 'invent' or appeal to an existing identity unique to that region and use it as a stepping stone to the personal benefits of the leaders. DMK, Shiv Sena, etc. etc. for example. Islamists and Christists have also been doing only this. The Congress Party uses an identity called 'secularism' which is given a new meaning 'protection of minority rights' and not division of the state and religion. And they divided and continue to divide the Hindus creating 'minorities' in this community. And each such divided section is encouraged as a minority and feel militated against the rest of Hindus!

The communists appeal to the workers creating an identity in them by virtue of the fact those workers work for wages.

The BJP sought to appeal to the Hindus with planks of Hindutva but in practice they were secularists whose appeal to the 'minorities' have not found appeal! Today the BJP is a divided house of competing, petty minded, frustrated and aged leaders.

<b>This brings us to confront the question: Is there a Hindu Identity? Can we truly appeal to such an identity and stick to it? Do we have a political party that would lead to the establishment of a Hindu nation?</b>

This forum and other forums have come up in the recent past wherein we have been airing our views and frustrations at the attacks perpetrated on the saathvic Hindus. These forums have done a yeoman service by being mouths to our voices. In all these melee we have to have the sanity to examine these voices that have become differing shouts. Are we all discussing things, events, developments etc taking place with our core interest in view or are we making extempore comments betraying our personal bias?

This has been my objective in posting some thought provoking articles and I am happy some learned members have jumped into the fray! I am sure this will lead to a sharpening of our focus.

[Guest]

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>We, The Nation(s) Of India</span>

<i>India breathes through her multiplicity, not her fragmenting voices</i>

RAJIV MALHOTRA

THERE IS a buzz about India becoming a superpower. But, are superpowers confused about national identity or inviting others to solve their civilisation’s “backwardness”? Does a superpower allow foreign nexuses to co-opt its citizens as agents? India graciously hosts foreign nexuses that treat it as a collection of disparate parts. Is super - powerdom delusionary?

The Mumbai massacre painfully exposes flaws in our national character, the central one being the absence of a definitive, purpose-filled identity. Who is that “we” whose interests are represented, internally and internationally? How should Indianness be defined? Where is the Indianness that transcends narrow identities and vested interests, one that is worth sacrificing for? Is it in the popular culture of Bollywood and cricket? Or is it deeper? The national identity project is at once urgent and compelling.

<b>The need for national identity</b>
In their pursuit of personal goals, Indians are intensely competitive. But we lack consensus on a shared national essence and hence there is no deep psychological bond between citizen and nation. National identity is to a nation’s well-being what the immune system is to the body’s health. The over-stressed body succumbs to external and internal threats, and eventually death, as its immunity weakens. Similarly, a nation stressed by a vacuum of identity, or multiple conflicting identities, or outright confusion, can break up. Just as the body’s immune system needs constant rejuvenation, so too a nation needs a positive collective psyche for its political cohesion.

Major nations deliberately pursue nation building through such devices as shared myths, history, heroes, religion, ideology, language and symbolism. Despite internal dissent, Americans have deep pride of heritage, and have constructed awe-inspiring monuments to their founding fathers and heroic wars. Where are Delhi’s monuments honouring the wars of 1857 or 1971, Shivaji, the Vijayanagar Empire, Ashoka, or the peaceful spread of Indian civilisation across Asia for a millennium? Where are the museums that showcase India’s special place in the world?
<b>
Forces that fragment</b>
Voices of fragmentation drive India’s internal politics — from Raj Thackeray to M Karunanidhi to Mamata Banerjee to the Quota Raj to the agents of foreign proselytising.

While social injustice, in India and elsewhere, demands effective cures, proper treatments do not follow faulty diagnoses. Since colonial times, influential scholars have propagated that there is no such thing as Indian civilisation. India was “civilised” by successive waves of invaders. The quest for Indianness is futile since India was never a nation. The noted historian Romila Thapar concludes that India’s pluralism has no essence. Like a doughnut, the center is void; only the peripheries have identity.

Such thinking infects Indian elite. Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju, citing western historians, asserts that the Munda tribes are the only true natives and that 95 percent of Indians are immigrants; that all so-called Aryan and Dravidian classical languages are foreign, ruling out anything as pan-Indian in our antiquity; and that worthwhile Indian civilisation begins with Akbar, “the greatest ruler the world has ever seen.”

