What's new

India a Country of Hindus and of Their Descendants - Dr. Swamy

How to wipe out Islamic terror: Dr. Subramaniam Swamy
The terrorist blast in Mumbai on July 13, 2011 requires a decisive soul searching by Hindus of India. Hindus cannot accept to be killed in this Halal fashion, continuously bleeding every day, till the nation finally collapses.
Terrorism, I define here as the illegal use of force to overawe the civilian population to make it do or not do an act against their will and well-being.
There are about 40 reported and unreported terrorist attacks per month in the country. That is why the recent US National Counter-Terrorism Centre publication A Chronology of International Terrorism states: ‘India suffered more terrorist acts than any other country’.
While the PM thinks that Maoists’ threat is most serious, I think Islamic terrorism is an even more serious existential threat. If we did not have today the present Union Home Minister, PM, and UPA chairperson, then Maoists can be eliminated in a month, much as I did with the LTTE in Tamil Nadu, as a senior minister in 1991, or MGR did with the Naxalites in the early 1980s. Islamic threat to the nation is different.
Why is Islamic terrorism our number one problem of national security? About this there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind after 2012. By that year, I expect a Taliban takeover in Pakistan and the Americans to flee Afghanistan. Then, Islam will confront Hinduism to ‘complete unfinished business’. Already the successor to Osama Bin Laden as the Al Qaeda leader has declared that India is the priority target for that terrorist organisation and not the USA.
Fanatic Muslims consider Hindu dominated India as “an unfinished chapter of Islamic conquests”. I may be recalled that all other countries conquered by Islam became 100% converted to Islam within two decades of the Islamic invasion. India is the exception. Undivided India in 1947 was 75% Hindu even after 800 years of brutal Islamic rule. That is jarring for the Islamic fanatics.
Let us remember that every Hindu-Muslim riot in India since 1947, has been ignited by Muslim fanatics — if one goes by all the Commissions of Inquiry set up after every riot. Even the Gujarat riots were triggered by the brutal killing of 56 women and children by setting fire to a rail coach in Godhra.
By today’s definition these riots are all terroristacts. Muslims, though a minority in India, still have fanatics who dare tolead violent attacks against Hindus. Other Muslims of India just lump it, sulk or rejoice. That is the history from Babar’s time to Aurangzeb. There have been exceptions to this apathy of Muslims like Dara Shikoh, in the old days, or like M J Akbar and Salman Haidar today who are not afraid to speak out against Islamic terror, but still they remain exceptions.
Blame the Hindus
In one sense, I do not blame the Muslim fanatics for targeting Hindus. I blame us Hindus who have taken their individuality permitted in Sanatana Dharma to the extreme. Millions of Hindus can assemble without state patronage for Kumbh Mela completely self-organised, but they all leave for home oblivious of the targeting of Hindus in Kashmir, Mau, Melvisharam and Malappuram and do not lift their little finger to help organise Hindus. For example, if half the Hindus vote together rising above their caste and language, a genuine Hindu party will have a two-thirds majority in Parliament and Assemblies.
The secularists now tout instances of Hindu fanatics committing terrorist attacks against Muslims or other minorities. But these attacks are mostly state sponsored, often by the Congress itself, and not by Hindu ‘non-state actors’. Muslim-led attacks are however all by ‘non-state actors’ unless one includes the ISI and rogue elements in Pakistan’s army which are aiding them, as state sponsoring.
Fanatic Muslim attacks have been carried out to target and demoralise the Hindus, to make Hindus yield that which they should not, with the aim of undermining and ultimately to dismantle the Hindu foundation of India. This is the unfinished war of 1,000 years which Osama bin Laden talks about. In fact, the earliest terror tactics in India were deployed in Bengal 1946 by Suhrawady and Jinnah to terrorise Hindus to give in on the demand for Pakistan. The Congress party claiming to represent the Hindus capitulated, and handed 25 per cent of India on a platter to Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Now they want the remaining 75 per cent.
Forces against Hindus
This is not to say that other stooges have not targeted Hindus. During the last six decades since Independence, British imperialist-inspired Dravidian movement led by E V Ramaswamy Naicker, in the name of rationalism tried to debunk as irrational the Hindu religion, and terrorised the Hindu priestly class, ie, the Brahmins, for propagating the Hindu religion.
The movement’s organisational arm, the Dravida Kazhagam (DK), had venerated Ravana for 50 years to spite the Hindu adoration of Rama and vulgarise the abduction of Sita, till the DK belatedly learnt that Ravana was a Brahmin and a pious bhakta of Lord Shiva too. Abandoning this course of defaming Ramayana, the DK have now become stooges of the anti-Indian LTTE which has specialised in killing the Hindu Tamil leadership in Sri Lanka. Of course the DK has now been orphaned by the decimation of the LTTE.
Civil war situation
In the 1960s, the Christian missionaries had inspired the Nagas. The Nagas also wanted to further amputate Bharat Mata by seeking secession of Nagaland from the nation. In the 1980s, the Hindus of Manipur were targeted by foreign-trained elements. Manipuris were told:give up Hinduism or be killed. In Kashmir, since the beginning of the 1990s, militants in league with the Pakistan-trained terrorists also targeted the Hindus by driving the Hindu Pandits out of the Valley, or killing them ordishonouring their women folk.
