My blog

Author: Yuga Parivartan yuga_parivartan

  • Who should pay for your pregnancy?

    Who should pay for your pregnancy?

    Motherhood is one of the biggest and most wonderful gifts of nature to women. But in the modern economy, when women are increasingly joining the workforce, it has taken a backstage and has become only one aspect of the multifaceted lifestyle of a modern woman. Even after the advance of modern medicine, women still have to take considerable time off from work to fulfil their motherhood duties. So in such a situation, the question arises: who should pay for the cost of motherhood, or pregnancy to be precise?

    There is a story doing the rounds in the media where a girl was fired from her job when she asked for leave on medical grounds over and above the maternity leave that she had planned, due to complications during her pregnancy. It is a delicate issue and many people will react emotionally without looking at the whole picture. It is an expected reaction as traditional Indians still associate high value with motherhood, although it is increasingly disparaged as a worthless exercise by liberals.

    It is a very broad topic of discussion and has a very profound impact on the future of the nation, so it is essential to distil the case down to who benefits from a new child. Only when we know who is the ultimate beneficiary can we decide who should bear the cost of pregnancy.

    The decision to have a child is a private decision. Given how parents these days plan the time and number of children they want to have, it is almost a no-brainer to associate this decision with the parents. Since couples decide to have or not have a child, it means they are the sole beneficiaries from this decision, at least when they make the decision. Although a nation benefits from having a young population, most couples do not take it into account when making this decision. Since they hardly think of the nation or society during this decision-making, we will ignore this issue until the end before briefly touching on the ramifications.

    So, if a decision accrues private benefits, who should pay the cost? It is very simple if the case were made for buying a sports car. One does not ask his or her employer to gift them a sports car if he or she likes the car. Also, the employer gains no benefit from the employee having a sports car. A happy employee working hard is a side benefit, but there is no direct relation. Similarly, couples usually do not ask their employers if and when they can have a child, nor do employers gain any private benefit from their employees having children.

    This implies that the decision to have a child is a private decision and parents should take this into account before going forward with it. If this requires a woman to be out of work for a long and significant amount of time, it is not the duty of the firm to pay for her maternity leave while she does not work for the firm. There are two intertwined issues at play here which are often ignored. Firstly, small firms do not have enough working capital and often scrape through with their daily payments. The increased cost of an unproductive employee, if a pregnant woman takes maternity leave for three months, makes it difficult for many firms to survive. Also, it is morally wrong to expect the firm to pay for a private decision of its employee. Of course, if the firm is happy to pay for the pregnancy of its female employees, it should do it, but it cannot or should not be enforced by the state. Secondly, if the state decides to enforce compulsory maternity leave with benefits, it leads to the next problem, which is discrimination. If a small firm knows that its female employee will become pregnant and thus become unproductive for the firm in the future and it cannot fire her, the firm will just stop hiring young females. So the idea to correct one problem will lead to another problem.

    Since the Indian economy still depends significantly on the contribution of small and marginal firms, transferring the cost of the private decision of having a child onto the firm will have very bad consequences for the growth of new and young firms. But this also opens questions of discrimination in social policy. What about women who do not work and are stay-at-home mothers? Or women who work in contractual or small jobs, where firms are not forced to pay for maternity leave? The last set of women will not get the benefit of transferring the cost of their private decisions onto anyone else. So from a fairness perspective, why should a small section of middle-class women get subsidized by private firms for getting pregnant, while poorer women, also more vulnerable and needy, who work in the unorganized sector or don’t work at all, do not get any benefits?

    So who should bear the cost of having children? The cost of bearing children has been borne by the family throughout history and that is how it should be. The parents bear the future cost of bringing up their children, so why should it be different during the pregnancy period? Of course, firms can allow women to rejoin the workforce once they have fulfilled their maternal duties, but it is unfair to expect them to foot the bill for private decisions of individuals. It is daylight robbery if the state relinquishes its duty and passes on the tax to firms for its moral obligations.

    This brings us to the last point in this debate. While individuals and parents usually ignore the public benefits of having children, the state can very well understand such benefits. Not only does a young generation keep a healthy demographic and contribute future taxpayers, but new people also contribute new ideas. Parents might not always recognize this value, but a nation values future citizens. This is the reason that although feminists lambast motherhood in the West, their governments still try to subsidize maternity. Some countries like France, which pay high maternity benefits, have been able to maintain decent demography despite their young women increasingly trying to opt out of motherhood. But India is not a rich country and can hardly afford the cost of such benefits when it cannot even feed everyone. So, what is the way forward? India should inculcate the value of the family system in its citizens and shut down the propaganda against a big population, as most Indian states are already below replacement-level fertility, i.e. 2.1 children per woman. Putting emphasis on the family system will allow women to take help not only from their husbands but also from extended family during times of maternity, thus decreasing economic and emotional pressure. On top of that, government should decrease the cost of raising children by spending money on building healthcare infrastructure and repealing laws like RTE which have increased the cost of education, thus increasing the cost of having children. But before that, government should stop burdening young firms which are the growth engine of the economy and are needed for generating future jobs and income.

