Does education breed terrorism? The simple and non-politically-correct answer is yes. The politicians around the world are busy selling the snake oil that poverty and low education is behind the rise of Muslim terrorism around the globe. But the facts and actions of very well-to-do and educated high-profile terrorists do not support their claims. There are plenty of examples to show that education among Muslims increases the number of terrorists as well as their sophistication. For example:
Osama Bin Laden — son of a billionaire and earned an engineering degree according to some sources
Ayman Al-Zawahiri — born in an upper middle-class family and was a surgeon in the Egyptian army
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — PhD in Islamic studies
These are the top masterminds, but even the foot-level soldiers who engage in suicide bombing are usually fairly educated as well, including the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and Indian Mujahideen (IM). Peter Bergen and Swati Pandey looked at the education profile of terrorists involved in high-profile terrorist attacks like 9/11 and Bali bombings and found that most of them had decent or high education.
Source: Bergen and Pandey
These attitudes towards terrorism are reflected even better in a detailed study by Krueger and Maleckova done on Palestinian suicide bombers. Based on rigorous sample data, they find evidence for higher support for terrorist activities among educated Muslims. This can even be seen in places like Palestine, where labourers and craftsmen — the poorest in Palestinian society — support terrorism significantly less than those who are educated. Claude Berribi, in his 2003 study, found that most of the suicide bombers were educated and had a high percentage of those who went to some university.
Alen Krueger, who served under Obama as Assistant Secretary and can be expected to be politically correct while giving out the results of his studies, had to say this on the matter of terrorism:
The evidence suggests that terrorists care about influencing political outcomes. They are often motivated by geopolitical grievances. To understand who joins terrorist organizations, instead of asking who has a low salary and few opportunities, we should ask: Who holds strong political views and is confident enough to try to impose an extremist vision by violent means? Most terrorists are not so desperately poor that they have nothing to live for. Instead, they are people who care so fervently about a cause that they are willing to die for it.
— Alen Krueger
Why does this phenomenon occur? It is simple — the poor are usually less fanatical about religion because they don’t have a full stomach with which to contemplate the idea of Jihad against the kafirs. They are usually more worried about their daily food which is hard to come by. So it is usually the middle and upper class Muslims — free from the need to fight starvation — who can think about religion and culture. Sure, poor Muslims do go out and engage in riots as a pack of hyenas scavenging on their group mentality, but it is the middle class which helps them do it and engages in terrorist activities across the world.
The rich Muslims need to prove their Muslim identity, which results in ensuing conflict with their national and cultural identity — and they become more and more radical, emulating the example of their Prophet. This is the reason why middle-class Muslims act like Arab wannabes throughout the world and are the biggest supporters of Jihad. And of course, seeing how British and French Muslims are 30 times as rich as Indian Muslims, shouldn’t France and Britain have Islamic pestilence 30 times lower than India? But none of the research shows that — and the prevalence of Islamism among British and French Muslims is not any lower compared to Pakistani and Bengali Muslims. Doesn’t this blow up the whole “poor Indian Muslim terrorist” narrative of the secular and leftist Indian idiots?
Although support for terrorism is high all across the entire Muslim world, the support that terrorists have among educated Muslims is particularly worrying. This might seem counter-intuitive to many who have heard the lies and propaganda about education solving terrorism, but for any rational mind it would be very obvious and logical. The truth of the matter is, any Jihadist attack requires a massive amount of technological mastery to pull it off. A common poor Muslim peasant will not be able to work with and successfully explode sophisticated bombs, nor would he have access to or ability to use the high-tech gadgets needed to co-ordinate the attacks.
Most terrorist attacks happen due to intelligence lapses — meaning that most terrorist attacks slip through intelligence agencies which are themselves very well equipped. To launch an attack, terrorists need a high level of sophistication to slip through the intelligence network. Operating this equipment requires reasonable technical skills which the uneducated poor usually lack. Also, unlike the poor, the middle-class Muslim doesn’t have to worry about feeding his family, which leaves him free to rush and die for the cowardly Jihadist acts in the name of their psycho god.
Indians are just waking up to the menace of Islamic terrorism and have been thoroughly brainwashed by the media into believing that the source of Muslim extremism is poverty and lack of education. But the studies above clearly show that more educated Muslims will only make the problem even more severe. The educated Muslims will be more inclined to use violence to attain the political aim of Dar-ul-Islam in India. Jinnah, who was a barrister at the time of independence, very well defended the rapes and murders unleashed by the Muslim League on Direct Action Day. One should not expect it to get any better in the future.
The list of Indians travelling to Syria to fight on the side of ISIS has been going up for some time. If you carefully look at the education and social background of these wannabe toilet-cleaners (oops — Jihadis!) of ISIS, you will realize that all of them come from well-to-do families and have higher education. Mehdi Masroor Biswas, who was handling a pro-ISIS handle on Twitter, was a Bangalore-based engineer.
So while India’s leaders might try to sell the snake oil that everything will be fine once all Muslims are educated, it is only going to get worse as they learn better bomb-making skills in government-funded engineering schools. The large number of well-educated European-bred ISIS terrorists, born to second or third generation immigrants, should open the eyes of secular Indians that their fate would be no different. Indians can pretend that Islamism and terrorism will suddenly vanish through economic growth, but it is just wishful thinking. If anything, the arguments and data presented above only show that the real Islamic threat to India will only worsen as economic growth picks up and Indian Muslims become wealthier to wage war for their barbaric ideology without worrying about daily bread and butter.
Dowry is the favourite topic which raises immediate alarm among deracinated Indians, specially the youth who are brainwashed into believing that dowry system is evil and misogynistic and why we need feminism to fight against it. More often than not, these people tend to be young with no sense of real world and live in an urban area. They can be heard and seen writing against how evil dowry is on the internet and how they will neither give nor take it. But dowry is a lot more nuanced issue than many think it to be. It is not all black and white and is certainly not evil as displayed in media, academia and films. It is a sad commentary on how badly the narrative is rigged and dominated by the lunatic feminist academia and mainstream media. Even very simple analysis of the dowry system will poke holes into the whole propaganda, including the claims that it is a war on women. The propaganda is so massive that governments after governments refuse to even look into the issue even though the lopsided 498A law has sent millions of families to ruins since overwhelming majority of cases registered under 498A are false, to the tune of 90%. So, what is the truth behind dowry. Let’s analyse:
Dowry is girl’s share in paternal property
In the original Hindu culture (and indeed most religious customs), sons inherited most of the wealth of the parents. The parents of the bride used to give dowry to their son-in-law, as they would transfer their own wealth to their sons. For example, if a family has a total wealth of 10 lakh Rupees, they will give 5 lakh Rupees as dowry to find a groom of similar status while giving 5 lakh rupees as inheritance to their sons. Of course, the son being the presumed owner of 5 lakh inheritance, he usually received 5 lakh as dowry for himself when he gets married. So in total the wealth remained more or less equal, provided everything was equal- the status of bride and groom. But this dowry system could also be used in a way to give a better life to daughter by finding a better groom for 6 lakh dowry rather than just 5 lakh dowry, thus leaving the son with only 4 lakh inheritance and hence only able to get a girl of 4 lakh dowry for himself. Given that Hindu society of the old was agricultural in nature and had strict laws against marrying within ones village, dowry was a perfect system to keep ancestral property i.e. land with the sons since they did not leave the village. While girl child would get gold and other transferable property, the son usually got the land.