This accelerating crescendo, portraying India as an inherently artificial, oppressive nation, is directed by western academics advocating western intervention to bring human rights. It is supported by private foundations, churches and the US government and promotes fragmentation by bolstering regional identities, “backward” castes, and religious minorities. Sadly, our own people, such as many activists and the westernised upper class, have internalised India's “oppression of minorities.” The human catastrophe that would envelope diverse groups — especially the weakest — in the aftermath of India’s break up is blithely ignored.
<b>
Beyond tolerance and assimilation</b>
Critics worry that national identity promotes fascism. But while many civilisations have used identity for conquest, my vision of Indianness is driven by mutual respect. We respect the other who is different provided the other reciprocates with respect towards us, in rhetoric and in action. The religious “tolerance” of Judaism, Islam and Christianity is a patronising accommodation; it puts up with others’ differences without respecting their right to be different. In contradistinction, Indian civilisation embraces differences reciprocally.

Movements that eradicate differences span the ideological spectrum. Some religions claim mandates from God to convert the religiously different. Although the European Enlightenment project dispensed with God, it enabled erasing ethnic diversity through genocide of Native Americans and slavery of African-Americans. Asians were luckier, because they could become “less different” via colonisation.

Today, many Indians erase their distinctiveness by glamorising white identity as the gold standard. Skin lighteners are literal whiteners. Media and pop culture incorporate white aesthetics, body language and attire for social status, careers and marriage. The venerable “namaste” is becoming a marker of the older generations and the servants. Pop Hindu gurus peddle the “everything is the same” mumbojumbo, ignoring even the distinctions between the dharmic and the un-dharmic. Intellectuals adopt white categories of discourse as “universal”.

Difference eradicating ideologies are hegemonic. Either you (i) assimilate, (ii) oppose and suffer, or (iii) get contained and marginalised.

But Indian philosophy is built on celebrating diversity — in trees, flowers, matter, human bodies, minds, languages and cultures, spiritualities and traditions — and does not see it as a problem to be dealt with.

All social groups manifest an affinity for in-group relations but in the ideal Indian ethos, in-group affinity is without external aggression. Before colonial social engineering, traditional Indian castes were fluid, informal containers of identities, interwoven with one another, and not frozen hierarchically. This applied to Muslims, Christians and Hindus. Each caste had its distinct norms and was respected by others. My India is a web of thousands of castes encapsulating diverse genes and memes. This ideal is the exact opposite of fascist ethnocentrism.

<b>Diversity yes, fragmentation no</b>
The socially mobile castes that had preserved India's diversity were frozen into castes to serve the British divide-andrule. Independent India adopted caste identities to allocate quotas instead of safeguarding individual rights. When the Congress party failed to integrate a vast mishmash of subidentities, regional vote-banking entrepreneurs captured India’s political fragments. Now, national interests are casually disregarded for fear of offending these fragments.

Cover StoryGlobalisation has opened the floodgates for minority leaders to tie-up with western churches and NGOs, Saudis, Chinese and just about anyone wanting to carve out a slice of the Indian elephant. Such minorities include the Nagas, now serving as a foreign subsidiary of the Texas Southern Baptist Church; Tamils who first got Dravidianised and are now being Christianised through identity engineering; Maoists in over 30 percent of India's districts; and Saudifunded Pan-Islamists expanding across India. These fragmented identities weaken Indianness due to their loyalty to foreign alliances. The leaders depend on foreign headquarters for ideological and financial support.

Such groups are no longer minorities, but are agents of dominant world majorities. They are franchisees of the global nexuses they serve. They are adversaries of the Indian identity formation. Do they truly help India’s under classes? These global nexuses have a disappointing track record of solving problems in countries where they have operated for generations, including Latin America, Philippines and Africa where most natives have become converted. The imported religion has failed to bring human rights and has often exacerbated problems. Yet, Indian middlemen have mastered the art of begging foreign patronage in exchange for selling the souls of fellow Indians.
<b>
Towards an Indian identity</b>
Hindutva is a modern political response lacking the elasticity to be the pan-Indian identity. Other popular ideas are equally shallow, such as the Indianness defined by Bollywood and cricket. Ideals like “secular democracy” and “development” do not a distinct national identity make. It is fashionable to blend pop culture with European ideologies and pass it off as Indianness. Such blends cannot bind a complex India together against fissiparous casteism and regionalism coming in the orbits of Islamist jihad and evangelical Christianity.

Indianness must override fragmented identities, no matter how large the vote bank or how powerful the foreign sponsor. Gandhi articulated a grand narrative for India. Tagore and Aurobindo saw continuity in Indian civilisation. Nehru had a national vision, which Indira Gandhi modified and defended fiercely. The Ashokan, Chola, and Maratha empires had welldefined narratives, each with an idea of India.

<b>Debating Indianness fearlessly and fairly</b>
A robust Indianness must become the context in which serious issues get debated. Everyone should be able to participate — be it Advani or Sonia, the Imam of Jama Masjid or Hindu gurus, Thackeray or the underworld — in a free and fair debate on Indianness, and no one should be exempt from criticism.