  • Feminists lied to women about career and marriage

    Feminists lied to women about career and marriage

    The march of feminism continues unabated in the middle class sections of India. It has not yet attained the ugly militant form as in the west but given the popularity of the feminist memes among young girls, it would grip a large section of society sooner or later. The most important reason for the rise of this militancy would lie in failed or low satisfaction marriages for career girls.

    Swati is currently working in Railways and is turning thirty in a month. Swati and her parents have been trying hard to find her a suitable partner for the last 2 years but it has not been going well as most of their calls don’t get returned by the boys’ family. Having studied at JNU, there was never a dearth of suitors for Swati where she completed her Masters before spending few more years to crack civil services exam and join Railways. She ignored most of the arranged marriage proposals during her Masters, but now finds herself on the wrong side.

    To understand the genesis of this problem, one has to look at the destroyed societies of west. How did it happen in the west? Feminists brainwashed women that they can attain everything in the world i.e. both great career and great partner. But since feminism is a political ideology, it is hardly rooted in any natural phenomenon.

    Attraction to prime age fertile women had been a very well understood phenomenon in all cultures until the march of feminism which denied nature and bashed it as a patriarchal value. Those who believed this propaganda are now paying the cost in terms of depression pills and failed marriages.

    But why is this even a problem for India? This is not a problem for India yet but it will become one very soon in the future. Career girls and their families are already feeling the heat in the marriage market due to ignoring traditional values and delaying marriage till they are 30 years old and un-marriageable. This is a big problem in China as well where 30 year old women are given the title of “leftover women”.

    Unsurprisingly this problem does not vanish away even though India has a very poor sex ratio. The reason behind it is that the successful women and their families practise hypergamy and would not marry a beggar or anyone below their standards, while rich boys will marry prime age fertile women.

    What is the way forward to this situation? Given advancement in technology and easy solutions to household chores, it is natural that most women will join workforce. But this should not happen at the cost of building future families. It is important for both the girls and their families to not ignore the forces of nature and give equal weight to both career and family. Career can be advanced even after marriage and there is no reason to turn to depression pills later in life to prove oneself modern and flag bearer of a stupid ideology which is disconnected from reality.

    All names and professions have been changed to protect identity.

  • Proof that JNU anti-nationals are Jihadis

    Proof that JNU anti-nationals are Jihadis

    Do you remember the way the JNU commie snake Omar Khalid who asked for destruction of India and was burning Manu Smiriti and opposed Durga Puja, because these Hindu festivals represent superstition and patriarchy? The same Marxist Jihadi was recently seen dining at an Iftar party. He is a perfect representation of the Jihadi/Communist Rationalist of Great intellectual wankland i.e. JNU. This open celebration of Iftar while opposing Durga Puja in the campus very well shows what these supposed rationalists of the communist/naxal heartland are on the inside.

    This Jihadi and his dad eloquently shout against patriarchy, accompanied by their mother in an Arabian black tent. Apparently covering up his mother from head to toe is what defines fight against patriarchy. Shows how pathetic Islam and the leftist/feminist academic trash in Bharat are.

    Hindus should never miss these opportunities to expose such Jihadi snakes for what they are. This is why the only way to save India and indeed the world is by eradicating the Jihadi ideology without playing the dumb game of defining moderate vs extremists snakes. Just like a snake cannot relinquish his poison, similarly a Muslim cannot give up his dream of world Ummah. So Hindus should not fall for the drama when Islamists like Omar Khalid cover their hatred for Hindus by masquerading as secular leftists.

  • Is Maneka Gandhi backstabbing Modi for not projecting her son as UP CM

    Is Maneka Gandhi backstabbing Modi for not projecting her son as UP CM

    Social media and News networks are buzz with news that Menaka Gandhi is taking a serious look at online trolling as a minister for women and child development. There have been countless articles before in pro-Bharat websites like Indiafacts.org about how Maneka Gandhi is turning the ministry for women into an anti-men ministry and is making it hostile for men, but this step seems to be a step too far. Though it looked like a joke at first, it is turning to be a real problem with Maneka Gandhi doubling down on her nonsensical rhetoric. As per some reports ,the great and knowledgeable minister was having a meeting with Twitter India heads like Kashmiri Jihadi Raheel Khurshid on tackling online trolling against women in India , after having successfully completed her obligations to help poor women of India.

    She claimed to have created a new IT cell to deal with online trolling against women. The problem with this stupid move should of course be obvious to anyone. There is no proper definition of what constitutes as “trolling” and hence this kind of nonsense is nothing but recipe for trouble and censorship. The esteemed minister is keen on helping the entitled middle class princesses on the internet, who are also strong and independent and need to be protected from online trolling because they are strong and independent and hence cannot click the ignore button in Twitter and Facebook against trolls, partly because she has already helped all the poor women and children across Bharat suffering from malnutrition and lack of proper facilities and partly because those poor women and children are less important than saving the hurt feelings of middle class women on the internet. The irony and hypocrisy here of course is that the same twitter head, who is supposed to control trolling after this move is a huge abuser himself and was exposed for his trolling behaviour here in this article by Rupa Subramanya.
    Here is the twitter India head trolling a girl child. Will Maneka first book him under trolling?

