|
|
By: V Sundaram, IAS, Retd.
August 22, 2006
Views
expressed here are author’s own and not of this website. Full disclaimer
is at the bottom.
Feedback
National success in unity rooted in nationalism is Communal and
non-secular; national failure in disunity rooted in pseudo-secularism is
non-communal, secular and cosmopolitan? and beyond all UPA dispute, non-saffronised."
Dr. Rusty Shackleford who runs the website THE JAWA REPORT has recently
written a brilliant article entitled "Why my website was banned in India?"
In this article, he has put certain unanswerable questions to the
anti-national quislings of the government of India holding top posts for
having imposed a total ban on 17 websites which bring out in graphic terms
all the dimensions of the grim tragedy of Islamic terrorism in India.
According to the UPA government, if thousand Hindus or non-Muslims get
killed in a matter of seconds by Islamic terrorists, then it must be
viewed as an act of Islamic compassion and generosity of spirit embracing
all mankind. The same UPA government of quislings, by quislings for
quislings would expect all the websites round the world which expose the
horrors of global Islamic terrorism to be treated as purveyors of global
hatred and global destruction. Against this background Dr. Rusty
Shackleford (to the best of my knowledge he does not seem to be a
condemned non-secular Hindu!!) has put the following communal and
saffronised questions to the government of India:
A) Why did the government of India issue a lighting directive banning 17
websites which were only describing and depicting barbarous acts of
Islamic terrorism in Mumbai and round the world and even when the men
behind these websites were not non-Muslim terrorists? Known and seen acts
of terrorism are considered as of no consequence by the government of
India. Only the Anti-Islamic terrorism websites are considered as
incendiary bombs by the government of India and they give the most
convoluted excuse for the barbaric ban using the might of the State to put
down the forces of civilization and culture represented by these websites.
These websites were singled out for stringent action because in the
highest echelons of governance in New Delhi, perhaps on the ground that
these websites might incite religious violence. In other words, criminal
acts of violence can be ignored with secular indifference. Civilised acts
of reporting for public information criminal acts of violence would be
viewed as violent acts that would provoke religious violence. Government
of India seems to have forgotten that a ban on these websites cannot by
itself lead to instant eradication or elimination of planned acts of
Islamic terrorism in India and the world.
To quote the appropriate words of Dr. Rusty Shackleford in this context:
"These websites were singled out because, according to the Indian
government, they might incite religious violence. The nine American
websites banned by India are all critical of the Islamist movement. Not a
single website of Islamic extremists justifying and even celebrating the
Mumbai bombings has been banned. Why did India ban these websites? And
what is the larger meaning of this action? As proprietor of one of the
banned websites, I am in a unique position to answer those questions."
It is a matter of shame and dishonor for the non-existent UPA government
in so far as the orphaned non-Muslims of India are concerned that Dr.
Rusty Shackleford has himself given an answer to the first question by
saying that these banned websites have offended the feelings and
sensibilities of Islamists and the non-men in the government of India are
mortally scared of our own Muslim citizens. Another categorical fact known
throughout the world is that liberty will never be able to co-exist in a
situation where there are large populations of Muslims. As Dr. K D
Pratipal, Professor Emeritus, Comparative Religion, University of Alberta,
Canada, aptly puts it: "Muslims will only live as an oppressive majority
and a turbulent minority." In the case of India the latter half of the
quotation is relevant and appropriate, and duly blessed by the politically
insolent and ideologically insolvent government of India.
B) The second question which Dr. Rusty Shackleford seems to put to
government of India is: "What are the definitions of tolerance and
intolerance acceptable to the pseudo-secular men in the government of
India?" Do they define "tolerance" as meek and submissive lamb-like
acceptance of Islamic intolerance? Do they define "intolerance" as the
naturally human reactions of those who "say", "write" or "depict" things
they find offensive in compassionate acts of Islamic terrorism through
their websites?