But the Indian intellectual mafia, which built careers by importing and franchising foreign doctrines, suppresses debate outside its framework, and brands honest attempts at opposing them as fascism. I offer a few examples.

A few years before 9/11, the Princeton-based Infinity Foundation proposed to a prestigious Delhi-based centre to research the Taliban and their impact on India. The centre’s intellectuals pronounced the hypothesis an unrealistic conspiracy theory and unworthy of study. Even after 9/11, the American Academy of Religion refused to study the Taliban as a religious phenomenon while persisting with Hindu caste, cows, dowry, mothers-in-law, social oppression, violence and sundry intellectual staples.

Some analysts hyphenate Islamist terror with Kashmir, imputing that terrorism is a legitimate dispute resolution technique. “The plight of Muslims” is a rationalisation; and Martha Nussbaum, a University of Chicago professor, blames “Hindu fascism” as the leading cause of terrorism and justifies the Mumbai massacre by hyphenating it with Hindu “pogroms,” Hindu “ethnic cleansing against Muslims,” and the Hindu project to “Kill Christians and destroy their institutions.” Her insensitivity to the victims, just two days after 26/11, was given a free pass by the LA Times. Double standards are evident when cartoons lampooning Islam are condemned, whereas serious attacks against Hindu deities, symbols and texts are defended in the name of intellectual freedom.
<b>
Be positive and “live happily ever after”</b>
The Bollywood grand finale, where the couple lives happily ever after, is de rigueur. Friends insist that my analysis must end with something positive by way of solving the problems I uncover. Hard evidence of dangerous cleavages in India, spinning out of control, is too “negative.” The need to work backwards from a happy ending and only admit evidence that fits such endings is an Indian psychological disorder. But we don’t expect doctors to reject negative diagnoses, analysts to ignore market crashes, or teachers to praise our unruly children. What if there is no “good” alternative?

It is disturbing that strategic options against Pakistan must subserve the sensitivities of Indian Muslims. This gratuitously assumes that Indian Muslims are less Indian than Muslim. Some fear that strong Indian action will precipitate increased jihad, or even nuclear war. Such fears recapitulate the early campaigns to appease Hitler. Once a violent cancer spreads outside the tumour’s skin, it demands a direct attack. Vitamins, singing, and lamp-lighting are pointless. In sports or warfare, medicine or marketing, you cannot win by only using defence. The offensive option that cannot be exercised is merely a showpiece. If national interests are dominated by minority sentiments, our enemies will exploit our weakness. A paralysed India emboldens predators.
<b>
Games nations play</b>
After Indians return to psychological normalcy, apathy will be confused as resilience. When each episode is seen in isolation there is short-term thinking, a tolerance of terrorism, and an acceptance that mere survival is adequate. Strategic planning requires connecting the trends clearly.

Indians must understand the reality of multiple geopolitical board games. Moves on one gameboard trigger consequences on others, making the tradeoffs complex. The South Asia gameboard involves USA-India-Pakistan as well as China-Pakistan stakes. Besides external games with its neighbours, India plays internal games to appease fragments, which are influenced by foreign stakeholders. Religion is used as soft power in the game of Islam versus the West, and India’s fragmentation hastens the harvesting of souls in the world's largest open market. The multinational business gameboard spotlights India as a market, a supplier, a competitor, and an investment destination.

In another gameboard, scholars of South Asia construct a discourse with Indian intellectuals as their sepoys and affiliated NGOs as paid agents. Following the academic and human rights experts who profited from the Iraq invasion, the players in this game hope that US president designate Barack Obama will budget billions to “engage South Asia.”

The identity challenges are offset by forces that hold India together. Private enterprises that span the entire country bring cohesion that depends on high economic growth and its trickle down to the lowest strata to outpace population growth and social unrest. Economic prosperity is also required for military spending. More than any other institution, the armed forces unify the nation because they realise that soldiers must identify themselves with the nation they are prepared to die for.

Recent US policy supports India’s sovereignty, but this should be seen in the context of using India as a counterweight against Pan-Islam and China. In the long run, the US would like India not to become another unified superpower like China or to disintegrate into a Pakistan-like menace. It will “manage” India between these two extremes. An elephant cannot put itself up for adoption as someone’s pet. It must learn to fend for itself.

