Soon Muslim will rule India

The Secular Road to Hell

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14590568
Ramananda Sengupta Sify.comjanuary 17, 2007
Secularism.

I have always wondered how such a seemingly innocuous word has turned into such a politically loaded noun in India.

By definition, the word essentially means separating religion from matters of state.

'WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens,' goes the first line of the Preamble to our Constitution.

But hold on a second.

The original framers of our constitution did not put the word Secular there.

It was added by the Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency, through the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, along with 58 other changes. The word 'Socialist' too was added, while 'Unity of the nation' was changed to 'unity and integrity of the nation.'
Perhaps, just perhaps, it was well intentioned. But the road to Hell, they say, is paved with good intentions.


Also read: 'Secular' Muslims want Taslima back in Kolkata Temple demolitions: Why is our govt mum?

After having inserted the word, however, the 'secular' Congress Party blocked all subsequent attempts to officially define it. And that has been the bane of our polity - and our nation - since then.

Because without a clear definition, secularism means nothing. Or rather, it means different things to different people.

For politicians, it means liberty to play vote bank games based on religion. In the same way that VP Singh, the 10th Prime Minister of India, brutally and callously divided the nation along caste lines for political mileage in 1990.

For religious leaders, it means liberty to exploit politicians for their own petty gains, in return for assuring them the vote of 'their people.'

For the common man, it means confusion, chaos and often violence spawned by the viciously divisive 'Us and Them' philosophy promoted by our religious and political leaders.

Attempts were even made recently – on the basis of something called the High Level Committee for Preparation of Report on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, better known as Rajinder Sachar Commission Report -- to introduce this division among the most secular institutions in the country, the Indian Army.


Thankfully, the Army would have none of it.

But we haven't heard the last of that yet; because reservation for minorities is seen as a sure way to get their vote.

This divide and rule policy that our politicians practice ensures that We the People of India, as the framers of our constitution so grandly described us, cannot agree even on things that are obviously good for us all. Like secularism as the dictionary defines it.

Instead, even as we proudly tout our so-called secular credentials, successive governments have clearly used religion for political gain.

But how can we be a secular state when we have separate laws based on religion?
How can we be a secular state when the government selectively funds pilgrimages and religious institutions?

How can we be a secular state when the government allows schools and colleges to have quotas based on religion, and actually tries to extend that to the corporate sector and even to the armed forces?

How can we be a secular state when politicians campaign on purely religious platforms, and win?

And most importantly, how can we be a secular state without clearly defining what it means?

Yes, we are certainly better off than some of our neighbours, like Pakistan and Bangladesh, and perhaps even Nepal, till recently known as the only Hindu kingdom.

Pakistan and Bangladesh (and a host of nations in the Persian Gulf and Africa) proudly declare Islam as their state religion, and make no pretence about being secular.


Who killed 254 Hindus in Gujarat? 'Let us all salute Narendra Modi'

Pakistan was born because Indian Muslims -- egged on by the devious departing British -- demanded a separate state for themselves. And despite separating from Pakistan in 1971, Islam is the state religion of Bangladesh too. Which explains why the non-Muslim population in both these nations is rapidly dwindling.

Our politicians, however, in order to prove that we are secular, and of course, in order to garner our votes, have gone to the other extreme, taking steps which can easily -- and in most cases correctly -- be construed as "minority appeasement."

Things have reached such a pass that whoever uses that last phrase is immediately branded as 'anti-secular' and a right wing bigot.

Things have reached such a pass that some years ago, some Muslim men prevented firemen from rescuing a woman from a burning Kolkata tenement, saying it would be against their religion to let an unknown male touch her. The woman burned to death.

Instead of booking the men for murder, as any 'secular' state would have, however, the West Bengal government grandly declared that they would induct women fire fighters to assist in such cases.This peculiar brand of secularism trumped free speech, also enshrined in our Constitution, when it came to Taslima Nasreen, a rather insipid but feisty writer who invoked the wrath of the mighty Maulanas of our Islamic neighbour, Bangladesh.
Her crime? To attest that "If any religion allows the persecution of the people of different faiths, if any religion keeps women in slavery, if any religion keeps people in ignorance, then I can't accept that religion." Taslima fled, and finally landed on Secular India's shores. But not to be outdone, our very own Maulanas too started baying for her head. And we all know what happened since: Goodbye free speech. Hello secularism.