    Needless to say, the RW in Twitter was up in arms against the minister on this brain dead idea because of the vague nature of the issue. They rightfully point out that this is similar to 66A type of internet censorship and this kind of activity and proposal by the minister can be used to suppress the unpopular opinions in the internet. This will further increase burden on the already uphill task the Right wing pro-Hindu netizens have to face in social media, with Facebook being run out of jihadi den of Hyderabad, which closed down several RW pages for exposing Islam and criticising terrorists and anti-nationals. On the other hand Twitter India head is an anti-Bharat and anti-Hindu Kashmiri Jihadi doesn’t even hide his anti Hindu views. Sometimes Facebook deletes and mysteriously makes the accounts of even famous people like Tarek Fatah and Pamela Geller to disappear when they are critical of Islam (i.e. tell the truth about Islam). Twitter of course bans handles which make fun of Islam like @juntakareporter and does not verify people with pro-Hindu views in India. So when the minister is giving such vague anti-troll measures and excuses to these websites, it will give them legitimacy to censor the RW and pro-Hindu people in the Twitter and Facebook and the results would be as good as giving torch to a monkey.

    The irony of all this brain dead drama is that the whole issue started with a known abusive troll masquerading as journalist/presstitute called Swati Chaturvedi, who goes by the user name @bainjal. She abused a RW pro-India Twitter user and was replied back in kind. She whined and complained about it as her usual presstitute self and the half clown goon Varun Gandhi came to her rescue saying that women should not be abused and defended her right to free speech and abuse of others. Interesting enough, the clown never bothered to defend other RW women and BJP supporters before that point despite being a BJP member. Turns out, the Swati Chaturvedi presstitute had written positively about Varun Gandhi goon just a few days back in dailyo.in and why he should be the face of UP BJP campaign, even though the clown has zero appeal in UP politics on the ground. So bainjal had pressituted for her new client Varun Gandhi and in return the clown came out in support of his presstitute friend on Twitter under the garb of protecting women from abuse, without looking at the history of @bainjal.

    When Varun Gandhi joined the kinder, gentler BJP of Vajpayee and Advani, much was made of the Gandhi brand. Unfortunately, Modi and Shah only have a visceral antipathy to the name. Insiders say Shah and even Arun Jaitley can’t stand both mother and son, finding them arrogant and affected. His future under Modi and Shah is rather bleak, to say the least.

    Here is another article by @bainjal, where she crossed almost all limits of ego massaging junior Gandhi:

    To be fair to Varun, he’s always maintained that he would not attack Sonia Gandhi and cousins Rahul and Priyanka in public. While Vajpayee understood this, and in his own thoughtful and genteel way, appreciated this family deference, Modi and Shah have no use for it. They would prefer Varun to target Sonia and Rahul much in the manner in which Subramanian Swamy does.

    The various Right wing handles who see the Varun Gandhi trash for what he is connected the dots and started making fun of the obvious presstitution by the Gandhi and Lutyens media member. It seems Varun Gandhi ran to his mommy Maneka Gandhi complaining about it and now she being true to her last name is trying to ban those RW handles for making fun of her son and his CM aspirations on Twitter under the garb of protecting women from trolling. The minister Gandhi claimed that she had so far received 1500 names of people who abuse on Twitter and is expecting more and that action would be taken soon. This has enraged the RW and pro-Hindu Twitter handles in India like anything and they are up in arms against the Gandhis with many handles making fun of her pathetic attempts to hide their son from criticism and the blatant misuse of their powers. This series of drama by the women and child development minister of course has no legal basis and is completely illegal and if allowed to happen will overwhelmingly hurt the support base of NaMo on social media, which was instrumental in him becoming the prime minister with overwhelming majority in 2014.

    a1
    Some choicest abuses used by the troll presstitute @bainjal

    Here is the defence of this vile journalist Swati Chaturvedi by the Gandhi scion

    Irrespective of political ideology, one needs to be mindful of a woman’s dignity. This sort of crass bullying is shameful. @bainjal

    — Varun Gandhi (@varungandhi80) July 4, 2016

    So why is the BJP minister so keen on destroying BJP’s own support base? After all, isn’t it BJP’s loss if they lose the social media to AAPtard and Congtards and lose the battle of narrative if there is no social media to correct the lies and misinformation that the mainstream media spews against the incompetent morons at BJP? Most of the media hitjobs against the government are tackled by the online Hindus, who sacrifice their time and effort to dispel the poison the media spews against the BJP government, out of their own interest, to save this country from the anti-India and anti-Hindu filth in the media and the Lutyens ecosystem. So wouldn’t the loss of social media dominance of BJP thanks to its RW supporters be very bad for it, seeing how media cell of BJP is run by a bunch of incompetent idiots, incapable of articulating anything properly or keep the anti-national and anti-Hindu trash in the media where it belongs i.e. trash bin?