Some people might object to the division of ancestral property in the above example as equal while it is unequal in the real world. But in the same real world, girls were also not supposed to take care of their old parents. Since the sons were supposed to help their old parents, they naturally got higher share in ancestral property. Also if a girl got lower share in her ancestral property through dowry, her husband got higher share in his ancestral property thus nullifying the overall effect on their family wealth.
If dowry objectifies women, it equally objectifies men
While this system on surface seems like it is objectifying women by associating a price for their marriage, it is very far away from truth. The price tag of dowry does not come from wealth alone. If a groom is very good guy with no bad habits, a good job and a good degree, then he is much more likely to get a better dowry than simply because of his family’s wealth. This is exactly opposite for the groom, who is a known alcoholic with no stable job and is general burden for the society. He is unlikely to get any dowry at all for his marriage. Actually it would be a great achievement for such a person to get married!! So if dowry is objectification of women, then it should also be seen as objectification of men. Men are objectified for their behaviour, job, wealth, status and family wealth. The truth of the matter is, the bride’s family is willing to pay the bribe precisely because they think the groom is worth the dowry they pay him. Isn’t that objectification of groom by putting a price tag on him? So why don’t the men go around complaining that they are getting objectified?
The truth is, the world sees someone for what he/she is worth to the world. This is reflected in the dowry system too. A groom with good looks, good job, good status, good family will be more guaranteed to provide a good life for the bride and hence the bride’s family tries to lock him up for their daughter with dowry. Similarly beautiful, more cultured girls, and these days even working girls with good education (specially in more developed states like Tamil Nadu, Maharastra, Gujarat etc) etc will have higher demand than the ugly or uneducated girls and hence would be able to match with ideal grooms with much less dowry than ugly and uneducated girls. While it is politically correct to mince words on this issue and dance around this fact to protect the presumed sensibilities of the easily offended snowflakes, who prefer emotions of how innocent all women are and how evil all men are, it is much more important to confront this issue.
Hence, dowry is a complex system of measuring and price gauging both bride and groom’s worth and is a way for the parents to give their girl children their wealth. But since dowry always goes from brides to grooms, does this not mean that dowry is inherently misogynistic? Of course not. The groom already brings his own inheritance as wealth to the family the new couple will start while the bride doesn’t. So the dowry which the bride brings is only a fair contribution which the bride makes to start a new family. In simple words, grooms do bring dowry to family in the form of inheritance while brides bring dowry and no inheritance.
Changing inheritance laws will change system of dowry
But now the inheritance laws have been changed so that daughters have equal share in the properties of the parents. This largely negates the need for dowry, since bride herself brings inheritance, much like how groom’s used to bring their inheritance for starting a family. Also in some cases, the girls family might give more dowry over the inheritance if they find the groom to be worth it and it should be completely fine. They are not being forced into marrying a groom who asks for dowry but are choosing him after fully knowing that he is asking for dowry and then deciding that it is worth giving the daughter in marriage to the guy because he will take care of the girl better than some other guy who doesn’t take dowry. This is perfectly fine as long as it is voluntary.
This is also another example where it is easier to see the baseless propaganda against dowry. Lets say that there are two families A and B and they want to get married. A has 20 lakh of wealth while B has 30 lakh. A decided to marry off their daughter to son of family B giving family B 20 lakhs as dowry. As per the present propaganda, this practice of dowry is evil. Now let’s take another example where there are two families C and D where C is worth 20 lakhs while D is worth 30 lakhs. Then family C gives their daughter in marriage to son of family D but without any dowry. But after the death of family C, the daughter and hence the son-in-law inherits all the money/wealth of family C which is again 20 lakhs. Is the latter case any good or better? Is there any difference in the reality of former case of dowry vs the latter case of inheritance? Of course not, at least for people with normal logic except brain dead and brainwashed feminist zombies. So why is dowry demonized by media while inheritance of property by bride/daughter is seen as triumph of women’s rights? Does this make any sense?
Is the dowry system perfect?
If dowry is not that evil as it is portrayed in the media, does it mean it is perfect? Of course not. The problem with dowry isn’t what the feminist lunatics and social justice warriors in academia and media cry about. The problems with dowry system is the break of trust after marriage or at the cusp of marriage- whether on the groom or the bride side. Some times, the bride’s side decides to dupe the groom’s side into thinking that they would give a much larger dowry while actually they don’t. This of course is morally wrong for any unbiased observer (except feminist harpies) because it is plain cheating and breach of trust.
To put this into perspective, imagine a groom’s family cheating the bride’s family by claiming they are billionaires before marriage but the falsehood comes out before the time of marriage or after marriage. Wouldn’t the bride’s family be pissed off at groom’s family for cheating? And if the brides family comes to know that the groom isn’t as qualified as it was advertised to them or that the his claim of being a billionaire is a lie, isn’t the bride’s family justified in cancelling the wedding to save their daughter from a bad deal? Fact is neither the society not the law would think that such a cancellation of marriage was inappropriate or wrong. But imagine if the bride’s family makes false claims, including but not limited to a dowry of certain amount, and the groom’s family comes to know about this fraud, why should it be wrong for the groom’s family to cancel the marriage? Is it any different from the previous scenario except for the gender swap? So why is the latter punished for asking dowry, when girl’s family voluntarily agrees to dupe the groom’s family?
Post marriage demand of dowry is unethical
This leaves the last issue related to dowry and the one where state can intervene. The real problem with dowry starts when the groom’s family asks for more dowry from girl’s family after marriage and wilfully creates problems for the girl. This of course is completely wrong from a moral point of view as it amounts to breach of contract. Any such incidents should be punished by law without fail, if proven in court. This is where the article 498A should come into play, even though it needs tweaking in the current form to prevent its abuse. This is the only part of dowry which causes deaths and hence should be strictly prohibited and punishable.
Dowry helps less worthy girls get better grooms
But what about the fate of poor women who can’t give dowry? This is a false question designed in a way to prey on the inherent biases humans have to favour the problems of women over men, the reason why most people in India still support article 498A in current form even though it destroys nine “innocent” men for every woman it avenges, which is completely antithetical to the idea of innocent until proven guilty.
There are countless men who would of course marry without any dowry but one does not see girl’s parents queuing up to marry them. Why? Because the girl’s parents want their girls to get a good husband for a cheap price (yes, dowry is objectification of men for their job, wealth, family, status, power etc) and that’s why there is so much propaganda about the poor man not being able to find a groom for his daughter. The proper sentence or issue here is not that the poor man is not able to find a groom because of dowry, it is that the poor man is not able to find a high quality groom as per his wish because he cannot afford the high quality grooms. Of course there are men who are unemployed bums and drunkards who would be willing to marry for nothing. Why don’t the poor guys marry their daughters to them? Wouldn’t that automatically solve the dowry problem without any state intervention?
