unashamed hypocrisy; on eleven counts
A recent published article calls “Indian Hindutva – the eternal genocide”.
I resent his alignment of the entire Hindu community (Hindutva) to genocide.
Reason 1. In a judgment the Indian Supreme Court ruled that “no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms ‘Hindu’, ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hinduism’; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage.” The Supreme Court also ruled that “Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism”.
A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange gods and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest divine powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind.”
Reason 2. He claims the alleged genocide has been eternal.
I wrote a blog “unashamed hypocrisy” arguing against this misalignment.
The author of the article left this long winded comment,
which I publish here, his comments being within the blockquotes.
Dear Friend
I must be thankful that you have submitted a wonderful article, a fair and free way of expression that you posted on comments for the article in my blog. The point is not whether you are right or I am. Let us speak more openly on this issue so that if we reach at a solution, the losing side would be enlightened with knowledge from the winning side.
I always prefer to lose this debate as I would learn more from you.
You start your long comment with self contradictory statements.
One one hand you say, it is not a point of being “right or wrong”,
but you go onto the “winning or losing” of the debate.
I am a realist.
I believe in the truth, and being right is more important to me than winning a debate.
A debate won can uphold the wrong or untruth. That doesn’t right what is wrong.
That is just hypocrisy.
When you say you may learn more from the “debate”, that says it is possible you do not know enough yet; then I ask how can you publish such a strongly worded report that is bound to inflame sentiments.
Are you really a journalist, or a propagandist.
I’ve been busy a couple of days in the press meeting regarding the Nandigram issue and as it’s almost the last 10 days of the month, I’m busy with bringing out my magazine for the next month. I realized after reading your article that I must write a reply (a thanks) to you and to share my opinion on this particular article.
Let me first say, you called your article “Indian Hindutva – the eternal genocide”.
With one headline you are calling every Hindu alive or dead criminals of committing perpetual murder. I say put your money where your mouth is and prove it.
One thing must be understood very clearly.
A genocide, no matter who did it. It is always a genocide. Whether it is a Christian, a Jew, a Mozlem or a Hindu . Human values are more important than religion. Though I’m a staunch atheist, I wouldn’t comment on the Belief of God as I respect the belief people have on God. It is neither my wish to comment on Gods. But I’m obliged to make some strange remarks on Gods when the very existence of a sin is being carried out in the name of God.
And a genocide stays as heinous a crime even after 500 years.
Passage of time, does not lessen the criminality.
And no, you are not obliged to make any remarks.
You chose to do so on your own free will.
But if and when you decide to speak out to the world,
is when you become obliged to speak the truth and the whole truth.
Deliberately not doing so is hypocrisy.
I’m neither a sympathizer of any religion, nor a phobic towards any religion.
If the muslims are being killed to death in India, the same muslims also carry out murders, rapes and killings in Bangladesh and other parts of the world (as you said). My point of the article is just about what I see in India as a journalist, what I feel looking at it and what history clearly defines.
A journalist has a moral duty to portray the truth.
If what you write is the way you look at events,
then it is your opinion, and not unbiased journalism.
And you have clearly distorted the facts of history.
Unscrupulous and biased jouranalism thrives on stoking up further controversies.
Your article comes across as another example.
1. You said: This article is either a result of absolute ignorance, or disgraceful hypocrisy.Why just go back a few decades in time to find the root cause? How did the muslims come into a hinduland? Not with flowers but with swords in their hands, and killed and plundered. That was genocide. How did portions of hindu homeland become predominantly muslim? By ethnic cleansing.
I can accept my ignorance of Historical facts and my writings.
But wouldn’t felt anything guilt about being hypocritic.
If the freedom of my expression is hypocritic, then even you are hypocritic to have expressed what you think.
A human’s basic rights is not hypocrisy.
Exercising one’s Freedom of Expression is not hypocrisy.
But using that “right” to deliberately distort the truth,
and to publish that as the whole truth to the world, is hypocrisy.
And that is why I have called your article, hypocrisy.
Now how did mozlems come to India?
I agree (to some extent) the fact that many Mozlems came with the swords.
But the religion of Islam came to India as a religion, not as a war.
It doesn’t matter to what extent you agree or deny how Islam entered India,
what matters is the historical evidence.