Recognising that targeting of Hindus is being widely perceived, and that Muslims of India are largely just passive spectators, the foreign patrons of Islamic terrorists are beginning to engage in terrorist acts that could pit Muslims against Hindus in nation-wide conflagration and possible civil war as in Serbia and Bosnia.
Muslims cannot be divided into ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’ because the former just capitulate when confronted. Recently, Pakistan civilian government capitulated on ‘kite flying’ and banned it because Taliban considers it as ‘Hindu’. Moderate governments of Malaysia and Kazhakstan are now demolishing Hindu temples.
Collective response
Hence, the first lesson to be learnt from recent history of Islamic terrorism against India, and for tackling terrorism in India is that the Hindu is the target and that Muslims of India are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus. 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 an essential mental attitude, a necessary part of a virat Hindu (for fuller discussion of the concept of virat Hindu, see my Hindus Under Siege: The Way Out Haranand, 2006).
Therefore we need today a collective mindset as Hindus to stand against the Islamic terrorist. In this response, Muslims of India can join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they do, I will not believe, unless they acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims, their ancestors are Hindus.
It is not easy for them to acknowledge this ancestry because the Muslim mullah would consider it as unacceptable since that realisation would dilute the religious fervour in their faith and also create an option for their possible re-conversion to Hinduism. Hence, these religious leaders preach hatred and violence against the kafir i.e, the Hindu (for example read Chapter 8 verse 12 of the Quran) to keep the faith of their followers. The Islamic terrorist outfits, e.g the SIMI, has already resolved that India is Darul Harab, and they are committed to make it Darul Islam. That makes them free of any moral compunction whatsoever in dealing with Hindus.
Brihad Hindu Samaj
But still, if any Muslim 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 is Hindustan. India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors are Hindus. Even Parsis and Jews in India have Hindu ancestors. Others, 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 begin with requiring each and every Hindu becoming a committed or virat Hindu. To be a virat Hindu one must have a Hindu mindset, a mindset that recognises that there is vyaktigat charitra (personal character) and a rashtriya charitra (national character).
It is not enough if one is pious, honest and educated. That is the personal character only. National character is a mindset actively and vigorously committed to the sanctity and integrity of the nation. For example, Manmohan Singh, our prime minister, has high personal character (vyaktigat charitra), but by being a rubber stamp of a semi-literate Sonia Gandhi, and waffling on all national issues, he has proved that he has no rashtriya charitra.
The second lesson for combating the terrorism 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 all terrorists in India we must never capitulate and never concede any demand of the terrorists. 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 again.
Bowing to terrorists
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 V P Singh’s government. This made these criminals in the eyes of Kashmiri separatists and fence sitters heroes, as those who had brought India’s Hindu establishment on its knees. To save Rubaiyya it was not necessary to surrender to terrorist demands.
A worse capitulation to terrorists in our modern history was in the Indian Airlines IC-814 hijack in December 1999 staged in Kandahar. The government released three terrorists even without getting court permission (required since they were in judicial custody). Moreover, they were escorted by a senior minister on the PM’s special Boeing all the way to Kandahar as royal guests instead of being shoved across the Indo-Pakistan border.
Worse still, all the three after being freed, went back to Pakistan and created three separate terrorist organisations to kill Hindus. Mohammed Azhar, whom the National Security Advisor Brijesh Mishra had then described as “a mere harmless cleric”, upon his release led the LeT to savage and repeated terrorist attacks on Hindus all over India from Bangalore to Srinagar. Since mid-2000, Azhar is responsible for the killing of over 2,000 Hindus and the attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001. Omar Sheikh who helped al-Qaeda is in jail in US custody for killing US journalist Daniel Pearl, while the third, Zargar is engaged today in random killings of Hindus in Doda and Jammu after founding Al-Mujahideen Jingaan.
This Kandahar episode proves that we should never negotiate with terrorists, never yield. If you do, then sooner or later you will end up losing more lives than you will ever save by a deal with terrorists.
Moment of truth
The third lesson to be learnt is that whatever and however small the terrorist incident, the nation must retaliate—not by measured and ‘sober’ responses but by massive retaliation. Otherwise what is the alternative? Walk meekly to death expecting that our ‘sober’ responses will be rewarded by our neighbours and their patrons? We will be back to 1100 AD fooled into suicidal credulity. We should not be ghouls for punishment from terrorists and their patrons. We should retaliate.
For example, when Ayodhya temple was sought to be attacked, this was not a big terrorist incident but we should have massively retaliated by re-building the Ram temple at the site.
This is Kaliyug, and hence there is no room for sattvic responses to evil people. Hindu religion has a concept of apat dharma and we should invoke it. This is the moment of truth for us. Either we organise to survive as a civilisation or vanish as the Persian, Babylonian, and Egyptian civilisations did centuries ago before the brutal Islamic onslaught. For that our motto should be Saam, Dhaam, Bheda, Danda.