    One of the wildly circulated theories for the seemingly stupid behaviour of the Gandhis of BJP, among the Right wing circles in Twitter is that Maneka Gandhi is sabotaging Modi when Modi is not here and is trying to get her useless son, Varun Gandhi, the Uttar Pradesh chief minister berth ahead of the UP elections. This might be a too clever by half attempt by Maneka Gandhi to sabotage the heavy support Modi enjoys at the moment at the national level by turning the BJP supporters against the BJP government and at the same time trying to eliminate the popular Twitter handles which mock the clownish thug Varun Gandhi for the worthless gasbag that he is. And if BJP tries to kick her out for her sabotage right after the ministry reshuffle, she can play victim card about how modi stopped her from helping women being trolled in front of her gang of media presstitutes(no offence to prostitutes). Some handles even claim that Maneka Gandhi is doing it at the behest of Congress in the light of UP elections and hence can join Congress if she indeed is kicked out of BJP for the sabotage that she is doing. Below is one possible set of reasons for Maneka’s move as explained by Dr G Pradhan in his tweets.

    I am informed that Few @narendramodi supporting accounts will b suspended on the behest of Barkha/Rajdeep/sgarika/Rana/Swati& other darbaris

    — #GauravPradhan (@DrGPradhan) July 8, 2016

    While that may be the most logical explanation for the brain dead activities of the Gandhis in BJP, the another very real possibility is that BJP itself doesn’t want the freedom in Social media. It’s not a big secret that BJP views its social media supporters as an unwanted nuisance as they constantly expose the backstabbing and secular than thou sell out of Hindu interests by the BJP. For a large part, the social media is uncontrollable and many Hindu handles in RW are getting disillusioned by the complete back stabbing of Hindus by the BJP on its cultural agenda. Some prominent BJP trash like Chandan Mitra have even openly called the BJP online supporters as trolls in debates on NDTV in front of the queen of presstitutes i.e. Burkha Dutt. So it might be that even BJP might be eager to get rid of its critics on the internet and live up to the Sita Ram Goel’s observation that BJP is just Congress+Cow to continue in the secular sell out mode un-criticized by the social media and hence might not act against this pathetic and undemocratic anti-free speech move by Maneka Gandhi.

    But whatever may be the underlying reason, one thing that is absolutely clear is that the Gandhis are cancer to Bharat whether they are in BJP or in CONgress. After all, the blood of Nehru would still have its influence on its progenies and hence it would be naive to assume that Gandhis in BJP would be any different. Goes to show that Bharat needs a Gandhi Mukt Bharat alongside the Congress Mukt Bharat as envisaged by Modi.

    Image Source:

    http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140415/nation-politics/article/varun-gandhi-files-nomination-sultanpur-lok-sabha-seat

  • How Bangladeshi terrorists specifically killed non-Muslims in Dhaka terror attack

    How Bangladeshi terrorists specifically killed non-Muslims in Dhaka terror attack

    There are many dumb Hindus who play the game of moderate vs extremists Muslims. But only when their death is certain do they seem to realise how pathetic and Darwin award worthy such positions are. The recent killings of Hindus and Buddhists in Bangladesh should show them the stupidity of their position.

    Take the incident in Bangladesh, where the Jihadis specifically asked the Muslims to step aside as they proceeded to kill Kafirs one by one by slitting their throats. The moderate Muslims were spared because after all they were people of the book.

    The article argues that ideological and sectarian differences among Muslims often become secondary when non-Muslims are targeted.

    It criticizes both left-wing publications and right-wing commentators who present Sufism or moderate Islam as reliable protection for Hindus.

    Some escapist Hindus often cite how Shivaji and Marathas won against the odds for the Hindus. The article argues that historical survival required political realism rather than abstract claims about universal brotherhood.

    It then discusses Faraaz Hossain and Ishrat Akhond, two Muslims killed in the Dhaka attack, and argues that isolated acts of courage do not alter the vulnerability of non-Muslims who cannot recite Quranic verses.

    Image Source:
    http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/dhaka-terrorist-attack-bangladesh-dhaka-cafe-hostage-crisis-terrorism-2892255/

  • Myth of Moderate Islam and its reformation

    Myth of Moderate Islam and its reformation

    In the pious month of Ramadan, the world is witnessing the violent side of a religion which is known as the “religion of peace”. The violence has transcended the boundaries of nations to manifest itself in Orlando, Turkey, Bangladesh and numerous other such places. When the world was recovering from the shock of the Orlando shooting, Turkey felt another tremor of Islamic violence, and the recent ones were in Bangladesh and Iraq. The ubiquitous thing about all these terror attacks is the motivation for such acts and the response of world leaders after the violence. It’s no surprise that Islam is the driving force for these acts of violence in the month of Ramadan, as sacrificing oneself for the cause of Jihad and killing infidels will yield a better place in heaven. Liberal media are always careful after the incident not to link it with Islam, although the terrorist will chant Allahu Akbar after killing people or declare his allegiance to ISIS publicly. The reporting starts with the mighty phrase “Terrorism has no religion” and ends with the even mightier phrase “Islam is a religion of peace.” But it’s difficult to conceal the truth for too long. Even if the truth is concealed for a longer time, it won’t ensure that the truth has died. Truth will surface one day for sure.