They want their daughters to marry doctors, government employees, civil servants and engineers at a low cost. But the problem is, there are other girl parents who are willing to pay lot more dowry than what the poor father will pay for these professional grooms from rich families. The statement or complaint that dowry cause poor girls to not find grooms is analogous to saying poverty ridden people in India cannot afford to buy Audi and hence Audi sales is evil. It may not be politically incorrect to say so, but this is the ground reality.
The hysteria against dowry system without actually understanding what it is is another example of how cancerous feminist ideology and women’s groups pushing for more 498A style laws in India are. They just want to increase the power of women at the expense of men. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the same anti-dowry activists who see that a doctor demanding dowry from the girl should be punished don’t ask for the punishment of the girl for insisting on marrying the doctor without bringing anything worthwhile to the table. This is not to say that money is everything and dowry has to take the form of money alone. Money is but one form of dowry, the other being good qualification, good looks of the girl etc. If the doctor demanding dowry to marry a particular bride is wrong, isn’t it equally wrong for the bride to insist on marrying a doctor i.e. a person with lots of money and respect in the society? Should men take the route of these women empowerment groups and start demanding that women marry them regardless of their qualifications and family status? If that position is ludicrous, shouldn’t the position that all dowry is evil also equally ludicrous? And if Indian parents are more than happy to put in effort and money to ensure a better future for their daughters, why should feminists complain? The west has a broken family system, but it does not mean that Indians who have good family support should also reject it.
Also read: The Entitled Middle Class Princess Syndrome
And this is another example of intellectual dishonesty by feminists. They claim that dowry is misogyny and affects only women. But they fail to acknowledge that dowry objectifies men as well, because women and their families see men as wage earning, high status serving machines which come with a price tag. Turning it into gender war is completely bogus. How is dowry, which is for the overwhelming majority, worked and earned by men (brother or father of the bride) and given to groom’s family (usually the mother of the groom) oppression of women?
For all the loud noise made against dowry for the past 50 years, fact is that the propaganda did not change zilch on the ground. This itself should have forced any sane academic to re-analyse their theory but not feminists. The simple reason that dowry still exists is that it provides a good market mechanism to match brides and grooms. For the ivory tower feminists, it might seem as oppression but the parents who want better life for their daughters use dowry as a way to marry them with better groom in a better household. Since they care for reality rather than ideology, they hardly pay any heed to this intense propaganda.
In case you want to know what dowry you should demand, check this. Also watch the below video by Madhu Kishwar to get more nuanced idea about this issue. In one part of the video she calls it groom price rather than dowry!!
The liberalization of world trade under WTO has made the policy of tariff barriers redundant. Countries are no longer allowed to impose discriminatory taxes on imports to help domestic manufacturers or favour specific countries or regions.
Given the inability of countries to support their home industries through direct tariffs, there has been a rapid increase in use of non-tariff measures (NTM). Some NTMs are instruments of commercial policy, while others are justified through non-trade objectives such as environmental protection or food safety.
One of the early examples cited is a blanket restriction on Ayurvedic medicines in the US and Europe based on safety rules and minimum years of documented use.
The article also discusses US restrictions on Mexican tuna based on dolphin-protection rules and the requirement of a Dolphin-Safe label.
These examples show how countries can invoke domestic standards to discriminate against imports. NTMs require careful planning but can still restrict the free movement of goods.
Technical Barriers to Trade and Sanitary and Phytosanitary standards may erode the competitive advantage of developing countries in labour-intensive and agricultural exports.
The article argues that the West has promoted free trade through global bodies such as the WTO while simultaneously developing indirect mechanisms to protect domestic industries.
The Indian mainstream media cries foul every time common citizens question their credibility. But the MSM has to blame only itself for all this loss of reputation as their partial and half baked reporting is the sole reason behind distrust among the masses.
Finally the truth has come out and the forensic lab has found out that the meat found in the fridge of Akhlaq was indeed beef from cow or its progeny.
This finding on the Dadri incident increases the list of sham incidents promoted by MSM to malign Modi government and creating atmosphere of hatred in the country.
The Dadri incident highlights everything that is wrong with MSM. While they will go over the top over one single incident to highlight atrocity against Muslims, they will completely ignore large scale riots like in Malda or recently in West Medinipur.
A sane media could have very well avoided creating mass hysteria around the Dadri incident and animosity between the two communities. Rather than cornering Akhilesh government on its record on law and order in UP, the media jumped on the bandwagon to bash Modi government for a random incident.
Now the media will try to spin the argument and make it a debate on beef ban. But beef ban is nothing new and has been enforced for past many decades when BJP was not even in power.
The last article in this series discussed the anti-poor arguments used by the Indian left to oppose GMO adoption, but similar paranoia is also present on the Indian right wing. This article will show why the paranoia of the Right wingers against GMOs is unwarranted.
Given that majority of the materials on the internet and that larger media is very biased against GMOs, it is not surprising that many on the right wing in India have also digested this propaganda. GMO crops seem to have done the seemingly impossible task of uniting the pro-Hindu, pro-development, pro-progress camp of Modi/BJP supporters with the pro-intellectual dishonesty, pro-poverty, anti-science, pro-misery communists of India. While props can be given for the non partisan nature of their opposition to GMO crops, it still doesn’t make their stance any less wrong. The most important problem against the GMO crops the Right wing in India has is that it is not a Swadesi product and they have been brainwashed into believing that GMO crops are bad for the country as it is being introduced by foreign corporations. This is not true and as explained in the previous article, GMO is not about Monsanto and a Swadeshi GMO company can equally rise up and serve the market. The only condition for this it that GMO companies are allowed to spring up in India. Eventually, Indians would absorb the technology and set up their own GMO tech conglomerates pretty quickly, just like they did with Micromax, Hero motor corp etc.
Second but most important allegation the naturalists in the right wing camp have against the GMO crops is that it is unnatural and hence is unsafe and bad. But this is scientifically inaccurate and reeks of mysticism the right wing is usually associated with. Despite the massive efforts by the online RW intellectual community to wash away the negative connotation that right wing is anti-science, these vocal minorities within right wing are desperate to prove them wrong. Their opposition to GMO crops is eerily similar to the bible thumping idiots of the western countries who oppose Stem cell research because “how dare the unwashed masses play with God’s creation?” and how “only god engineered natural products are good and man made products are bad”. This stance of the vocal minority of the RW opposition to GMO crops is not even valid if one looks at the history of agriculture. None of the crops which are cultivated in the world are ” pure “, like the naturalists in the anti-GMO camo believe.