Lessons for India Although the US is a land of immigrants, pride of place goes to the majority religion. Political candidates for high office are seriously disadvantaged if they are not seen as good Christians. The church-state separation is not a mandate to denounce Christianity or privilege minority religions. America was built on white identity that involved the ethnic cleansing of others. To its credit, India has avoided this.Obama sought a better, unified nation and transcended the minorityism of previous Black leaders. Unlike the Dravidianists, Mayawati, and those Muslim and Christian leaders who undermine India's identity, Obama is unabashedly patriotic and a devout follower of its majority religion. America celebrates its tapestry of hyphenated identities (Indian-American, Irish-American, etc.) but “American” supersedes every sub-identity. Being un-American is a death knell for American leaders.

In sharp contrast, Mayawati, Indian Muslim leaders, Indian Christian leaders, Dravidianists and other “minority” vote bankers have consolidated power at the expense of India's unified identity. Unlike the promoters of fragmented Indian identities, Obama is closer to Mahatma Gandhi and Ambedkar, champions of the downtrodden within a unified Indian civilisation.

India can learn from American mechanisms. Indian billionaires must become major stakeholders in constructing positive discourse on the nation. They must make strategic commitments like those made by the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Fords in building American identity, its sense of history, and in projecting American ideals. American meritocracy in politics, implemented through internal primaries, is vastly superior to the cronyism in Indian politics.

The area studies programmes in American universities have close links to the government, think tanks and churches, and they examine nations and civilisations from the American perspective. India should establish a network of area studies to study neighboring countries and other regions from India’s viewpoint. India should study China’s establishment of 100 Confucian Studies Chairs worldwide and the civilisational grand narrative of other nations.

Ideological “camps” with pre-packaged solutions are obsolete. The Indian genius must improvise, innovate, and create a national identity worthy of its name.

Rajiv Malhotra is the President, Infinity Foundation, who also writes on issues concerning the place of Indian civilisation in the world

[Guest]

<b>Defalsify India’s history as a first step in national renaissance</b>
January 14, 2009

Dr. Subramanian Swamy’s valdedictory speech on January 11 at the Internatonal Conference on Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics 2009 (ICIH-2009) at New Delhi’s India International Centre.

<b>Introduction</b>

The identity of India is Hindustan, i.e., a nation of Hindus and those others who acknowledge with pride that their ancestors were Hindus. Hindustan represents the continuing history of culture of Hindus. One’s religion may change, but culture does not. Thus, on the agenda for a national renaissance should be the dissemination of the correct perception of what we are. This perception has to be derived from a defalsified history. However, the present history taught in our schools and colleges is the British imperialist- sponsored one, with the intent to destroy our identity.

India as a State is treated as a British-created entity and of only recent origin. The Indian people are portrayed as a heterogeneous lot who are hopelessly divided against themselves. Such a “history” has been deliberately created by the British as a policy. Sir George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, wrote to the Home Office on March 26, 1888 that “I think the real danger to our rule is not now but say 50 years hence….. We shall (therefore) break Indians into two sections holding widely different views ….. We should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened”.

After achieving independence, under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and the implementing authority of the anglicized ICS, revision of our history was never done, in fact the very idea was condemned as “obscurantist” and Hindu chauvinist by Nehru and his ilk.

<b>The Imperialist History of India</b>

What is the gist of this British imperialist- tailored Indian history? In this history, India is portrayed as the land “conquered” first by the ‘Dravidians’, then by the ‘Aryans’, later by Muslims, and finally by the British. Otherwise, everything else is mythical. Our history books today exhibit this obsession with foreign rule.

For example, even though the Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb is about 150 years, which is much shorter than the 350 year rule of the Vijayanagaram empire, the history books of today hardly take notice of the latter. In fact the territory under Krishna Devaraya’s rule was much larger than Akbar’s, and yet it is the latter who is called “the Great”. Such a version suited the British rules who had sought to create a legitimacy for their presence in India.

Furthermore, we were also made to see advantages accruing from British rule, the primary one being that India was united by this colonialism, and that but for the British, India would never have been one country. Thus, the concept of India itself is owed to the plunder of colonialists.

In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic invaders. But on the contrary,unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the country capitulated to become 100% Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80% Hindu.

These totally false and pernicious ideas have however permeated deep into our educational system. They have poisoned the minds of our younger generations who have not had the benefit of the Freedom Struggle to awaken their pride and nationalism. It has thus to be an essential part of the renaissance agenda that these ideas of British-sponsored history of India, namely, (1) that India as a State was a gift of the British and (2) that there is no such thing as a native Indian, and what we are today is a by-product of the rape of the land by visiting conquerors and their hordes and (3) that India is a land that submitted meekly to invading hordes from Aryan to the English, are discarded.

Just because India did not have a nation state of the present boundaries, exercising control through a unified modern administration, does not mean that there was no India. On the contrary, there was always as India which from north to south, thought of fundamentally as one country.