Poverty is no factor
What motivates the Islamic terrorists in India? Many are advising us Hindus to deal with the root ‘cause’ of terrorism rather than concentrate 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. Before replying to this, let us understand that I have serious doubts about the integrity of these liberals, or more appropriately, these promiscuous intellectuals. They seek to deaden the emotive power of the individual and render him passive (inculcate ‘majboori’ in our psyche). A nation state cannot survive for long with such a capitulationist mentality.
It is rubbish to say that terrorists who mastermind the attacks are poor. Osama bin laden for example is a billionaire. Islamic terrorists are patronised by those states that have grown rich from oil revenues. In Britain, the terrorists arrested so far for the bombings are all well-to-do persons. Nor are terrorists uneducated. Most of terrorist leaders are doctors, chartered accountants, MBAs and teachers. For example, in the failed Times Square New York episode, the Islamic terrorist Shahzad studied and got an MBA from a reputed US university. He was from a highly placed family in Pakistan. He certainly faced no discrimination and oppression in his own country. The gang of nine persons who hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001 and flew them into the World Trade Towers in New York and other targets were certainly not discriminated or oppressed in the United States. Hence it is utter rubbish to say that terror is the outcome of the poverty terrorists face.
If we accept the Left-wing liberals argument, does it mean that in Islamic countries, the non-Islamic religious minority who are discriminated and oppressed can take to terrorism? In the Valley, where Muslims are in majority, not only Article 370 of the Constitution provides privileges to the majority but it is the minority Hindus who have been slaughtered, or raped, and dispossessed. They have become refugees in squalid conditions in their own country.
It is also a ridiculous idea that terrorists cannot be deterred because they are irrational, willing to die, and have no ‘return address’. Terrorist masterminds 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. How is that strategy to be structured? In a brilliant research paper published by Robert Trager and Dessislava Zagorcheva this year (‘Deterring Terrorism’ International Security, vol 30, No 3, Winter 2005/06, pp 87-123) has provided the general principles to structure such a strategy.
Goal-strategy
Applying these principles, I advocate the following strategy to negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India, provided the Muslim community fail to condemn these goals and call them un-Islamic:
Goal 1: Overawe India on Kashmir.
Strategy: Remove Article 370, and re-settle ex-servicemen in the Valley. Create Panun Kashmir for Hindu Pandit community. Look or create opportunity to take over Azad Kashmir. If Pakistan continues to back terrorists, assist the Baluchis and Sindhis to struggle for independence.