Just like how humans domesticated dogs, pigs and cattle from wild wolves and boars, the present day agricultural crops are domesticated versions of wild cereals. Dogs and wolves belong to the same species-Canis Lupus but no one would think that they are the same species by looking at them nor would anyone think that dogs were genetically selected(engineered) variety of wolves. This is because many humans today are used to the idea of dogs being around them and have no idea that the dogs we see today are carefully selected pro-human wolf breeds when humans first started their primitive societies. While wolves were natural enemies of man and hence actively avoided man and fought him, certain wolves were much less anti-human and followed him around as the remains of man’s hunt was an easy source of food for them. Such breeds of wolves were taken up by men and carefully bred for their pro-human characteristic in such a way that after thousands of generations, such wolves became dogs and natural allies of man. This was a two way relationship as humans were good at killing prey while dogs were good at spotting prey and thus the relationship gave survival advantage to both and hence both prospered. The point being, even Man’s best friend is a product of genetic selection over a vast period time and if we go by the naturalist argument that humans should not use genetic selection or engineering, we should get rid of dogs, cereal, pulses etc because most of the cereals we use are products of careful selection and hence unnatural.
And technically speaking, natural does not equate to good nor does artificial equate to bad. This is a fundamentalist stance on issues with no basis on reality. For instance, humans neither have the furs to survive in the Arctic nor the uric acid adaptation that reptiles have to survive the deserts but humans have colonised both regions of the world. The way they did it is not by chanting naturalist mantra and hoping that cold or heat does not get us but by using the tools we have to engineer our safe spots and create our own shelters. This is what humans do to survive and this is what made them the dominant species on the planet. If humans ancestors were as dogmatic and fundamentalist in their natural-artificial debate, they would not have even left the caves. Actually they would not have even made it to the caves from the trees. So its pretty hypocritical, to write, think and believe about how GMO crops are anti-natural and hence bad, while living in a house built by man using artificial engineering, growing crops which were selected by man for their value and not really natural by any means, using computers and mobiles which are not natural and still complain that GMO crops are bad because they are not natural.
Another problem with this natural-unnatural argument is that there are many poisons in the world which are natural from snake poisons to poisonous plants like fox glove, datura etc. Since the naturalistic argument against GMOs is that it is artificial and hence it is bad, doesn’t that mean we should only look to things which are natural? Does that mean that only naturally occurring goods should be used? Is that even a valid argument to make from iphones and PCs? Or for that matter, is there any reason to think natural substances like foxglove, datura , scorpion sting, snake poison can be consumed without any deleterious effect?
This type of argument has become distressingly common these days with massive propaganda for organic foods and against the use of fertilizers and pesticides. There is no evidence to suggest that organic food is better for health than ones produced by fertilizers and pesticides even though the organic food is supposed to be glorious natural phenomena. What’s worse these people associate any chemical with bad and throw out big chemical names around as if it is bad. One should remember how easy it is to be manipulated into believing something is bad by looking the Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax where an Australian member of Parliament recommended action against dihydrogen monoxide, which causes cancer, kills 100% of the people who consume it and is present in almost all of the food items consumed today, only for the dihydrogen monoxide to turn out to be chemical name of “water”.
The propaganda against the GMO crops and the allegations of poisoning the soil by fertilizers is not any different. The fertilizers used today have lead to an increase in yields and there is no evidence to link their use to any human ailment today. It is unscientific and retarded to say that since urea is bad for human health, using urea to raise crops is bad for human health as well. Plants take up urea as it has nitrogen and use them to fix nitrogen easier than they otherwise could and hence give a better and faster yield. By the time humans consume it, the urea inside plants is not really urea but rather proteins and other compounds where the nitrogen in urea is fixed. Since humans, at least the normal ones, are not going to consume loads and loads of soil per se and only eat the food grown on the soil, they are not going to be poisoned by the urea used to fertilize the plants. This is a huge topic in and of itself and is better left for its own article but the point is any such paranoia should be viewed with suspicion. This is not to say all chemicals are good either, as DDT used for insecticide had some negative effects but then again, it had proven health consequences and was subsequently banned giving valid argument. The use or restriction of use of the chemicals should be fact and research based and not based on the paranoid delusions driven by half-baked theories.
Another problem the typical right winger has with GMO crops is that it is is using genetic manipulations per se and hence it is bad. This is again a paranoid stand which is driven by ignorance more than anything else. The truth of the matter is, genetic engineering is not per se bad and has been in application outside GMO crops for a very long time now, including for mass public consumption without the public even knowing it and it is pathetic to even point this out. For instance, many people in India (and indeed the rest of the world ) don’t know that the life saving hormone insulin used today is actually produced by recombinant DNA technology. In the past the insulin came from dead pigs and cows but now, modern advances in genetics have made it so that pure insulin is manufactured from genetic engineering. The previous bovine or swine insulin had tremendous health risks and numerous problems including evnentual development of tolerance against it. But, by using recombinant DNA technology, the genes for insulin production are spliced into the DNA of bacteria and then such bacteria is allowed to grow in artificial medium and when the genes of insulin production gets translated, insulin is produced which is then harvested from bacterial cultures. So the average insulin user in the world is using bacterial products, from genetic engineering to stay alive. If we are to go by the paranoia against genetic engineering, we should ban recombinant human insulin as well because any kind of genetic engineering is bad.
The example of insulin is but only a small benefit of potential genetic engineering. Some of the most promising aspects of genetic engineering are cure for cancer and genetic diseases like haemophilia, Huntington’s chorea, Thalassemia etc. Curing such diseases involve repairing the DNA defects in genetic diseases with proper DNA so that the child does not have to die early due to lack of proper gene. One of the methods to do it is by the use of DNA agents for transferring DNA into the cells of the diseased infant. Since cells number in trillions, the feasible ways to do it is limited and one of the methods is to use viruses to infect the diseased cells and hence deliver the repaired DNA to them. The viruses in question are Adeno virus, which causes cancer in some cases, Retro virus- the same virus family which causes AIDS, bacteriophages which cause certain bacteria to be virulent etc. Should such genetic research be stopped because it uses such dangerous vectors, because the average spectator has no idea that the viruses are used only after their generic material for causing diseases are already spliced out and hence are harmless?
So the blind fear-mongering that genetic engineering per se is bad and causes destruction is just stupidity and ignorance passing off as caution. While it is true that nobody should be forced to use products they don’t like or want, it is dangerous to prevent people, who do want a new product, from getting it just because of the ignorance and arrogance of the group which doesn’t want to use it. The fear-mongering is sometimes so bad that they throw around unscientific accusations that the GMO crops will end up being mixed with normal crops. This is not scientifically accurate. There has been no demonstrable study which shows that it is possible. It is in some ways inconsistent with the leftist claim that GMO crops cannot be cultivated without the seeds given by corporations, because if the GMO crops can’t grow by themselves, how are they going to pollinate and pollute normal crops? So some people are going to always oppose GMO clutching to one of the sides of this argument-if GMO seeds are not recultivable they would cite that corporations are exploiting farmers. On the other hand, if firms allow regermination of seeds, they will cry about how GMO crops are cross-pollinating other normal crops. As you can see, you can never win an argument against such people who want to win in both cases.
Also, another very important aspect which people have almost missed in the GMO debate is the progress on genetic research. Profits from GMO industry will feed back again into general genetic research and thus improving the whole field over time. This would help in finding cures for many of the currently untreatable diseases. By saying no to GMO we are not only restricting access of technology to poor farmers, who might have no problem in adopting it, but are also jeopardizing future research on very important issues. The Bible retards can continue blocking “Stem cell” and other genetic research citing creationism but this should not stop the rational Indians to not understand the benefits of this technology.