    After terror incidents, people of the world who are not Muslims look at moderate Muslims in the hope that they’ll condemn the act of violence. Another demand from people is reformation of Islam, and it too comes from people who do not follow Islamic theology. But there is nothing like moderate Muslims and reformation of Islam is an impossible task for anyone to do.

    If you analyse the reactions of moderate Muslims after terror attacks, the reactions follow a similar pattern and continuity in thought worldwide. First of all, they distance themselves from the act of terror. The next step will be to call it a “hate crime”, an “act of a few misguided people”, or a “random event of violence”, as there is an enormous amount of violence in this world. In reality, all these words are nothing but convenient lies to mislead the world and conceal the truth. Hate is an irrational feeling which arises in someone’s mind without any profound basis. However, any terrorist attack is not irrational. Terrorists make a conscious choice which is advocated by their scriptures in order to wipe out kafirs or infidels. Their acts have well-calculated end results, a religiously sanctioned guideline and a rational choice based on their own morality. Another lie which they tell is labelling them “misguided people”. They’re not misguided at all. They are being guided by the supreme scripture of their religion in the words of Prophet Muhammad, who is the perfect human being ever born. The act of terrorism is a political choice with political implications to convert the whole world into the land of Allah. A random act of violence has different characteristics from a terror attack. Random criminals neither shout Allahu Akbar nor kill people just because they can’t recite verses from the Quran. Thus moderate Muslims are among the biggest liars who act to conceal the truth from the world.

    Their next argument is to hypothesize that such crimes are not allowed by Islam. But a simple look at Islamic history suggests a completely different narrative. Beginning from the battle of Badr to the recent attack in Bangladesh, it only shows that such crimes are allowed by Islam and its scripture. The Quran contains more than 100 verses which clearly command war against non-believers and either conversion or killing. In the same breath, moderate Muslims try to defend Islamic theology and profess that Prophet Muhammad never sanctioned all these acts of crime. This is another blatant lie. The life events and acts of Prophet Muhammad reveal that he was a vile man who always resorted to violence throughout his life. He slaughtered more than 600 Jews after the Battle of the Trench. There are similar countless examples from the life of Muhammad. Now, there arise some serious questions.

    What’s more important for moderate Muslims: to defend their religion or look for remedies for terrorism? Their reactions only reveal that all they want is that Islam should be free from any kind of blame irrespective of how violent it is. Moderate Muslims don’t want to get labelled as moderate ones. Sarfaraz Manzoor writes in The Guardian in his article, “Can we drop the term ‘moderate Muslim’? It’s meaningless”: “This is about more than politeness and semantics. The language matters because if ordinary Muslims feel they are being divided into camps, into ‘good’ (moderates) and ‘bad’ (non-moderates), then any statements made by politicians will be heard with great scepticism, especially if for many Muslims ‘moderate’ has come somehow to mean more secular.” Moderate Muslims try their best to shield the Prophet from any kind of attack and always hail him as the most perfect man. If they keep praising such a violent person, then any change in reality is only a dream. In Islam, a true Muslim can only be one who follows the Quran word for word and tries to imitate the Sunnah of the Prophet. Moderate Muslims know this fact quite well. Deep down, they know that the people carrying out terrorist attacks are doing all these things to be perfect Muslims. According to Islamic theology, they can’t be questioned. In this dilemma, moderate Muslims also realise that the word “moderate” makes them feel less religious than people who don’t call themselves moderate. They don’t want to get labelled as moderate, but they’re doing so now because this is best in their interests under the current politically correct regime.

    In such a situation, moderate Muslims feel that the word “moderate” is already creating a division among Muslims by labelling half of them as moderate or right and the other half as wrong. To balance things in this dilemma, they take the above-mentioned approaches to fulfil the aspirations of their own community and liberals of the world who hail them. However, moderate Muslims are well aware of their goals and the goal of Islam. They become happy inside that these terrorist attacks are only helping their religion to expand. And there should be no objection for them. After all, Islam is a military cult which wants to expand its horizon. Around 1,400 years of Islamic history is testimony to the success of the violent approach. As long as Islam is gaining success as a military cult, moderate Muslims are less bothered about the methods. The goal of moderate Muslims and extremist Muslims is in sync with each other, i.e. expansion of Dar-ul-Harb. The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS is exactly the same and their methods differ only slightly during the beginning phase. In the later phase, the method of moderate and extremist Muslims to convert the whole world into the land of Allah will be the same. ISIS reminds moderate Muslims about the glorious time of the Caliphate when a larger chunk of Europe, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan countries were under Islamic control. They have no objection when another person is trying to establish the Caliphate which was uprooted in the last century. Moderate Muslims are reactive elements but lack the catalyst or favourable conditions to react. Iran is the best example of how quickly moderate Muslims became extremists when they got the catalyst and favourable conditions to react.