If you want to make such sweeping statements, show me your evidence,
I will show you as many historical evidence to refute, if not many times more.
A religion couldn’t be blamed for what it’s followers do.
No? yet you have so pompously stated above “But I’m obliged to make some strange remarks on Gods when the very existence of a sin is being carried out in the name of God”.
That is hypocrisy
A religion has to accept the blame for any offense or act that has been committed in the name of that religion. Either the religion denounces every such act or accepts the full blame.
(That is why I never blamed Hinduism for what Hindu Fascists do. I just blamed Hindutva-the modern Politics of Hindu Fascism).
Who or what is a Hindu fascist?
The Hindu nationalism? Calling for a Hindu state?
Or because they have the holy hindu emblem of the swastika on their banner instead of star crescent or the sickle and hammer?
So very convenient, so very easy to fool westerners to believe
the hindu swastika only proves fascist intentions.
Is the call for an islamic caliphate, fascism at an international level?
How would you describe the call of Mr Bin Laden to Muslims to “establish the righteous caliphate of our umma.” The call of Islamist political parties and Islamist guerrilla groups for the restoration of the caliphate by uniting Muslim nations, either through peaceful political action (e.g., Hizb ut-Tahrir) or through force (e.g., al-Qaeda)?
Where is the difference?
If you are unable to call that fascism, that is hypocrisy.
Now… As you say, if historical evidences suggests surely that Mozlems did Genocide, then does that mean that Hindus must also do the same Genocide on Mozlems? How can Hindutva fascism could be compromised by saying that Mozlems were also fascists? You ask me how could a portion of Hindu homeland became predominantly Muslims? Now let me ask you- How the Dravidian Society of India became predominantly Hindu? So Hindus too did an ethnic cleansing against Dravidians?
2. You said: According to Professor K.S Lal, the hindu population decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD, invasion of India by Mahmud Ghazni and 1525 a year before the Battle of Panipat. Add another 20 million that were killed during the muslim reign. Koenraad Elst wrote in Negationism in India – Concealing the records of Islam: destruction of about 100 million hindus (by muslims) is perhaps the biggest holocaust in the whole world history.
Now, (considering that Mr.Mahmud Gazni and other mozlem rulers deliberately killed millions of Hindus)..
what link do the present Indian mozlems and Mohamed Gazni have?
You have called the Hindutva an eternal genocide. Eternity did not start in 1947.
You have written “The riots and aggressions against the muslims were routine in the Land of India from the origin of an anti-Muslim Brahminical society“.
That links the modern day muslims to their invading murdering forefathers.
You yourself have brought in history in an attempt to justify your argument.
I have taken you back to the origin of that history, the truth,
which you have conveniently failed to mention.
That history you do not like published.
That is hypocrisy.
You have resorted to deliberate misrepresentation of history.
Either you have the guts to tell the whole truth.
Or you are a cowardly hypocrite.
There is no third choice here.
If a community knows that in the name of a religion,
100 million of their fathers, and forefathers were killed by muslims,
that their places of worships had been looted, desecrated and destroyed,
can they ever forget the inhuman injustice?
Its naive to think that such acts of crime will not generate hatred or distrust for centuries.
Indian mozlems neither defend the killings of Mohamed Gazni (if there is a very authentic evidence to prove that), nor enjoyed it. If mozlems killed 100 million Hindus, sure, it is agreed that that is also a genocide!!!
I acknowledge Koenraad’s claim that Mozlems killed 100 Hindus!
Please get the facts right. He claimed Muslims killed a 100 million Hindus.
Now cleaning out all mozlems, raping them, torching and firing their home, looting their properties would bring back those 100 Hindus who were killed?
And would that bring peace to the Hindus who live today?
I’ve not seen any Mohamed Gaznis today. So the mozlems today must be punished for the crimes of Gazni?
You will never see one, because you do not want to look for one.
A train full of Hindu pilgrims were burnt to death by muslims,
is just a single example.
I am amazed at the immaturity of your arguments.
To bring peace in India, the atrocities on both sides of the religious divide has to be acknowledged. All that I read in you article is your pathetic attempts to criticise RSS, while crimes no less atrocious is still being committed by the muslims.