Many Indians don’t know that India has the largest area under cultivation for any country in the world(see above table), while also having the largest time window for cultivation but its food production does not reflect this abundance. The biggest reason for low per hectare yields of Indian agriculture is the lack of farm modernity. Since most farmers are marginal in India and have very small land holdings, their ability to use high yield techniques is very limited since many modern techniques have high initial cost associated with them. So the introduction of GMO crops can help offset at least some of the negatives with Indian agriculture today. Some GMO crops can be genetically modified to use less water and withstand droughts which can help in expanding the areas under cultivation in India, to even places which would otherwise be non-cultivable. GMO crops can be genetically engineered to produce Vitamin A or other such micro-nutrients within them which can help in preventing vitamin deficiency and the resulting blindnesses in poor Indian children. When the country is malnourished to the tune of 50%, it is a cruel joke to prevent potential technologies which would increase the yield and quality of agriculture. If the uninformed middle class and top elites and scaremongering lunatics on the left are so threatened by things they don’t know, they are free to not adopt GMO crops and can actively avoid them by demanding to label GMO products explicitly like the current green vegetarian mark on food packets. But they should stop burdening the already impoverished, malnourished poor children of India, who would stand to benefit immensely from food fortification and better quality food produced by GMO crops, just for the sake of their ideology and paranoia.
It has not even been a month since West Bengal elected TMC, West Bengali Hindus are already being subjected to riots in West Medinipur.
Large scale violence erupted in West Medinipur district after an altercation broke out between Hindus and Muslims. Many shops and houses of Hindus have been torched in the aftermath of this incident. Bikes and cars have been torched and there has been huge damage caused to public and private property.
According to local sources, heavy police force has been deployed but situation is still very tense.
As per some reports, loud speakers from mosques are heard saying that this is the last time Hindus will have their peaceful nights and that Hindus will be killed thereafter.
The tribal Hindus along with some locals have supposedly started to retaliate against these attacks and reserve police have been deployed there to prevent further escalation of the riots.
West Bengal gave enormous mandate to Mamta Banerjee even after TMC mishandled the Malda riots and did not take any action against the rioting Muslims.
The recent decision by the Government to allow GMO crops to be manufactured and researched in India has predictably angered the brainless leftist communist zombies in the country. The left opposes GMO under the garb of opposing corporatisation of the farming industry in the west and the socialist zombies in India, lacking the brain of their own as usual, have copied the western template to build momentum against GMO here in India. However, it is frightening to see that even the right wing Indians, who are usually more rational and make informed choices, also seem to have taken up and internalised the propaganda against GMO crops and oppose it out of paranoia against the western products and labelled GMO as part of Videshi colonisation. The overwhelming majority of the materials on the internet is against the use of GMO crops and is usually based on half-educated, paranoid and pseudo-scientific drivel with no basis of reality whatsoever. Read about some of the common misconceptions about GMO here.
Why the left opposes GMO?
The most important reason the communist zombies oppose the introduction of GMO crops is that it is just another form of foreign imperialism and as per their intellectual leanings, any form of foreign investment, except those that directly fund the communist anti-development elements in the country like Naxals, anti-Kudandkulam protesters, anti-Narmada Dam protesters etc, is bad for the country whether or not such position reflects reality. Of course, much like any socialist stance on pretty much any topic, this does not reflect reality and one can clearly see the lies when logically analysing the issue.
Next and equally baseless allegation that the left makes against GMO is that it will lead to destruction of alternative non-GMO crops and GMO corporations will monopolize the crop and seed market. This is again far removed from reality because the ultimate decision on what seed to use is again going to lie with the farmers. This myth is so prevalent today that it goes completely unchallenged in most TV debates and commentaries on this issue. But this is simply not true as having IPR does not mean people are forced to use a product if it is not beneficial. No matter how many GMO crops are introduced into the market, the ultimate decision on whether or not to use them is going to be with farmers and not the corporate heads of the GMO crops. No one has the power to force GMO crops on the farmers as Indian markets are still fairly free and the government democratic and neither is run by reality denying socialist zombies to force farmers into using the crops they really don’t want to grow themselves. Yes, advertisements can entice farmers to adopt a new technology but they won’t stick with the new technology unless it benefits them more compared to the older variety of crops.
So how will it work on the ground? If the farmers in India find that the extra yields from GMO crops are very good and give high profits clearly offsetting the extra initial down payment in the form of buying GMO seeds, then they will plant GMO crops in larger numbers next crop cycle and the word of mouth would result in even larger numbers of farmers adopting GMO crops to increase their yields. If the GMO crops prove to be nothing but hot air and do not lead to increase in yield to justify the higher cost of GMO seeds, then the farmers would just stop buying the high cost seeds and go back to the traditional seeds for cultivation, because they are smart and have a brain unlike the socialist zombies who lack common sense. So, the destruction of alternate and better non-GMO varieties by GMO crops hardly makes any sense.
As such, without any government or socialist intervention, the GMO crops would find their place in the society and market through simple profit and loss arithmetic. The best example for such adoption is Gujarat. When rest of India decided to say no to BT cotton, ably brainwashed by the anti-GMO activists about the evils of corporate BT seeds, the then Gujarat government under the then CM and current PM Modi openly adopted BT cotton. It was one of the reasons why a semi-desert state like Gujarat was so successful in out producing Maharashtra, the traditional leader in cotton production.
The worst allegation by the communist intellectuals against GMO crops is that it is anti-poor. This is particularly pathetic allegation to make because by denying a chance to cultivate GMO crops, which have the potential to even be engineered to fight poor rainfall and poor irrigation, the leftists deny the right of poor farmers to cultivate right crop varieties that suit their climatic and soil condition to maximise their profits. It is disgusting to see that the same fake intellectuals go on mainstream TV and claim as champions of farmers after denying their right to modern technology in the name of opposing corporations. Normal people should ask themselves is allowing poor farmers to starve and condemning them to perpetual poverty by denying them access to modern technology , one of which is GMO crops, really a good thing for India and poor Indian farmers, all because of the buzzword of anti-corporatisation created by the braindead communist elite?
Another claim against GMO crops is that these crops come with associated intellectual property rights(IPR)and will be bad for Indian farmers and industry. One can look at the evidence from past where Indian markets allowed foreign players to operate and see if this statement holds any water. For example, when motor bikes were introduced in India by Suzuki, Kawasaki, Honda etc, did it lead to monopoly by any of them? Now the bike industry is filled with Indian manufacturers like TVS, Bajaj motors, Hero as well and they have taken a sizeable share of the market and eliminated the threat of any western monopoly. Or take the case of mobile phones in the Indian market. When the smart phones were introduced in Indian market, the only manufacturers of them were Korean and Japanese companies and one or two American companies but today Micromax has risen up as a valid competitor to these foreign companies, along with several other desi alternatives, again crushing the argument that opening of the market to foreign corporations will lead to monopoly. Or take the case of TV sets some 20 years back before liberalisation of Indian markets. The inky TV sets in India manufactured by Solitaire were awful in quality. Compare how liberalising the markets in the consumer goods led to widespread fall in price of TV sets along with less monopoly and better quality available for the average Indian consumer.