    We will now look at the prospects of reformation in Islam and the Quran, which is the ultimate source of all the violence. Reformation in the Quran means either erasing the satanic verses from it or changing it completely. Neither of these is permitted by Islam. Allah states in the Quran in Surat al-Hijr, verse 9: “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Quran and indeed, We will be its guardian.” It means that Allah will protect the Quran from any change or error. In another verse, Muhammad says, “How can you improve something which is perfect? You can’t change the Quran.” The clue which these two verses give is that it’s impossible to change the Quran as long as someone has faith in Islamic theology and the Prophet. All that the Prophet allows Muslims is to reinterpret it. But interpretation and reinterpretation have serious limitations. How will you reinterpret “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” in a peaceful and non-violent way? It’s foolish to think so.

    The only way to change the Quran is to get rid of Muhammad and the Quran. But you can’t do so because you have no authority to do so. You can’t be bigger than the Prophet and the Quran because Muhammad said that he was the last Prophet. As soon as someone tries to challenge this convention, it will be labelled blasphemous and the reward will be death. Prominent and mainstream Muslim voices confirm that Islam doesn’t need reformation. Mehdi Hasan, presenter of Al Jazeera English, writes in The Guardian, “Why Islam doesn’t need reformation”: “The truth is that Islam has already had its own ‘Reformation’ of sorts.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an atheist who was advocating reforms in Islam, was rebuked by Muslims in hard-hitting words. The Quran is a closed door and you can only bang your head against it. There are not even genuine voices coming from Islam for reformation or dropping the violent parts of the Quran. For the sake of argument, to say that the violent part of the Quran should be left out has no basis. Someone else will ask why that part should be left out to embrace another part. Which authority sanctioned this? There will be no answer. Thus the moderate Muslim is a myth and reformation in Islam or the Quran is a far-fetched dream which will never become reality.

    This article is written by Satish Verma.

  • Japanese court legalises profiling and surveillance of Muslims

    Japanese court legalises profiling and surveillance of Muslims

    Japanese have once again proved their pragmatism and national mettle. Japanese courts dismissed a plea asking the Japanese police to stop profiling Muslims in their country, on grounds of national security and national interests. Is it any wonder that Japanese society could rebuild and rearm into the third most powerful economy in the world in mere three decades of being nuked and defeated in World War II? They have again shown courage and honour by putting their own security and national interest before nonsensical post-modernist political correctness — and have defied the Muslim apologetics.

    Law enforcement mostly ignored the case. One of the few public statements they made came at a United Nations human rights committee hearing on the matter in 2014. An official from the National Police Agency said “details of information-gathering activities to prevent future terrorism could not be disclosed,” but that “police collected information according to the law.” Some have defended the surveillance of Muslims, including Naofumi Miyasaka, a professor at the National Defense Academy of Japan. He describes the data leak as “the biggest failure in the history of Japan’s counter-terrorism” because it would have hurt the ability of law enforcement to gather intelligence on potential threats through “mutual trust and cooperation between police and informants.”

    Compare this to the present-day supposedly nationalistic government of BJP, which has banned various sites which expose Islam and its Jihad and the real side of Muslims from Indian viewers. For example, the Department of Telecommunications has blocked the site islam-watch.org for hurting Muslim feelings — i.e. for exposing Muslim society and Muslims for what they really are on the inside. Indians should learn from the Japanese on what nationalism looks like. What BJP advocates is not nationalism but Baniaism and mercantile sellout of national and Hindu interests under the garb of development. It is high time that BJP stops fooling Hindus around with mere sloganeering and “Jumlebaazi.”

  • How Feminism ruins the happiness of women

    How Feminism ruins the happiness of women

    Feminists have made western women miserable

    Countless studies and surveys in the West have shown that western women are on average getting miserable every decade for the past several decades while men’s happiness have been constant. Many in west find this to be contrary to what they expected because the ultra progressive feminism of the west was thought to be harbringer of liberation and hence happiness for the women of the west. However, many mainstream academia and media there, because they are clouded by their own “feminism is good” bias, miss the most important reason for the declining happiness of women in the west which is Feminism.
    Decreasing women happiness: Stevenson and Wolfers, 2009

    For a long time, the western media and feminists have been pushing a narrative that women would be happy with their work life and that they would get as much satisfaction from being a corporate money slave as they would from having a loving husband and loving children and loving families. They have been pushing the narrative that women can have career as much as they can have a family without any problem even though this is against reality. Given this reality, feminists have now hardened their stance against nature even more by further downplaying the role of motherhood and are increasingly calling it slavery and asking women to opt out of child bearing all together. They come to this conclusion because of viewing the world with feminist lens that men and women are absolutely the same. However, men and women are not absolutely the same. Men don’t have to take a break of 1 year from their careers to have children like women and hence have a natural edge in the careers. Men also have a higher strength in their overall body and only the top 0.1% of women can match the body strength of an average Man. This is the biological reality and cannot be wished away. While traditionally, the families helped women against this natural bias through institution of marriage, now the feminists have forced western governments and increasingly the industry to bear this private cost of having children, thus replacing regular husband with the new husband called big government.