Many many moons ago, I came across an old school friend of mine whose family owns a large, upmarket tailoring shop in Kolkata. He was going to get married, he told me; for the third time.

"My Maulana has told us that being a democracy, we can turn India into a Muslim country purely on the basis of votes. And we will. Perhaps not today. But someday, our children will rule, for sure. Nothing can stop us," he said matter of factly, before going on to explain how that would be a wonderful thing, where the rule of God and the rule of the land would be synchronised. A land where everyone could live without fear, and so on.

At that time, I had laughed out loud, saying that he obviously had not paid attention during our classes on "civics", where we had learnt all about "unity in diversity" and the unflinchingly Secular ethos of our nation.

Today, I flinch when the word is mentioned.
Secularism should be made of sterner stuff.

The author is the Chief Editor of Sify.com.
The views expressed in the article are of the author's and not of
Sify.com.

Unholy ways of Holy

Unholy ways of Holy Missionaries

U. Mahesh Prabhu.

Recently I happened to read Edward Gibbons 'Decline and Fall of Roman Empire'. In the book he makes observation on early Christians and their tactics for conversion. Here he quotes a Roman proconsul who wrote that Christians have a very effective method of getting noticed and portraying themselves as 'Victims' in order to advance their cause.

Whenever, a minute transgression or even an attempt is made to implement law against them they make such a fuss and in such a rowdy manner that one would think that a 'great injustice' had been committed to them.

Christianity does not have a notable reputation for tolerance and respect for other religions. 'The Christian need to convert the entire world' has been an historical obsession that continues in major Christian fundamentalist groups even today, both Protestant and Catholic.

The Christian Missionary's failure to honor other religions, particularly non-biblical traditions, is well known, with Christians still denigrating the sophisticated yogic traditions of Asia as mere superstition, idolatry and polytheism. Christian missionaries have had a reputation for using methods to promote conversion that are not always honest, including employing military and political force during the colonial era.

Their targeting of the poor and illiterate for conversion shows that they don't like open debates in the light of the day. Yet Christians like to ignore such inconvenient facts while posing as peaceful people concerned with human welfare, not with conversion. They are surprised if members of other religion are suspicious of them, even if they look at these religions and condemn them as works of the Devil. They feel easily hurt and insulted should anyone question their motives.

1. 
   In the modern secular world, Christians along with Muslims, now demand conversion as a democratic right, even though their religion is authoritarian, and not democratic, accepting only one way, and not honoring pluralism in approaching the Divine.

They offer no freedom of choice about the 'savior' or the book or the creed that can bring salvation and there is little tolerance for those who choose another way outside their faith. Europe had to reject the church and Christian dogma in order to become democratic over the past several centuries, considering this; Christian churches are the last people on earth who should be talking about 'democratic rights'. It is merely a smokescreen for promoting their own agendas, spreading their authoritarian and exclusivist beliefs, recklessly eliminating other cultures and religions along the way.
Years before there were serial church bombings in South India.

It proved that the charges made by Christian leaders against Hindu organizations for the bombings were unfounded, if not malicious. However instead of admitting their mistake Christian leaders and organizations started a propaganda campaign, again blaming the Hindu organizations for 'creating an atmosphere' that led to these crimes!