The important point to note here is that none of the Indian companies like Hero, Bajaj, Mocromax, Dish TV etc would have been able to become world class like they are now without actually exposing them to open market and global economy and competition. Another very important example to note is the effect that open markets have had on Indian Pharma industry and how it has grown so big that it is giving American companies nightmares on just hearing the world Indian Pharma, which was not possible before 1991. The same will be the case with GMO crops too, and opening the markets to them will help tremendously in creation of Swadesi GMO corporations and if India plays its cards right, India will become an unquestioned leader of the GMO market in the future, specially given the fact that many ideological stunted clowns around the world have taken an opposition to GMO based on paranoia and hence Indians will face little competition whatsoever in the next big future of the agriculture industry.
The same IPR argument is sometimes twisted by quoting the market power of evil Monsanto which will crush the poor farmers due to high prices it will charge for GMO seeds. Suddenly with the mention of Monsanto, the leftists manage to divert the argument from market based solution to fight against one evil capitalist firm called Monsanto. But market power depends on how open the field is for competition. Given above examples, there is no reason to believe that Indian firms cannot compete with foreigners given that the GMO industry is still in nascent stage and has to see a lot of development. The Pharma industry again serves a good example on how India can move ahead on GMO policy. GoI defied IPR on crucial drugs and helped Indian firms to manufacture cheap generics. The same template can be applied to GMO during early phases till Indian firms grow enough to challenge the western competitors and can produce cheap varieties suited for Indian markets. There is no reason to believe that with a well developed and competitive indigenous GMO market, Indian farmers would not be able to get a better deal than they are getting currently.
a1
Source: GM plants-Questions and answers, The Royal Society
Many Indians don’t know that India has the largest area under cultivation for any country in the world(see above table), while also having the largest time window for cultivation but its food production does not reflect this abundance. The biggest reason for low per hectare yields of Indian agriculture is the lack of farm modernity. Since most farmers are marginal in India and have very small land holdings, their ability to use high yield techniques is very limited since many modern techniques have high initial cost associated with them. So the introduction of GMO crops can help offset at least some of the negatives with Indian agriculture today. Some GMO crops can be genetically modified to use less water and withstand droughts which can help in expanding the areas under cultivation in India, to even places which would otherwise be non-cultivable. GMO crops can be genetically engineered to produce Vitamin A or other such micro-nutrients within them which can help in preventing vitamin deficiency and the resulting blindnesses in poor Indian children. When the country is malnourished to the tune of 50%, it is a cruel joke to prevent potential technologies which would increase the yield and quality of agriculture. If the uninformed middle class and top elites and scaremongering lunatics on the left are so threatened by things they don’t know, they are free to not adopt GMO crops and can actively avoid them by demanding to label GMO products explicitly like the current green vegetarian mark on food packets. But they should stop burdening the already impoverished, malnourished poor children of India, who would stand to benefit immensely from food fortification and better quality food produced by GMO crops, just for the sake of their ideology and paranoia.
The next article in this series will counter the anti-GMO propaganda digested by those on the Indian Right.
PM Modi recently went to Iran and went over the top praising Sufism for teaching love and brotherhood. Sadly, historical facts completely refute his assertion as Sufism did more damage to native faiths than any other form of Islam by selling the poison called Islam by honey coating it. Sufism was not a real sect but a small cooked up sect which was artificially manufactured to serve as part of Islam’s diplomatic outreach. There was no Sufi emperor in India because there was never a Sufi emperor in the history of humanity. It was simply a propaganda department created to whitewash the brutal image of Islam. Even ‘secular’ Akbar slaughtered 6 lakh Hindus while still being under the influence of Sufi Saint Mounundin Chisti.
Have you ever seen photographs of American soldiers distributing food to poor Afghans? That’s basically what Sufism was- an obfuscation of the invader’s real intent. Do you ever wonder why there is only American empire and puppet nations but no such thing as ‘Kingdom of philanthropy’ anywhere on the planet, despite seeing so many images of American philanthropy? No- but why? Because that would be plain stupid. It is the same with Sufism. It is not real but only an attempt at obscurantism. It was just a medieval way to conduct diplomacy.
Just a few months ago, a popular Sufi announced a reward for the head of Kamlesh Tiwari. If that is love and brotherhood taught by Sufism, then everyone is better off without it. Sufism is nothing but cloak for Wahhabis to be wolf in sheep’s clothing. Below is important historical information on how Sufis accompanied invading armies of Islam in India by Ram Ohri and Purushootam:
Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer had accompanied the army of Shihabuddin Ghori and finally settled down at Ajmer in the year 1233 A.D.
Khawaja Qutubuddin came to Delhi in the year 1236 in the train of Shihabuddin Ghori and stayed on to further the cause of Islam.
Sheikh Nizamuddin Auliya of Dargah Hazrat Nizamuddin came to Delhi in the year 1335 accompanying a contingent of the Muslim
Sheikh Faridudin came to Pattan (now in Pakistan) in the year 1265.
Additionally, the famous Sufi Shihabuddin Suhrawardy of Baghdad was brought to India for carrying out the missionary work of conversions by Bahauddin Zakariya of Multan several decades after the Hindu ruler had been defeated and his kingdom laid waste after large scale plunder and manslaughter.
The well known authority on Sufism, S.A.A. Rizvi has recorded in his book, ‘A History of Sufism in India’ that Nizamuddin Auliya used to unhesitatingly accept enormous gifts given to him by Khusraw Barwar which implied that the Auliya was unconcerned with the source of the gift, provided it was paid in cash. Yet the Auliya was a firm believer in the need for a Muslim’s unquestioned loyalty and obedience to the Ulema. As reiterated by K.A. Nizami, Auliya used to preach that the unbeliever is the doomed denizen of Hell. In his Khutba he would leave no one in doubt that Allah has created Paradise for the Believers and Hell for the infidels “in order to repay the wicked for what they have done”.
It is claimed in Jawahar-i-Faridi that the Khwaja had dried the two holy lakes of Annasagar and Pansela by the magical heat of Islamic spiritual power. He is even stated to have made the idol of the Hindu temple near Annasagar recite the Kalma. The Khwaja had a burning desire to destroy the rule of the brave Rajput king, Prithiviraj Chauhan, so much so that he ascribed the victory of Muhammad Ghori in the battle of Tarain entirely to his own spiritual prowess and declared that “We have seized Pithaura alive and handed him over to the army of Islam”. [Source: Siyar’l Auliya, cited by Rizvi on page 116 of ‘A History of Sufism in India’].
It was almost a taboo for Sufis, the so-called saints, to accept a Hindu ascending the throne of any kingdom during the heydays of the Muslim rule. In an example narrated by S.A.A. Rizvi on page 37 of his well researched book, The Wonder That Was India (Vol.II, Rupa & Co, 1993, New Delhi) it is pointed out that when the powerful Bengali warrior, King Ganesha captured power in Bengal in the year 1415 A.D.