    However, this is not a bad thing. Questioning why it is unfair that men can have a career AND family while women can’t have both is ignoring the reality that women have to undergo 9 months of pregnancy and another 6-9 months of child rearing when the child must be with his mother compulsory. This takes away almost 1 year away from career of the women for each child they have. But that’s not a bad thing as propounded by feminists. When they have husbands taking care of them and earning for them when they are vulnerable during bearing and rearing a child, why should it matter where the money and resources for taking care of the child comes from? This is a problem only if one views woman as a single unit instead of viewing women as a part of a whole unit called family. So long as men and women are part of family, such differences in careers and working capabilities hardly figure into anything meaningful as both men and women would complement each other and form synergies to raise their families together for a better future. Even through government intervention, this problem will not disappear as women still have to take almost or more than an year off per child, thus making it difficult to balance career and family together. Unless women become like men and completely give up their natural instincts for motherhood, this constraint will remain binding. Now the only question which remains to be answered is whether women will like to have loving caring husbands next to their side during this important period of their life or a faceless government.

    However, since many women in the west were brainwashed into pursuing a career over finding a suitable family before their prime age of 22-25, they end up wasting their prime time looking for careers and becoming corporate slaves like most men. However, since men value youth and beauty in women over money, for the most part at least, they end up not going after “career” women. So when the career women come looking for a man to settle down after their youth has faded away, they usually end up being disappointed that there is no one left, at least not the kind of guys they dreamt would be theirs. Eventually they settle for a guy that they usually end up loathing because they had passed up so many better potential mates during their prime age but were forced by career to not settle down. This undoubtedly leaves a large number of women unsatisfied with their marriages as they end up taking divorce and finally becoming lonely cat ladies in their old age.

    Also, feminism has also reduced any taboo regarding divorces and free sex in the west in the name of sexual revolution. This has further reduced the incentive for men there to marry them in the first place. Why would men marry women when they can get free sex with far less emotional and economic baggage that is associated with marriage? This has led to Pick Up Artist culture in the west among men. Either way, both contribute to low marriages and high divorces in the western society and the women and men having to live separately and divorced for the major part of their life. Is it any wonder that western marriages fail more than 50% of the time even though most marriages happen after several dates and partners and live in relationships, implying that the marriage must have finally happened after the couple had decided that they have a lot of compatibility? This also busts the myth of better screening mechanism associated with love marriages. The truth is, marriage needs commitment more than compatibility to work and feminism and its assault on western families have turned marriage from being about commitment to being about compatibility. Now the western society is paying the price for it with 50% divorces and 50% single moms and 20 times higher per capita rapes than India.

    How feminism destroyed the happiness of Chinese women

    While feminism has completely ruined western society and it’s family structures, it is now in the process of ruining eastern cultures and society too. Chinese and Japanese society, which are all family values based societies much like Indian society are also starting to feel the pinch caused by feminism. And as with western feminism, feminism in China is ruining the happiness of the women there as well. For a long time, feminist elites in Chinese media propagandised about the greatness of women entering workforce and sacrificing their early lives for career. They fed the lie that women will be as satisfied with their lives as corporate paper pushers as they would be with their family life and children and that women can have a family after they had established a career for themselves. However, reality is far different from propaganda and China is not special either. The women who believed the media lies that men would like their money more than their youth and pursued a career instead of pursuing a family at their prime age are now finding it increasingly difficult to get married even though they are very rich now. It is important to note here that China has a very bad sex ratio and these women should have had no problem in getting married just because the demand for marriageable women would be very high due to very poor sex ratio. Still, these women have a hard time finding a “suitable” life partner and are called “leftover women” in Chinese parlance. Of course, the western feminists are now trying to blame the Chinese society and government for shaming these women, but fact of the matter is that these women are themselves sad due to lack of interest they receive from men.

    Though this is a generalisation, it will hold true for most men and women- men are visual creatures and are attracted to youth and beauty of a woman and women are needy creatures who are attracted to wealth and security of a man. There is nothing wrong in either behaviour as they are deep rooted in biology and evolution. Men love women because they can have babies and hence are attracted to young women who can have healthy babies compared to old women. Women on the other hand are very vulnerable socially and financially when they have children and look to men who can provide them security- physical, financial and social and hence marry more for their power and wealth than their physical attraction, even though physical attributes do have a role in attraction.