I would like ask the question: Is the self-deluded surrogate UPA
government in New Delhi committed to the oddly fraudulent and fraudulently
odd official philosophy of viewing THE INTOLERANT ACTS THEMSELVES AS
INTOLERANT as a form of communal or religious intolerance? If that is so,
should only the acts of murder, death, loot, plunder, abduction, rape,
hijacking, bombing of towns and cities and other benevolent acts by
terrorists be considered as acts of humanity, charity, understanding and
broad-based tolerance? When perversion becomes a principle, when
prostitution becomes a noble practice, when rape becomes the rule, murder
becomes a meaningful message, goondaism becomes an act of grace, and
political rascality is elevated to the level of national righteousness and
as a part of legitimate minority rights, then are we not creating ideal
conditions, extending an open invitation to an armed revolution in the
immediate future?
Dr. Rusty Shackleford dismisses the reasons given by the Islam-embracing
Christianity-coveting and Hindu-baiting UPA government for the illegal ban
on 17 international websites with scorn in these words: "India's banning
of our websites is completely rational. It is based on the real fear of
real people who do real violence. I understand India's reason for banning
our websites, but certainly don't condone it." He, perhaps, does not seem
to be aware of the fact that by condoning such actions through his website
he stands a better chance of being given all the civilian honors of the
highest category by government of India, even "Bharat Ratna" not excluded!
That is the state of our secular, cosmopolitan, non-saffronised anti-Hindu
national blessedness today.
Mumbai should be a reminder to India as to who its real friends are and
who are its enemies. By upholding a policy of religious censorship, India
is voting herself to national death. India cannot cement its alliances by
adopting the values of its enemies and rejecting those of its allies round
the world. But unfortunately all Indian governments and I would argue
Indian society at large has been shrinking away from taking the hard
decisions required to protect the mass of innocent citizens ever since our
independence.
I am not overstating or sensationalising the problem. I am shocked to see
from several newspaper reports that the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid in
Delhi has given his Islamic decision regarding recent Mumbai bombings
which ought to be totally acceptable to the pseudo-secular UPA government
in New Delhi - more particularly to A R Antulay, Arjun Singh and Ram Vilas
Paswan. "I can say with authority that it is not any Muslim but the Shiv
Sena, the RSS and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad who are responsible for the
serial blasts in Mumbai". I would like to ask one simple question in this
context. Will he be able to ask the question at a public meeting of
Muslims in Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia: "You were all part of the
Ottoman Empire till the end of I World War. Soon, should you not all unite
to win back the glorious days of Ottoman Empire?" He would not dare to do
that in those countries for obvious reasons because he would attract the
law of treason. What is politically treasonable in other countries of the
world, becomes highly reasonable in India under the supreme umbrella of
pseudo-secularism.
The policy of UPA government today is Muslim appeasement, appeasement at
all costs, in spite of all terror and however long and hard the road may
be. For without appeasement there is no survival, no survival for Sonia
Gandhi and the Nehru clan, no survival for the UPA government, no survival
for the urges and impulses of draconian secular men like Arjun Singhs,
Antulays, Yadavs and Paswans. The UPA government is proclaiming to the
whole world that INDIA IS ONE OF THE FAILED STATES. Who dies if India
lives and who lives if India dies ? this question will be brushed aside by
the UPA government as highly communal. Who dies if UPA government lives
and who lives if UPA government dies - this is the question that will be
upheld as an indispensable part of State policy by government of India
today.
Up with pseudo-secularism! JAI HIND!!
V Sundaram, IAS, Retd.
Send your views to author
Do you wish to reach our readers?
submit
your guest column
Copyright and Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and not of this
website. The author is solely responsible for the contents of this
article. This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy,
completeness or reliability of any opinion, statement, appeal, advice or
any other information in the article. Our readers are free to forward this
page URL to anyone. This column may NOT be transmitted or distributed by
others in any manner whatsoever (other than forwarding or web listing page
URL) without the prior permission from
us and the author. |
Previous articles by:
V Sundaram, IAS, Retd.
Training "prospective" harvesters of souls
Heralding the second freedom movement
ASI and planned death of history
Haven for abetted Evangelism on stilts
Congress-sponsored Negationism
Are Kashmiri Pundits abandoned dregs?
Nehruism, communism and secularism!
Forgotten prophet of Indian nationalism
Dark Side of Christian History
The Da Vinci tsunami
Enmity of State-Sponsored Quota Raj
Is Sonia above law?
Heroic pseudo-secular much ado about..
Lurid drama of proselytism post 1947
"Convert! Migrate! Or Perish!"
All articles by:
V Sundaram, IAS, Retd. |