Ibrahim Shah Sharqi attacked his kingdom at the request of outraged Ulema and numerous Sufis of Bengal. In the ensuing strife, the leading Sufi of Bengal, Nur Qutb-i-Alam, interceded and secured a political agreement to the benefit of the Muslim community and satisfaction of Sufis.
Under dire threat, King Ganesha was forced to abdicate his throne in favour of his 12 year old son, Jadu, who was converted to Islam and proclaimed as Sultan Jalaluddin – to the satisfaction of the Sufi masters. Similarly Sultan Ahmed Shah of Gujarat (1411-42), though a practitioner of Sufi philosophy, was a die hard iconoclast who took delight in destroying temples, as stated in the same tome, by S.A.A. Rizvi. The Sultan also used to force the Rajput chieftains to marry their daughters to him so that they would become outcastes in their own community. And the endgame of the Sultan could as well be that perhaps some of the outcaste Rajputs might then opt to become Muslims.
No Muslim, nor any Sufi, has ever agreed to worship in a Hindu temple, nor make obeisance before the images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Unfortunately due to relentless colonization of the Hindu mind during 1000 years long oppressive Muslim rule, the Hindu masses till date have failed to realize that the so-called Sufi philosophy of religious harmony is a one-way street. This trend of Hindus praying at tombs and dargahs has been nurtured by the strong undercurrent of belief in spiritualism among Hindu masses, even educated classes. That is the crux of the matter.
The west has done an interesting experiment to undermine Islam which a lot of people haven’t realized. They started promoting Muslim pop-culture icons as a means to override the conventional message of political Islam with the hip version of modern Islam. There are youtube channels dedicated to designer Hijabs, halal restaurants, halal make up brands and other cool stuff, which are being promoted behind the scenes by the agencies. It’s basically the promotion of capitalism through other means. Basically, they smartly tried to strip Muslims of their political thought to reduce the idea of being a Muslim to simply appearance.
By promoting these hip Muslim icons like Zidane they are providing a template to Muslim youth to emulate in such a way that being a Muslim is nothing more than simply roaming around in the cosplay of a muslim, while simultaneously installing the western DNA in their brains. It worked fine for a while then it backfired when these same hip icons reverted back to echoing the voices of political Islam.
Compare this:
With this:
Moral of the story is that west is only deluding themselves by thinking that these people will change. The doctrine of ideological subversion or ‘Disha Bhool’ that west is trying doesn’t work on people whose philosophy is like ‘Kutte ki poonch’ i.e. dog’s tail.
West is giving them education, food, electricity, roads, respect and accepting them as their own. But it doesn’t matter to these people, no matter whichever country they have immigrated to, as they will always hold the opinion that the Islamic society which they came from is superior to the one where they are presently living, simply by virtue of being Islamic.
Don’t confuse an ideology’s fate with the number of its current adherents. The Mongols were non-Muslim and yet they led to the spread of Islam because the descendants of Chengiz Khan adopted Islam. Same way, conventionally declared Muslim nations might be under siege but the ideology is spreading itself elsewhere. Check the statistics of adherents who have taken up Islam in the western world. It’s not alarming yet but it’s showing a growing trend as Islam uses pop culture icons to lure liberals to the religion by making it sound hip. It’s not uncommon to see western women embrace it like a fashion statement.
Islamic pop culture liberalism is to the west what Sufism was to India when it was invaded. These are obscurantist tactics being used to market an ideology while shielding the underlying core ideology from criticism. The Sufi saints who came to India existed at the same time when Akbar was slaughtering Hindus, but Hindus couldn’t figure it out because they were mesmerized by the Sufi mystics while being butchered by Ghazi Muslims. Same way the US today is mesmerized by the liberal ideology (same way as Indian liberals are mesmerized by ‘philanthropic’ Christian NGOs). The ideology has metamorphosed into another form (liberalism), buying time for conventional Islam to regroup, organize and grow. Combine the number of converts with the numbers that Muslim immigrants in western countries are contributing by breeding more momins and you have a very grim picture.
Think about why the PM of Britain invites Sri Sri for a spiritual event in his country. Is it out of reverence for Sri Sri? Obviously not. It’s because they are worried about the attrition rate of people leaving Christianity to join Islam given its growing influence. In that context, realpolitik dictates that if the west cannot control the attrition then they would rather let the dissidents move towards Hinduism than Islam, just like Ambedkar asked people to move towards Buddhism instead of Abrahamic faiths. Check this:
It is a fact that Islam is growing rapidly in the West. In the U.S. alone the number of Muslims has risen dramatically, from about 10,000 in 1900 to 3 million or more in 1991 (some authorities say 4.5 million). Most of this growth is due to recent immigration and the high birth rate of Muslims (5 children per family on average), rather than to conversion. Still, the number of those who convert to Islam is significant. In the U.S., the majority are African-American (a third of all Muslims according to most authorities), but there have also been significant numbers of Anglos to convert as well, many of them well-educated.
What is motivating people to turn to Islam? A recent article in Christianity Today reported that in the U.S., the average age of those converting to Islam (31) is about twice that for conversion to Christian faith (age 16). It listed five main reasons given for becoming Muslim: Islam’s doctrine is simple and rational, all believers are equal, it is a practical religion, and lacks a priesthood. These “reasons” merely parrot the arguments Muslim apologists use to propagate Islam.
India too has its own pop culture where Khans are promoted as suave modern Muslims through Bollywood. But every now and then they show their true colours by bashing Hindu traditions and paganism. Given these parallelisms one can easily identify the connection between Muslim pop culture of today with Sufism of the medieval period. Both are equally dangerous as they fool the regular folks by selling peaceful image of Muslims thus lowering their guard against the core ideology of Islam, which wants to convert or obliterate all the kafirs.
Many Hindus on the right wing spectrum often blame the socialists and Marxists in India for being coolies of Russians and Soviet Union but for some reason they remain oblivious to the role played by west in creating and destabilising India using its coolies here and the Indian Americans. Has anyone wondered why most of the destructive memes which make it to Indian discourse like liberalism, secularism, feminism, MRA etc have their origin in the west?
The truth is, most of the destructive politics of India are actually supported by the west and not Russia alone as many American fanboys would like Hindus to believe. In fact, almost all the daughters and sons of the leaders of Communist parties and Congress do their studies and have properties outside India. And unsurprisingly they all choose US or western Europe rather than their darling Russia for these activities because they know deep down how pathetic a socialist styled government and economy like Russia really looks like.
Many Indian Americans carefully support US agenda rather than India and actively help in maligning India’s image and sabotaging its interest. Most of the destructive ideologies have a strong backing in the west from the Indian Americans, who have completely internalized the leftist rhetoric themselves. For instance, Hindu Americans overwhelmingly support the leftists, who are the biggest anti-India force in the US. They are far more likely to identify with left wing politics than any other Asian demographics even though they form the richest immigrant group in US. They are also more than happy to jump on the bandwagon of the anti-white men gang in the west without thinking twice even though their position as being a better off group compared to whites would make their stance very hypocritical and ironic.