• The arrests in this regard, in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, had shown that Deendal Anjuman, a Muslim organization led by a Pakistani National was behind most of the bomb blasts and attacks on Christian groups in South India. The Christian response has been to ignore or deny the report, though it is quite well documented. For further details, I suggest you to, read 'Church Blasts: Truth and Propaganda' by S Y Seshagiri Rao.
• 
  Christians in India, who exaggerate such minor incidents into a National or International anti-Hindu propaganda, somehow never speak of the fact that
  ' Several dozen black American churches were burnt to the ground. Christian priests and ministers are also robbed, assaulted and sometimes killed in all Western countries.
• We should note that many more priests in America have been arrested for sexual molestation of children than have priests been assaulted in India. Should we use that to make conclusions about the nature of Christianity?
• 
  Did you know the fact that Christians killed many more pagans, and thousands of pagan temples were destroyed throughout Europe? The great Greek (Neo Platonic) Academy in Alexandria was destroyed and its scholars like Hypatia killed by Cyril – 'Saint Cyril'. The number of Native Americans killed or forcibly converted by Catholics was also in the many millions, and yet the Catholics emphasize a few priests martyred by Native Americans as being the real victims. Such and more are stories of 'Christian Oppression'.
• 
  Hinduism is a religion of openness. We appreciate all gods and deities. We have never said that we are the 'only way' like many of the Semitic faiths.
• But Christian missionaries have, instead, used it as a pretext to promote Christian superiority, not to reciprocate with honoring Hinduism and its sages and yogis.
• They say Christ must be great because Hindus honor him. They don't honor Hindu teachers in return. The hypocrisy of the whole thing is easy to see. It shows the condescending attitude towards Hindus, thinking that they can bully them or appeal to their tolerance by a feigned persecution. It wholly proves that Christians Missionaries are still promoting a medieval religion that will not honor other religions and is still seeking world domination by any means fair or foul. If we count the victims of Christian aggression on one side and the Christian themselves who have been victimized we will find that the victims of Christianity are overwhelming in the majority.
• While some Christians have apologized to African and Native American groups for such missionary misdeeds, the Hindus have so far not received any such apology, though they have suffered from the same methods. The reason is that the missionaries have not yet triumphed in India. The apology, like crocodile tears, comes only after the victim is dead.
• 
  I would trust those missionaries only if they say that Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and other Indian religions are as good as Christianity. Let Christians say clearly that members of other religions will not go to hell but will gain immortality in the presence of God by following what is good in their own teachings.
• 
  Writes David Frawley 'As a former Catholic I know in what little esteem the Church holds Hinduism and Buddhism with all their great sages and yogis. Christianity, like Islam, sees tolerance not as a virtue to be emulated but as a weakness to be exploited. Were Christians really to honor Hinduism as a valid religion all Hindu-Christian hostility could easily come to an end. As long as Christians hold that their alone is the True Faith and are working to convert the members of other religion in one way or another, they should not be surprised if members of other religions do not welcome their presence.' In his book 'The Missionary Ploy.'
• 
  It is only a matter of time before Missionary Christianity is seen for what is imperialism in the name of God and Christ, the proverbial wolf in the sheep's clothing. It is a political, worldly movement with little spirituality in it. Unfortunately such Christians confuse the real Divine work, which is improving us through introspection, with the institutional work of imposing a single belief upon all humanity. This political view of religion has no place in global age of consciousness that is dawning in enlightened minds all over the world today. The quicker it comes to an end, the better it will be for all of humanity. http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/india-usa-blog-column65.htm
  PERSECUTION INDUSTRY @ http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=697&Itemid=128
  INVADING THE SACRED @ http://worldmonitor.wordpress.com/2007/08/13/invading-the-sacred/
  Strong nexus between missionaries and Naxals@ http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/jan/08vhp.htm
  

Modi sets an example how to rule

A victory for Indian democracy
Written by
N. Murugan IAS (Rtd)

Everyone has agreed on one basic fact, regarding the Gujarat election results, that they are truly a personal triumph of Mr Narendra Modi. Many had predicted it even before the announcement of the poll process.

The outcome surely wouldn't have surprised those who have been closely observing the politics in that state.This electoral success has also lead to many healthy signs.
It has proved that

[a] personal integrity of a leader can attract the unanimous endorsement of the masses even in these times,

[b] anti-incumbency factor needn't work to eliminate a ruling party on all occasions,

[c] internal bickering in a political party need not affect the election results

[d] minority support alone is not enough to win an election and [d] any amount of attractive promises like free television sets or food grains will not fool the masses.

Further, it has also been proved that an electoral victory is possible without conducting political processions, seven miles long, without cut-outs and massive serial lightings.

This is a welcome development, because it throws some hope for the future success of honesty and integrity in public life in our democratic setup.