Just as Hinduism exists from ancient days despite a lack of a Church, Book, or Pope, Hindustan too existed from time immemorial but without the parameters of a modern state. The invading Muslims and the British on the contrary tried to disrupt that unity by destroying the traditional communication channels and educational structures.

Thus, on the agenda for National Renaissance has to be a new factual account of our history, focusing on the continuous and unbroken endeavours of a people united as a nation. This history of India must deal with the conscious effort of our people to achieve a civilization, to reach better standards of life, and live a happier and nobler life. Although the lamp of faith of the Indian people burnt brightly in long periods, this history must also record when that faith dimmed and brought shame to the people.

Such a factual account of our past is essential to the agenda, because we have to objectively disgorge and discard the foreign versions of our history. It is this foreign version that makes us out to be foreigners in our own land. The Aryan-Dravidian divide in the history taught in schools and universities is purely a conception of foreign historians like Max Mueller and has no basis in Indian historical records.

This fraudulent history had been lapped up by north Indians, and by south Indian Brahmins, as their racial passport to Europe. Such was the demoralization of the Hindu mind, which we have to shake off through a new factual account of our past.
<b>
Falsification of Chronology in India’s History</b>

The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.

The customary dates quoted for composition of the Rig Veda (circa 1300 B.C.), Mahabharat (600 B.C.), Buddha’s Nirvana (483 B.C.), Maurya Chandragupta’s coronation (324 B.C.), and Asoka (c.268 B.C.) are entirely wrong. Those dates are directly or indirectly based on a selected reading of Megasthenes’ account of India. In fact, so much so that eminent historians have called if the “sheet anchor of Indian chronology”. The account of Megasthenes and the derived chronology of Indian history have also an important bearing on related derivations such as the two-race (Aryan-Dravidian) theory, and on the pre-Vedic character of the so called Indus Valley Civilization.

Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called “Sandrocottus”. He was stationed in “Palimbothra”, the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika. The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available. However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian).

When European indologists were groping to date Indian history during the nineteenth century (after having arbitrarily rejected the various Puranas), the Megasthenes account came in very useful. These scholars simply identified “Sandrocottus” with Chandragupta, and “Palimbothra” with Pataliputra. Since Megasthenes talks of Sandrocottus as being a man not of “noble” birth who essentially usurped the throne from Xandrames and founded a new dynasty, the western writers took it as enough evidence to suggest that Sandrocottus was Maurya Chandragupta, who deposed the Nanda (=Xandrames) dynasty, and founded the Maurya dynasty. This identification, thus places Maurya Chandragupta circa 302 B.C.

However, Megasthenes also notes that Sandrocottus was a contemporary of Alexander, and came to the throne soon after Alexander’s departure. With a little arithmetic on how many days it would have taken Alexander to cross the Indus, etc., the scholars arrive at c.324 B.C. as the date of Chandragupta Maurya’s coronation. It is on this date that every other date of Indian history has been constructed.

The western writers constructed other dates of Indian history by using the data on the number of years between kings given in the Puranas, even though they have generally discredited this source. For instance, the Puranas give the number of years for the reign of Chandgragupta and Bindusara as 62 years. Using this period, Asoka’s coronation year is calculated by them as 324-62 =c 262 B.C. This estimated year is then cross-checked and adjusted with other indicators, such as from the Ceylonese Pali tradition. The point that is being made here is that some of the important dates of Indian history have been directly determined by the identification of Megasthenes’ Sandrocottus with Maurya Chandragupta, and Xandremes with Nanda.

The founder of the Mauryas, however, is not the only Chandragupta in Indian history, who was a king of Magadh and founder of a dynasty. In particular, there is Gupta Chandragupta, a Magadh king and founder of the Gupta dynasty at Patliputra. Chandragupta Gupta was also not of “noble” birth and, in fact, came to power by deposing the Andhra king Chandrasri. That is, Megasthenes’ Sandrocottus may well be Gupta Chandragupta instead of Maurya Chandgragupta (and Xandremes the same as Chandrasri, and Sandrocryptus as Samudragupta) .

In order to determine which Chandragupta it is, we need to look further. It is, of course, a trifle silly to build one’s history on this kind of tongue-gymnastics, but I am afraid we have no choice but to pursue the Megasthenes evidence to its end, since the currently acceptable history is based on it.