Goal 2: Blast our temples and kill Hindu devotees.
Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple complex, and 300 others in other sites as a tit-for-tat.
Goal 3: Make India into Darul Islam.
Strategy: Implement Uniform Civil Code, make Sanskrit learning compulsory and singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, and declare India as Hindu Rashtra in which only those non-Hindus can vote if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors are Hindus. Re-name India as Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors are Hindus.
Goal 4: Change India’s demography by illegal immigration, conversion, and refusal to adopt family planning.
Strategy: Enact a national law prohibiting conversion from Hindu religion to any other religion. Re-conversion will not be banned. Declare caste is not birth-based but code of discipline based. Welcome non-Hindus to re-convert to the caste of their choice provided they adhere to the code of discipline. Annex land from Bangladesh in proportion to the illegal migrants from that country staying in India. At present, northern one-third from Sylhet to Khulna can be annexed to re-settle the illegal migrants.
Goal 5: Denigrate Hinduism through vulgar writings and preaching in mosques, madrassas, and churches to create loss of self-respect amongst Hindus and make them fit for capitulation.
Strategy: Propagate the development of a Hindu mindset (see my new book Hindutva and National Renaissance, Haranand, 2010).
India can solve its terrorist problem within five years by such a deterrent strategy, but for that we have to learn the four lessons outlined above, and have a Hindu mindset to take bold, risky, and hard decisions to defend the nation. If the Jews can be transformed from lambs walking meekly to the gas chambers to fiery lions in just 10 years, it is not difficult for Hindus in much better circumstances (after all we are 83 per cent of India), to do so in five years.
Guru Gobind Singh has shown us the way already, how just five fearless persons under spiritual guidance can transform a society. Even if half the Hindu voters are persuaded to collectively vote as Hindus, and for a party sincerely committed to a Hindu agenda, then we can forge an instrument for change. And that ultimately is the bottom line in the strategy to deter terrorism in a democratic Hindustan at this moment of truth.

About the author:
Subramanian Swamy* Janata Party President is a Professor of Economics and a former Union Cabinet Minister*

This was his article for which the leftist in US got his Harvard courses terminated.
 
.
This was his article for which the leftist in US got his Harvard courses terminated.

You actually read the whole thing? I was going to but only with some peace and quiet. the formatting is terrible though.
 
. .
:) coincidently a news report about Yuvan Shankar is published in ToI today and the same feedback as you remarked above is given by Indian hardline Hindu posters on that report.




If India only belongs to Hindus according to his claims then where do current Indian Muslims stand? their forefathers may be had been Hindus but they are Muslims now.

So will they have to be reconverted ?

No. Even the RSS does not call for their reconversion. Only, they want Indian muslims to realize that although their religion may be from Arabia, their culture needs to be Indian.

But the problem is in the fact that Islam also prescribes a very detailed set of social mores and codes also to be followed along with religion. And practicing Muslims cannot shake it off selectively, and end up becoming distinctly different from the other natives of the land.

A example for Muslims following the culture of their ancestors would be the case of Indonesian Muslims. Megawati Sukarnoputri is a Muslim. But nowhere in her name or her language can one detect the trace of any Arabian influence.
 
.
They do not typically take hardline religious stances. Their approach tends to be a bit more nuanced.
Actually you are right. We are usually not very hardline folks. I personally ain't very religious either. But the Sangh Parivar has all kinds of people. :)
 
.
That current Hindu concept/Hindu nationalism etc is a 19th century product; Hindu religious elite of that time carried a lot of baggage from foreign Islamic invasion, they confused Nationalism, Religion,Culture, DNA, geographical boundaries into a single concept of Hindutva to form united SC,many fabrications also took place. Hinduism was an umbrella term(not monolithic) coined by British, only some sort of ancient monolithic term is/was Sindhu for ancient Pakistanis living in Indus plain.
 
Last edited:
.
If India only belongs to Hindus according to his claims then where do current Indian Muslims stand? their forefathers may be had been Hindus but they are Muslims now.

So will they have to be reconverted ?

But don't you think you are going against two nation theory by lecturing Indians. :lol::lol: Before accusing, I make it clear I am against TNT. ;)
 
.
Taking on Manish and arnab


He does not let Mr. Swamy speak. Dr. Swamy should have told Arnab bluntly to keep his mouth shut for a few minutes and not interject.

You actually read the whole thing? I was going to but only with some peace and quiet. the formatting is terrible though.

It is an old article. I had read it when it was published and the controversy rose about it.

Here you go...

I did not see the complete debate but Swami was right most of the time, however politically wrong.

He was politically right too, but dumb Arnab would not admit nor let him complete his sentence. Arnab speaks only to hear his own voice I think. His bias is obvious.
 
.
He does not let Mr. Swamy speak. Dr. Swamy should have told Arnab bluntly to keep his mouth shut for a few minutes and not interject.

Mazak karti hai tu , who can speak in front of Arnab
He is politically wrong, supreme court of India and constitution describes non-hindu as Muslin, Christian and parsi
 
.
That current Hindu concept/Hindu nationalism etc is product of 19th century baggage(foreign islamic invasion ) of Hindu religious elite, who confused Nationalism, Religion,Culture, DNA, geographical boundaries into concept of Hindutva to form united SC. Hinduism was an umbrella term(not monolithic) coined by British, only some sort of ancient monolithic term is/was Sindhu for ancient Pakistanis living in Indus plain.