In the background of all these stand the sky high qualities of a single man, Narendra Modi.

What are those characteristics in him that made this possible?

They are:The bachelor Chief minister, Modi lives in his house with three person; a cook and two peons.

His habit is to take his simple food all alone in his house.

If his cook is on leave one of the two peons cooks his simple food.

In his office he has two personal assistants – these are not IAS officers – who discharge the chief minister Modi.

They attend to his phone calls, particularly, to note who called and connecting them to the Chief Minister, if necessary, or noting down messages from them.

They also fix up his tour programs and personal appointments and attend to other routing items of work.

They do not have access to the residence of the Chief Minister.

Gujarat is the first amongst the most industrialised States in India.

Its speedy progress has been achieved during the tenure of Mr Modi. Under his rule, local and foreign investments have seen geometric progression in this state.

In spite of this, none of those who opposed him in the recent polls could make a single accusation of graft – because there was none.

Companies seeking to start an industry in Gujarat would be granted appointments with Mr Modi after relevant applications have been processed through the concerned departments.

Subsequent to a meeting with the CM in the presence of his bureaucrats, fast-track clearances are accorded in a routine manner.

Before the elections, a journalist posed a question to Mr. Modi: “What are the achievements of your government?” To this Mr. Modi answers, “Instead of asking this question to me, wouldn't it be better if you asked the same thing to the common public, experts in political, economic and industrial fields?".

The correspondent queried professors in economics. Their replies brought forth three points enumerated below:* Out of the 97 Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) signed between the government and industrial houses, 89 have already borne fruit.* The remaining eight are in various stages of completion.*

Water and electricity are available in the rural areas without impediments.Mr Modi never seeks personal praise.

When he was to be sworn-in in 2002, Modi's mother attended the function, but the CM simply ignored her. She watched the ceremony like the rest of the members of the common public, seated on a chair provided by someone who recognised her and placed in a corner. This incident is particularly relevant to be noted by those in a State [readTamilNadu] wherein the CM's near and dear occupies a special dais to "inspect" processions of the party-faithfuls.Such things lead to the virtual absence of anti-incumbency factor.Significantly, even in states like Tamil Nadu, it is true that anti-incumbency acts and those in power have been defeated, but it is because all those in power just indulge in corruption and irregularities.

Developmental plans' proper fructification and absence of freebies during electioneering are two other aspects of Modi's triumph.

That the Congress lost despite promising free colour television sets during the run-up to the elections is worth remembering here.

Politicians in Tamil Nadu are of the firm belief that attempting to pander to the wishes of the highest denomination of the masses by announcing subsidies and indefinite procrastination in matters concerning unpopular decisions are a sure path to victory.

On the contrary, despite bringing farmers who defaulted in electricity payments to book, Mr Modi won in Gujarat.In several States, many in power believe that issuing election tickets to those who are corrupt because they represent a 'powerful' caste or two and thus ensuring victory.

This has been proved ingenuine.Upon Modi's personal intervention, 47 ruling party legislators were denied tickets for bad performance and complaints. These tickets were in turn distributed amongst more deserving candidates by the BJP. Of those 33 emerged triumphant.In a word, antagonising seniors who were either corrupt or dullards and ignoring caste-based votes were welcome highlights of Modi's return to power – which may sound the death-knell to such practices.And this was not all.Newspapers, television channels, central ministers and self-side goals by a few bigwigs within his own party assailed Mr Modi simultaneously.

One can only hold Mr Modi who overcame all these impediments with aplomb in awe.A few in the know aver that the real reasons for all this are that Mr Modi understood the ground reality and comprehended the mindset of his people.Another important fact of these election results is that the people have understood the real import of terms like secularism and phrases like mollycoddling of minorities in the name of their security.

When asked during the elections as to what were his plans for the development of the minorities in Gujarat, Mr Modi replied, "My plans are for the development of the entire State in which minority and majority sections are included anyway."Everyone concerned knows that the minorities are being looked after properly in all states by India.Political observers have found that in the name of getting the endorsement of the minorities, when politicians pander to their whims and fancies, the majority would take a firm stand.On that note alone, Mr Narendra Modi's victory is a victory for Indian democracy.