If the muslims kills for religious reasons, they should be tried by the same laws
that you want to be exercised on the hindus for the same crimes.
Why do they deserve cover ups or any protection.
You try to portray muslims as eternal victims, I drew my readers’ attention to the numerous genocide carried out in the name of Islam in and beyond India.
If so, then let all the Germans shall be punished for the crimes of Hitler.
The modern day neo-nazis will pay for any racial crimes they commit.
So that Hitlers crimes are never forgotten, holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 european countries: not just in germany, but also Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland.
Why is there a blatant muslim denial of the Islamic genocide?
3. You said: If a muslim majority country can have a constitution that declares it an Islamic state, the hindu majority in India also has the same right to call for a Hindu state?
I have seen Muslim constitution practiced just in Iran. Frankly, no where else (though there may be some extremists demanding the Islamic constitution in some villages in Somalia or Indonesia). And even in Iran, boys and girls kiss in parks, several teenage girls become pregnant by having pre marriage sex. If Iran really follows an Islamic constitution, all these people must be punished for it. Why Iran does not punish? Because precisely, what they follow is NOT an Islamic constitution. It could rather be called their country’s traditional law. To defend such a law, Islam’s name could be used! Right?
If country like Saudi Arabia follows Islamic constitution, then the Kings of Sauds and Nahyans must be hanged to death. Because these kings are familiar in France to sleep with one prostitute for one night, in their vacations! Where is the Islamic constitution ? Show me one country! The very claim that Islamic Consitution exists can be neglected through these arguments!
What you write here is not just irrelevant, but so laughable in this context, I am have serious doubts as to your capability to understand simple written english.
I have written ” If a muslim majority country can have a constitution that declares it an Islamic state, the hindu majority in India also has the same right to call for a Hindu state?”
It has nothing to do on the merits or demerits of being an Islamic state.
It is about one’s rights of freedom of expression to call for a Hindu state.
To have independant thoughts and be able to express those thoughts
without persecution is every human’s fundamental right.
If the leaders of the Muslim league could ask for a muslim homeland,
why cannot any Hindu ask for a Hindu state?
To accept the demand for the muslim state as justified,
but deny the simple right to ask for a hindu one, is blatant hypocrisy.
Ok… Now if Hindus need Hindu State as you say, how many of them need a Hindu state?
Without a Hindu state, they cannot worship God? Without a Hindu state will Hindustan become Islamic?
If yes, then why Turkey and Bosnia are still Islamic when there is an all-western modern culture with the absence of Islamic state?
If we consider imposing an Islamic state in a country is strange, then how could we impose a Hindu state in India which is a multi cultural, multi religious and democratic nation?
With your own logic I ask:
Why did the muslims demand a separate muslim homeland?
Could they not worship Allah in secular India?
Or without Pakistan would they have all become Hindus.
You conveniently have different arguments for different communities.
That is hypocrisy.
Now again.. If you judge that claiming a Hindu state for India is not a wrong thing, then are you an anti-democratic person? Democracy and Religion cannot go hand-in-hand. (If you need explanations for this, I’m ready to give that too). So you want India to throw the democracy out and bring Hindu rule?
Do you really understand democracy?
Are you just being funny, or are you really that idiotic.
Or are you a marxist in disguise hoping that one day india
will become a religionless communist state. Dream on, hypocrite.
Democracy and religion cannot go hand in hand!!
Tell Mr George Bush that,
he has been fighting to force democracy on muslims in the middle east.
The Communists claim that their ideology doesn’t go with religion.
Islamists claim democracy cannot go with Islam.
But to contradict your prejudiced view,
you have no evidence to say there cannot be a hindu democracy.
4. You say: To demand a separate nation and to carve up India to form Islamic states, and then to condemn the activities of RSS and VHP is a sheer hypocricy!
I agree! It is a hypocrisy. But I neither demanded a separate nation, nor encourage an Islamic state into India.
So am I allowed to condemn the activities of RSS and VHP?
Yes, you can condemn any bodies activities.
But you cannot exercise your freedom of expression to condemn other for exercising their right to freedom of religious belief, their freedom of independant thoughts and their rights to free speech. That is hypocrisy.
5. You say: There are muslims who are no less innocent than the hindu extremists. Why cry only for the rights of muslims in India?