In order to determine at which Chandragupta’s court Megasthenes was ambassador, we have to look further into his account of India. We find he was at Pataliputra (i.e. Palimbothra in Megasthenes’ account). We know from the Puranas (which are unanimous on this point) that all the Chandravamsa king of Magadh (including the Mauryas) prior to the Guptas, had their capital at Girivraja (or equivalently Rajgrha) and not at Pataliputra. Gupta Chandragupta was the first king to have his capital in Patliputra. This alone should identify Sandrocottos with Gupta Chandragupta. However some 6-11th century A.D. sources call Pataliputra the Maurya capital, e.g., Vishakdatta in Mudrarakshasa, but these are based on secondary sources and not on the Puranas.

Pursuing Megasthenes’ account further, we find most of it impossible to believe. He appears to be quite vague about details and is obviously given to the Greek writers’ weakness in letting his imagination get out of control. For example, “Near a mountain which is called Nulo there live men whose fee are turned back-wards and have eight toes on each foot.” (Solinus 52.36-30 XXX.B.) “Megasthenes says a race of men (exist in India) who neither eat or drink, and in fact have not even mouths, set on fire and burn like incense in order to sustain their existence with odorous fumes…..” (Plutarch, Frag. XXXI). However, Megasthenes appears to have made one precise statement of possible application which was picked up later by Pliny, Solinus, and Arrian. As summarized by Professor K.D. Sethna of Pondicherry, it reads:

“Dionysus was the first who invaded India and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanished Indians. From the days of Dionysus to Alexander the Great, 6451 years reckoned with 3 months additional. From the time of Dionysus to Sandrocottus the Indians reckoned 6452 years, the calculation being made by counting the kings who reigned in the intermediate period to number 153 or 154 years. But among these a republic was thrice established, one extending…..years, another to 300 and another to 120. The Indians also tell us that Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except for him no one made a hostile invasion of India but that Alexander indeed came and overthrew in war all whom he attacked.”

While there a number of issues raised by this statement including the concoction that Alexander was victorious in battle across the Indus, the exactness with which he states his numbers should lead us to believe that Megasthenes could have received his chronological matters from none else than the Puranic pundits of his time. To be conclusive, we need to determine who are the “Dionysus” and “Heracles” of Megasthenes’ account.

Traditionally, Dionysus (or Father Bachhus) was a Greek God of wine who was created from Zeus’s thigh. Dionysus was also a great king, and was recognized as the first among all kings, a conqueror and constructive leader. Could there be an Indian equivalent of Dionysus whom Megasthenes quickly equated with his God of wine? Looking through the Puranas, one does indeed find such a person. His name is Prithu.

Prithu was the son of King Vena. The latter was considered a wicked man whom the great sages could not tolerate, especially after he told them that the elixir soma should be offered to him in prayer and not to the gods (Bhagavata Purana IV.14.28). The great sages thereafter performed certain rites and killed Vena. But since this could lead immediately to lawlessness and chaos, the rshis decided to rectify it by coronating a strong and honest person. The rshis therefore churned the right arm (or thigh; descriptions vary) of the dead body (of Vena) to give birth to a fully grown Prithu. It was Prithu, under counsel from rshi Atri (father of Soma), who reconstructed society and brought about economic prosperity. Since he became such a great ruler, the Puranas have called him adi-raja (first king) of the world. So did the Satpatha Brahmana (v.3.5 4.).

In the absence of a cult of soma in India, it is perhaps inevitable that Megasthenes and the other Greeks, in translating Indian experiences for Greek audiences, should pick on adi-raja Prithu who is “tinged with Soma” in a number of ways and bears such a close resemblance to Dionysus in the circumstances of his birth, and identify him as Dionysus. If we accept identifying Dionysus with Prithu, then indeed by a calculation based on the Puranas (done by D.R. Mankad, Koti Venkatachelam, K.D. Sethna, and others), it can be conclusively shown that indeed 6451 years had elapsed between Prithu and a famous Chandragupta. This calculation exactly identifies Sandrocottus with Gupta Chandragupta and not with Maurya Chandragupta. The calculation also identifies Heracles with Hari Krishna (Srikrishna) of Dwarka.

This calculation must be necessarily long and tedious to counter the uninformed general feeling first sponsored by Western scholars, that the Puranas spin only fair tales and are therefore quite unreliable. However, most of these people do not realize that most Puranas have six parts, and the Vamsanucharita sections (especially of Vishnu, Matsya, and Vagu) are a systematic presentation of Indian history especially of the Chandravamsa kings of Magadha.

In order to establish these dates, I would have to discuss in detail the cycle of lunar asterisms, the concept of time according to Aryabhatta, and various other systems, and also the reconciliation of various minor discrepancies that occur in the Puranas. Constraints of space and time however, prevent me from presenting these calculations here.

However, on the basis of these calculations we can say that Gupta Chandragupta was “Sandrocottus” c.327 B.C. His son, Samudragupta, was the great king who established a unified kingdom all over India, and obtained from the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras their recognition of him. He also had defeated Seleucus Nicator, while his father Chandragupta was king. On this calculation we can also place Prithu at 6777 B.C. and Lord Rama before that. Derivation of other dates without discussion may also be briefly mentioned here: Buddha’s Nirvana 1807 B.C., Maurya Chandragupta c. 1534 B.C., Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 B.C.

The European scholars have thus constructed an enormous edifice of contemporary foreign dates to suit their dating. A number of them are based on misidentification. For instance, the Rock Edict XIII, the famous Kalinga edict, is identified as Asoka’s. It was, however, Samudragupta’s (Samudragupta was a great conqueror and a devout admirer of Asoka. He imitated Asoka in many ways and also took the name Asokaditya. In his later life, he became a sanyasi). Some other facts, which directly contradict their theories, they have rather flippantly cast aside.

We state here only a few examples – such facts as (1) Fa-hsien was in India and at Patliputra c. 410 A.D. He mentions a number of kings, but makes not even a fleeting reference to the Gupta, even though according to European scholars he came during the height of their reign. He also dates Buddha at 1100 B.C.. (2) A number of Tibetan documents place Buddha at 2100 B.C. (3) The Ceylonese Pali traditions leave out the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras from the list of Asoka’s kingdoms, whereas Rock Edict XIII includes them. In fact, as many scholars have noted, the character of Asoka from Ceylonese and other traditions is precisely (as R.K. Mukherjee has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts.

The accepted history of no country can however be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.

The time has come for us to take seriously our Puranic sources and to re-construct a realistic well-founded history of ancient India, a history written by Indians about Indians. Such a history should bring out the amazing continuity of a Hindu nation which asserts its identity again and again. It should focus on the fact that at the centre of our political thought is the concept of the Chakravartin ideal – to defend the nation from external aggression while giving maximum internal autonomy to the janapadas.

A correct, defalsified history would record that Hindustan was one nation in the art of governance, in the style of royal courts, in the methods of warfare, in the maintenance of its agrarian base, and in the dissemination of information. Sanskrit was the language of national communication and discourse.

An accurate history should not only record the periods of glory but the moments of degeneration, of the missed opportunities, and of the failure to forge national unity at crucial junctures in time. It should draw lessons for the future generations from costly errors in the past.

In particular, it was not Hindu submission as alleged by JNU historians that was responsible for our subjugation but lack of unity and effective military strategy.

<b>Without an accurate history, Hindustan cannot develop on its correct identity. And without a clearly defined identity, Indians will continue to flounder. Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance.</b>

<b>‘Purge history books of bias’</b>

Staff Reporter

NEW DELHI: The former Union Minister, Subramanian Swamy, has charged that wilful distortions in writing Indian history have been occurring solely due to state support since the British times.

“The British rulers wrote our history to divide and rule us. But what is the excuse of Indian governments after Independence to continue with the same policy?”

He was delivering the valedictory address at a three-day international conference on “Indian History, Civilisation and Geopolitics” here on Sunday.

Dr. Swamy said myths spread by biased historians overtook Indian history, while actual events and places had been declared myths.

He demanded a reorientation of the state policy to purge history books of a false chronology of ancient India and myths such as Aryan invasion and racial divide of north and south Indians. colonial biases.”

<b>Vicious myth</b>

Quoting dozens of slokas, scholar S. Ram Mohan said: “[That] women had no rights in ancient India is a vicious myth spread by colonial historians.

“The reality is that all the three ancient code books of Hindus — Manu Smriti, Narad Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti — have a common theme of social welfare and an egalitarian society, with a very high status assigned to women and the deprived sections.”

http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2009/01/1...al-renaissance/

[Guest]

<b>HAF in America objects to ‘The Story of India’</b>
January 14, 2009

http://www.expressi ndia.com/ latest-news/ Hindu-group- in-America- objects-to- The-Story- of-India/ 410235/

Hindu group in America objects to ‘The Story of India‘
Jan 13, 2009

New York. A US-based Hindu advocacy group has taken strong objection
to historian Michael Wood’s documentary ‘The Story of India,’ being
telecast on public television, describing its presentation of the
Aryan Migration Theory (AMT) as ‘agenda driven.’

Rejecting the theory, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) said India
has always been the cradle of Hindu civilization and there is no
debate about it.

“Michael Wood clearly admires India and its people, and this shows
through in his passionate depiction of India,” said Sheetal Shah,
HAF’s Director of Development and Outreach.

“We are not seeking to discredit the ‘Story of India’ in its entirety,
but viewers should be aware that a major error was made in the
documentary that fails scrutiny and should be corrected,” she said.

The Hindu advocacy group said it has received a deluge of phone calls
protesting the presentation of the ‘now discredited’ theory, currently
being shown on television.

The AMT theorises that in 1500 BCE pastoral tribes that came to be
known as Aryans, migrated from Central Europe to Northwest India
eventually dispersing indigenous people and imposing their own
culture.

“This theory, that is not supported by archaeological evidence, was
first posited by European Indologists and British colonialists,
eventually finding support from a section of India’s politically
motivated linguists and historians such as Romila Thapar, and
famously, controversial Harvard linguist, Michael Witzel,” she said.

This theory, the HAF believes, is ‘agenda-driven’ .

In his documentary, HAF says, Wood holds that the early Hindu practice
of worshipping devas, or demigods representing elements, ’somehow
implies that these practices were imported from Central Asia.’

While referring ‘obliquely’ to the Aryan Migration Theory as
controversial, HAF said, Wood fails to present contrary evidence that
many scientists believe refutes the claim that the progenitors of
Hindu civilisation came from west of the Hindu Kush mountains of
Afghanistan.

“There is no debate that India was always the cradle of Hindu
civilisation, and the Vedas, the Hindu’s holiest scriptures, are the
recorded history of our ancestors,” said Suhag Shukla, HAF’s Managing
Director.

“We strongly oppose the insulting theory–advanced by agenda-driven
activist historians — that our rishis, the great sages who composed
the Vedas, were foreign to India, and Wood does viewers a disservice
in not presenting both sides of the coin, in an otherwise admirable
work,” he said.

The AMT is reviled by many Hindus, he said, due to its implicit
proposition that a tribe of ‘Aryans’ migrated into the Indian
subcontinent, subjugated an indigenous people dispersing them to South
India and established a caste system where the highest castes are
comprised of ‘Aryans’ in an ethno-religious apartheid system.

This ‘explosive theory’ that narrates that Aryans were only the first
colonizers — followed by Greeks, Mongols, Turks, Persians — was used
by European historians to justify the last foreign claim on India, the
British Raj, he added.

However, he asserted, it is the latest genetic evidence, based on
chromosomal and DNA analysis, that scientists believe definitively
discredits the AMT.

[Shambhu]

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>Nearly 21,000 Muslims Embraced Hinduism</b></span>
14/01/2009 14:05:02
http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx...eID=8013&SKIN=B

Development of villages is must for development of the country—Shiv Prakash
Courtesy:www.organiser.org
A total of 21 Prathamik Shiksha Vargas were held across Uttarakhand from December 26, 2008 to January 2, 2009. According to RSS Uttarakhand Prant Pracharak Shri Shiv Prakash some of the vargas were held in remote areas. Members of Prant Karyakarini attended all the camps. Shri Shiv Prakash himself attended ten camps. A total of 2,182 swayamsevaks from 700 places participated in the camps.

Addressing the swayamsevaks at SGRR Inter College at Bhauwala in Dehradun, Shri Shiv Prakash said swayamsevaks are today engaged in various constructive activities. One of them is development of villages. He pointed out that swayamsevaks have adopted about 800 villages of the country for their total development. Swayamsevaks are striving hard to raise the standard of education and living and are disseminating awareness about the protection of environment there. The children who do not go to schools are inspired to go to schools. He emphasised the village temples should not merely be the place of worship but they should also be the place of infusing a sense of harmony into the people where people learn to co-operate one another.

He said the Hindus should also embrace the Muslims whose ancestors were Hindu and a large section of them are willing to come back to their roots. He pointed out that about 15000 Muslims embraced Hinduism on December 25, 2008 in Agra and about 6000 Muslims were brought back to Hinduism at Roorkee in Haridwar last year. This process should go on. He said the yugdharma says the Hindus should accept the Muslims who want to come back to Hinduism.
(By Ravindra Saini)

[Guest]

In UP, lot of Muslims are converting back to Hindusim, I have seen this trend in late 70s also. During those days number was low and always invited mini riots in Agra and surrounding area. Majority of new converts were middle class.

Do we know reason?

[Guest]

Shambuji,

This is the best news I have heard! This is what I expect of RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Hindu Munnani and so forth. I wish the Acharya Sabha leads these organizations in asserting our Dharma. I will be writing to them and calling them to impress upon them this kind of affirmative actions to gain momentum. I hope all the readers of this great blog will also do write/call the Acharyas.

Happy Shankaranthi!

[Shambhu]

I hope RSS (or any other re-converting agency) continue whatever they do! We, for our part need to keep up bringing out the truth about Islam, christianism, and Sanatan Dharma ..that may influence the decision of some muslims to stay muslim.