    This is why, even though the Chinese women are now millionaires they find it very difficult to find men of equal status to marry today. Women want men of same status as themselves to be their husbands and hence will try to look for millionaire men. The only problem however is that millionaire men are already rich and are more attracted to youth and beauty and would rather marry younger, less rich women as they themselves have all the money they want and have little use for more money compared to a good wife who can take care of their families better. Of course the western articles on this issue has dismissed the issue as being patriarchal mindset but that doesn’t change the truth or the ground reality or the biological realities of the sexes. Whining and crying about patriarchy is not going to make women go after poor beggars for marriage nor is it going to make rich men go after old “career” women just because the feminists say so. All that feminists have done is given women bad advice and have ruined their chances of success in their love life and hence an overall happier lifestyle. Having blindly chosen career by completely side-lining the importance of family, is it any wonder that women’s happiness has been on the decline ever since the advent of feminism?

  • Han Imperialism and Hindu response

    Han Imperialism and Hindu response

    The recent (Nuclear Suppliers’ Group) NSG snub from China in Seoul should wake up the sleeping diplomats in the Foreign Ministry on who they are up against in the global affairs. India needs to start acting like a big boy in the big boy’s club now given that it has rattled so many feathers. The article below is reproduced from Vajrin’s blog to look at how India can go up against the mighty dragon when the battle lines are clearly drawn.

    Hindus seem to have lost their ability to do a strategic analysis of the global scenario and position themselves accordingly. Or rather, the Hindu masses are selecting such ‘leaders’ who certainly do not have any ability to do some critical thinking. Or rather, it has become a vicious cycle – the masses select dumb, self serving ‘leaders’ who in turn ensure to keep the masses in their pockets by using various ‘schemes’ which are not about strengthening the nation but retaining the vote banks.

    The current geo-political scenario seems to be a treacherous sea which India is trying to sail across without a proper ship, compass or sailors. The Hindu land is surrounded by adversaries. Islamic threat in the west and east, Hans are in the north, and the Theravadins in Lanka have anti-Hindu strain. There is a Han-Islam-Theravadin circle around the Hindu land.

    While China has allied with our enemies and is creating a ring of fire around us, the Hans have enemies on her borders. Japan, Vietnam and Philippines are our natural allies against China. China has trouble in its western borders as well. India could leverage this position to forge an alliance with a majority of states in the ASEAN and Far East.

    But such an alliance is not enough. DRDO must be strengthened in India. The string of failures must be corrected. Any country needs strong domestic military industry complex in order to fight wars. We cannot survive wars based on ammunition imported from Israel or Russia.

    We must start engaging the ASEAN Buddhist nations more vigorously and conduct joint military exercises with them. We must also try to get a greater foothold in Africa and Central Asia. While we may not be able to counter China’s economy singlehandedly, we can form joint ventures with other countries to take over the African assets that Chinese are interested in. To hold a strong grip over Chinese energy supply must be a primary aim of Hans’ adversaries.

    The primary circle against China shall be the border states of China apart from those of the Mekong basin. The secondary line shall involve Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia. The third line shall include the NATO and its allies.

    An excessive crackdown on Uighurs can also be used to bring Islamic nations against Chinese. While Islam is our other major enemy, we can still work together to defang the Chinese giant.

    Huntington rightly noted that India/Hindu civilization plays the role of a mere swing state in the current circumstance. Destruction or even a strong containment of Han imperialism will open the doors for a more prominent India much more easily as well. Containment of Hans must be a primary motive of the Hindus apart from defending against Islamic aggression. But will the Hindus ever wake up to this reality?

    The article was first written at Vajrin’s blog and you can follow the authors @Rjrasva and @dasyavevrka.

    Image Source:
    http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/indias-nsg-application-likely-to-hit-roadblocks-on-june-9-2836938/

  • Why feminism is flawed ideology- II

    Why feminism is flawed ideology- II

    This is the second article in this series. Check part I here.

    Why Feminist version of equality is fake

    Feminists also assert that men and women are almost the same and that gender is a social construct. The article argues that men and women are not identical and should be treated as complementary rather than competing classes.

    The family, where man and woman form supplementary components, is presented as the basic unit of human society rather than the isolated individual.

    The article argues that when family structures dissolve, the state increasingly replaces family support through welfare systems, particularly for single-parent households.

    Proof that Feminism destroys societies

    The article claims that feminist societies have weak family structures and are demographically and socially unsustainable.

    It cites high rates of divorce, single parenthood and father absence in western countries and argues that these outcomes contribute to social instability.

    The article also discusses Planned Parenthood and abortion in the United States, especially in relation to black families, and argues that family breakdown rather than race alone explains much of the difference in crime and incarceration.

    It further claims that feminism is an offshoot of Marxism and that early feminist thinkers sought to weaken marriage and the family as social institutions.

    The article concludes that feminism will affect Indian society in the same way it affected western societies unless Indians consciously reject its conflict-based assumptions.

    Image Source:
    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/10/goddesses-hurt-indian-feminists-2013105104822923415.html