I agree. So you have not read in any newspapers we journalists crying even for Sikhs, Hindus and Christians? I must accept that we cry more for mozlems, because for every 1 Hindu being killed, atleast 10 muslims are killed. So we are obliged to cry more for Muslims (and dalits). That does not mean that our media keeps silent in the issue of Bombay Don Dawood Ebrahim and Kovai Blasts!
Our media sometimes sprays even false accusations on Muslims which were later identified to be totally irrelevant. So we cry for Hindus, muslims, Sikhs and almost everyone in India who are victims of crimes. Even if RSS chief Sudarshan is punished by our government for what he did not, we will defend him. Don’t worry.
What is written in newspapers by “we journalists” is not being discussed here.
It is what “you the self-proclaimed journalist” who have published to the world.
And from what you write, the manner you write,
if you are the face of Indian journalism; I do worry for my country.
6. You say: Jews have been forced out of Pakistan… Hindus are being systematically cleansed and killed in Bangladesh…
What does it has with my article regarding Gujarat Riots and Hinduism? Like how hindus are sent out of Bangladesh, mozlems must also be sent out of India? If yes, I would advice you to give this suggestion to the Indian Government. Let our Government decide on that issue. Not the RSS.
You have called it an eternal genocide, remember? Not one single incident of riots.
You have generalised hindus and made this a hindu – muslim issue.
So it concerns hindus muslims conflict everywhere it happens.
Keeping it restricted to within the boundaries of Gujrat
just to strengthen your argument is hypocrisy.
You have published your article on the worldwideweb.
It will be read by people outside of India, some of who, without knowing the full history of Islam in India, may believe your unsubstantiated garbage and have a distorted view of hindus.
But that is precisely what you have aimed for, isn’t it? Either as a muslim, or a marxist.
For I cannot believe a non-marxist hindu will ever present arguments
in such a dishonest way as you have.
7. You say: Just for once… I challenge the muslims to have the courage to come out and say that they cannot tolerate any other religion.
Just count how many Hindus are anti-Muslims.. And count how many Muslims are anti-Hindus.. And take a percentage out of it. You would obviously find more anti-Muslims than anti-Hindus! You don’t believe me? Just go out in your area and take this statistics. Remember, don’t go to Pakistan! Because Indian Mozlems are different from Pakistani Mozlems. (Like how Israeli Jews are different from Jews elsewhere. Israeli Jews are more Zionists, while other Jews are less. Likewise, Pakistani Mozlems are more Islamists and Indian Mozlems are good Humanists. They are no more Mohamed Gazni’s followers)
Now remind me in which of the two religions, Hinduism or Islam is this relevent:
The shahadah: “‘ašhadu ‘al-lā ilāha illā-llāhu wa ‘ašhadu ‘anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh“, or “I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.
You didn’t answer the question which was: can muslims tolerate other religions?
If not why do they not have the courage to openly declare it?
This world would be a lot simpler place if they would honestly say so.
“Indian muslims are different from pakistani muslims??? In what way?
They will blast your theory and prove each and one of them are anti-Hindu?
Sixty years ago they were the same. So were the Bangladeshis.
Just a political boundary doesn’t change their genetic markup or beliefs, does it?
You are such a pathetic hypocrite.
Once again, you either do not understand what I have said,
or deliberately wants to sidestep the issue.
For what you have written
not only makes a mockery of statistical methods, but is idiotically irrelevent.
I hope I did my best to answer your questions. But still I feel that I’m obliged to explain some parts of it. As I said, I wish to lose this battle with you. So I hope you will bring good questions like these again. You may freely write on my comments blog whatever you feel. I think the discussion will continue..
So I let this reply without mentioning..Good bye..
What you have done is proved my point.
When the ideal way forwards would be to accept the truths of the past, and reconcile,
evil reporting will deliberately distort the truth in the name of journalism.
That is hypocrisy.
I have no desire to continue a discussion with someone
who cannot understand my simple written English
or be honest with the facts
or capable of looking beyond their own backyard.
Neither will I let my blog become a venue of a “win / lose” debate,
so any further points you wish to make, do so on your site.
If I disagree, I of course will write my own response here and with real evidence.
India
hindus
muslims
communal violence
propaganda