Its true the word Hindu is of foreign origin but community feeling always existed with Vedas as supreme literature and Sanskrit as the main liturgical language even if several religious traditions exists. Moreover, all Hindus of India have considered themselves as people of Bharatavarsha throughout history and those converted to Islam simply changed the word to Hindustan. ;) Sindhu is a river and a kingdom named Sindhu is mentioned in Mahabharata, please spare us from hypothetical Sindhu identity of so called ancient Pakistanis. :lol::lol:
 
.
Mazak karti hai tu , who can speak in front of Arnab
He is politically wrong, supreme court of India and constitution describes non-hindu as Muslin, Christian and parsi

No when the supreme court interpreted the "saar" of India to be Hindutva, it acknowledge that the culture of India is Hindu. I am saying culture is Hindu. Not religion. Also Hindu word is a substitute for Dharma. So all Dharmics are defined in the term Hindu. Now both Mr. Bhagwat and Mr. Swamy are saying since the spirit of India is Hindu, we all are Hindus. This again is a cultural application, not religious. So a Muslim praying in mosque is religiously a Muslim but culturally a Hindu. A Christian praying in his church is religiously a Christian but culturally a Hindu. The whole debate is about cultural identification, not religious.

Mazak karti hai tu , who can speak in front of Arnab
He is politically wrong, supreme court of India and constitution describes non-hindu as Muslin, Christian and parsi

Mr. Swamy can put Arnab in his place and has done so many times, which is why Arnab does not want to let him speak at all. He always gives the secularists a lot of time to speak.
 
.
No when the supreme court interpreted the "saar" of India to be Hindutva, it acknowledge that the culture of India is Hindu. I am saying culture is Hindu. Not religion. Also Hindu word is a substitute for Dharma. So all Dharmics are defined in the term Hindu. Now both Mr. Bhagwat and Mr. Swamy are saying since the spirit of India is Hindu, we all are Hindus. This again is a cultural application, not religious. So a Muslim praying in mosque is religious a Muslim but culturally a Hindu. A Christian praying in his church is religious a Christian but culturally a Hindu. The whole debate is about cultural identification, not religious.
You and me both know if debated widely this would turn into a religious fist fight
hence i say somethings are better kept under carpets



Mr. Swamy can put Arnab in his place and has done so many times, which is why Arnab does not want to let him speak at all. He always gives the secularists a lot of time to speak.
:( i see no fist fight in Indian media anymore, pakistani media is entertaining ... they attack each other with such kind words :p
 
.
Its true the word Hindu is of foreign origin but community feeling always existed with Vedas as supreme literature and Sanskrit as the main liturgical language even if several religious traditions exists. Moreover, all Hindus of India have considered themselves as people of Bharatavarsha throughout history and those converted to Islam simply changed the word to Hindustan. ;) Sindhu is a river and a kingdom named Sindhu is mentioned in Mahabharata, please spare us from hypothetical Sindhu identity of so called ancient Pakistanis. :lol::lol:

bro one thing can you clarify is that why you separate Indus regions west of Indus completely from East of Indus Indus regions; Punjab, Sindh. I agree in your traditional Bharat terms(relatively very recent) that originated from Gupte period? areas including west of Indus were not relevant but when Indus region was main center on its own(independent from Ganga) it always included west of Indus regions on both sides e.g IVC, look at Kalash people, Mehrgarh, Gandhara, Rig vedic times etc etc. A better definition of Indus region would be east of Hindu kush to Punjab(both Pakistan/Ind)
 
Last edited:
.
You and me both know if debated widely this would turn into a religious fist fight
hence i say somethings are better kept under carpets




:( i see no fist fight in Indian media anymore, pakistani media is entertaining ... they attack each other with such kind words :p

Sometimes things need to be brought out in the open. Pushing things under the carpet just allows a lot of mold to gather. Some sunshine is good.

Perhaps the TV channels think if they do not let right wing ideologues have their say, then they will lose their support. But it works the opposite way. The more they suppress, the more they will be challenged.
 
.
Its true the word Hindu is of foreign origin but community feeling always existed with Vedas as supreme literature and Sanskrit as the main liturgical language even if several religious traditions exists. Moreover, all Hindus of India have considered themselves as people of Bharatavarsha throughout history and those converted to Islam simply changed the word to Hindustan. ;) Sindhu is a river and a kingdom named Sindhu is mentioned in Mahabharata, please spare us from hypothetical Sindhu identity of so called ancient Pakistanis. :lol::lol:

. Brahmin still look with disgust at you. What comunity feeling? Lol
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom