07-11-2008, 12:30 AM
From Pioneer, 10 July 2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Amar Singh does not surprise
Second opinion: Ben Stocking
By asserting "LK Advani is more dangerous than Bush", Mr Amar Singh has betrayed two things. One, he is anti-Hindu. Two, he has very little knowledge of American history. As far as his anti-Hindu stance is concerned, he seems to share this trait with all other Hindu leaders of Uttar Pradesh.
Our first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was also from the same State. He remained in power for almost 17 years and was out-and-out pro-Muslim. He had openly asked his Home Minister, Sardar Patel, not to associate himself with the rebuilding of the Somnath Temple. He was also instrumental in providing for superior rights to Muslims even though the community had forced the division of India on communal lines.
No Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh during the regime of Prime Minister Nehru or afterwards did anything to recover the Hindu shrines from the Muslims in the State. It is more likely that they never visited the shrines for the fear of being reprimanded by the Prime Minister. When Ramsay MacDonald gave his communal award in 1932, which provided for separate electorates for the depressed classes, Mahatma Gandhi had gone on a fast unto death. He did not want Harijans to be permanently separated from the Hindu fold.
<b>In sharp contrast to this, Mr VP Singh divided Hindus through the introduction of OBC status. As for the Samajwadi Party, its pro-Muslim leanings are well known. Its leaders have no qualms about heaping insult on Hindu ethos.</b> Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav has held an Iftar party on the banks of the holy Ganga at Haridwar. Would Mr Singh dare to celebrate Diwali in a masjid?
The Marathas, the Sikhs, the Rajputs and the Jats all fought the Muslim and the British invaders. The Hindus of Uttar Pradesh have yet to produce a pro-Hindu leader. The State remains backward primarily because Hindu leaders there suffer from a slavish mentality.
Mr Amar Singh should know that the Americans do not tolerate any attack on their soil. If someone dared to do so, the counter-attack would be swift and massive. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, the US responded robustly. The attacks of 9/11 were answered by carpet-bombing Afghanistan. The Americans are not anti-national. It is only a trait of the Hindu leadership, particularly those from Uttar Pradesh.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the word pseudo-secular is a weasel word for it masks the correct word which is Anti-Hindu. I think this should be the new word, for the DIE can hide their anti-Hinduness as pseudo -secularism, which is Modern and can justify it to themselves. I am goin gto start suing this word instead of pseudo-secular.
"Calling things by right name is begining of wisdom" My drafting book on nomnclature.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Amar Singh does not surprise
Second opinion: Ben Stocking
By asserting "LK Advani is more dangerous than Bush", Mr Amar Singh has betrayed two things. One, he is anti-Hindu. Two, he has very little knowledge of American history. As far as his anti-Hindu stance is concerned, he seems to share this trait with all other Hindu leaders of Uttar Pradesh.
Our first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was also from the same State. He remained in power for almost 17 years and was out-and-out pro-Muslim. He had openly asked his Home Minister, Sardar Patel, not to associate himself with the rebuilding of the Somnath Temple. He was also instrumental in providing for superior rights to Muslims even though the community had forced the division of India on communal lines.
No Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh during the regime of Prime Minister Nehru or afterwards did anything to recover the Hindu shrines from the Muslims in the State. It is more likely that they never visited the shrines for the fear of being reprimanded by the Prime Minister. When Ramsay MacDonald gave his communal award in 1932, which provided for separate electorates for the depressed classes, Mahatma Gandhi had gone on a fast unto death. He did not want Harijans to be permanently separated from the Hindu fold.
<b>In sharp contrast to this, Mr VP Singh divided Hindus through the introduction of OBC status. As for the Samajwadi Party, its pro-Muslim leanings are well known. Its leaders have no qualms about heaping insult on Hindu ethos.</b> Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav has held an Iftar party on the banks of the holy Ganga at Haridwar. Would Mr Singh dare to celebrate Diwali in a masjid?
The Marathas, the Sikhs, the Rajputs and the Jats all fought the Muslim and the British invaders. The Hindus of Uttar Pradesh have yet to produce a pro-Hindu leader. The State remains backward primarily because Hindu leaders there suffer from a slavish mentality.
Mr Amar Singh should know that the Americans do not tolerate any attack on their soil. If someone dared to do so, the counter-attack would be swift and massive. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, the US responded robustly. The attacks of 9/11 were answered by carpet-bombing Afghanistan. The Americans are not anti-national. It is only a trait of the Hindu leadership, particularly those from Uttar Pradesh.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the word pseudo-secular is a weasel word for it masks the correct word which is Anti-Hindu. I think this should be the new word, for the DIE can hide their anti-Hinduness as pseudo -secularism, which is Modern and can justify it to themselves. I am goin gto start suing this word instead of pseudo-secular.
"Calling things by right name is begining of wisdom" My drafting book on nomnclature.