They are also big supporters of the feminist movement in the USA. Without any context they copy the same template of blaming white men in the west and use it in India to blame Hindu upper caste men especially Brahmins and cry about upper caste male privilege. But unlike the western whites who oppressed rest of the world during the colonial era, Hindu men never had any power in their own country for the past 200 years. It is intellectual dishonesty to apply the same model to them. Even their feminist meme in India is no different and is just a carbon copy of the ideology developed by their intellectually stunted sisters in the west.
The recent case of support for the various land lease programs for the USA by these coolies should be another issue which should raise red flags for any true Hindu patriot and the extend to which the infestation by brown coolies run inside Indian political space. These people shamelessly push the western narrative and US agenda over India. Apparently, they don’t seem to see that the biggest supporter of Pakistan is still the USA and that USA is the reason India hasn’t punished Pakistan till today. Any rational Hindu should see this as a red flag when they see Pakistan being used as condom by the Americans and they still peddle that India become a client state of the US citing some grand strategy. Of course, while it is prudent to use US for getting high tech and weaponry if it is in our advantage, it should not come at the cost of autonomy and sovereignty as is the case with many policies which these coolies advocate.
Most of the right wing intelligentsia today seem to be reformed former white coolies now coming off as turncoats. The list is long. While these people at least claim to have reformed, the coolies working for New York Times and Washington Post keep peddling the western narratives for their jobs and bread. These people pimp their motherland and their own community for the bread crumbs their white masters throw at them and for advancing quickly in their careers. They bark when their masters ask them to bark and bite when asked to bite without using their own brain. While legitimate criticism should be welcomed from any person, agenda driven nonsense to break India should not be tolerated and almost all of these vile pimps do nothing more than useless propaganda.
For instance, the coverage of rapes in India by both the Indian American coolies writing for left wing western media like New York Times and Guardian and the evangelist right wing western media like Washington Post should give ample evidence on the nature of their bias and reporting. If indeed the western filth and their brown coolies are really interested in saving women from rapes, should they not look at their own homes and societies where the rapes are 1000% more than India in per capita terms? The truth is that they are just playing their part of being brown coolies pushing the agenda of their white masters.
These brown coolies care so much about their careers and fame that they can sell their culture and support British even for glorifying poverty in movies. They wholeheartedly support such initiatives rather than pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of British, who are the very cause of this poverty in India. Look at how they celebrated a third grade film like Slumdog millionaire where it caricatured Indians as rapist, casteist, racist and fascists and how it took a western program like ‘Who wants to be a millionaire’ to save the native poverty ridden unwashed Indian boy from slums.
While Non-Aligned Movement(NAM) was a big failure and India ended up embracing USSR on most policies, this time India should not fall into the same trap. The brown coolies want India to be a side-kick of US, which should be avoided at all costs. The way forward is to give issue based support and milk the system rather than fall for irrational love for any country. This would only be possible when India stops wholesale import of destructive western ideologies sold under the garb of modernity. India and Indians need their own set of policies based on what’s good and suitable for them, not what is prescribed for them by the decaying, dying, single mother ridden putrid west. India should be the head of its own Indosphere like how it was 1000 years back, not a client of the American thugs like the brown coolies are advocating now.
The myth of “Peaceful Indian Muslim” is carefully nurtured and sustained by the fake secularism practised in India. Whenever there is an attempt by anyone to uncover this veil, there are liberals who come up with fancy theories like Islamophobia to prevent the enlightenment of Muslim masses. What can be more sad than even a well-read, intelligent person feeling that telling this truth amounts to “making Muslims feel persecuted.” Well, if a person holds wrong ideas he needs to be confronted one day or the other. Would you also say that arresting rapists is incorrect because it amounts to singling them out? As a civilized society there is a red line that no one is allowed to cross. Gloating over the massacre of kafirs is not a civilized idea to espouse, and people need to confront those who do it instead of finding excuses.
Unless Indian history textbooks tell their students about the atrocities perpetuated by Muslims on Dharmics, they will continue to look at that atrocious period as their “glorious past” — and the more they romanticize it, the more difficult they will find it to come to terms with contemporary realities. It is THIS dissonance which leads to terrorism. The killing of Hindus by Muslim invaders was not a glorious act and those who romanticize it are not civilized people.
So how to fight against this ideological terrorism? The answer is education — and not just school education but political education of the masses. The idea should be propagated on all information channels until it becomes common parlance. The reason Muslims take to terrorism is because they feel they lived a glorious past where they could kill Hindus, in contrast to the lacklustre life they are living now where they have to abide by the rules of the land instead of being rulers. Unless there is a concerted effort to challenge and defeat this idea, India will always face an existential threat from Muslims. Admission of Muslim atrocities should become the mainstream quintessential Indian thought. There are so many museums in Germany and Japan depicting the atrocities committed by their ancestors on innocent people. Every year Hollywood comes out with half a dozen movies showing how bad the Holocaust was. This is the template that India should follow. There should be museums depicting the atrocities instead of making Bollywood movies and books that eulogize Akbar and Tipu Sultan.
What ordinary Indians want is not something extraordinary. They simply want closure similar to the one that Germans and Japanese got when they admitted their mistakes. You can sing a thousand songs in the praise of moderate Indian Muslims, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The very fact that Hindus aren’t allowed to claim Ram Mandir is a testimony to the fact that Indian Muslims don’t adhere to a more evolved and tolerant form of Islam. Ram Janmabhoomi is to Hindus what Mecca is to Muslims — there can be no negotiation on this. Hindus have already forgotten the demolition of 40,000 temples by Muslims, but if they cannot budge on even one temple then there is no chance for reconciliation. If a case is being made that Indian Muslims are more reconciliatory in nature, where is the evidence?
Celebrating that Indian Muslims are better than the rest of their ilk is a relative and subjective benchmark. From time to time we must ask ourselves whether this “relatively good” is “good enough.” A woman journalist in Mumbai was hounded into exile by the same peaceful Muslims for reposting the Charlie Hebdo cartoon while reporting about it. Now, this act might be committed by a group of 5,000 people but the thought process is not an outlier. Same goes for the thousands — 15,000 people — who thronged the funeral of their “martyr” Yakoob Memon.
The deeper you go into the rabbit hole of Muslim extremist nexus, sooner or later you will realize that it is mainstream Islam — not a fringe, not a sect, not a twisted individual — but mainstream Islam which is responsible for all problems. One can draw artificial lines to separate them into moderates and extremists virtually speaking, but the crux of the matter is that until you are willing to admit that an ideology which at its core preaches that “everyone who disagrees with us is an enemy,” this problem will never be solved.
Like the Afghan intel chief Amarullah Saleh once said: “You will keep killing the guys in the outer circle for years and patting yourself on the back but the problem won’t be solved until you have the resolve to confront the guys in the inner circle who are running the show.” He was taunting the US for killing low-level commanders in Afghanistan but not confronting Saudi Arabia. Fake seculars are doing the same by drawing a dichotomy between gun-wielding terrorists and non-gun-wielding “peaceful chaps.” Terrorism is not about weapons — it is about ideology.
Being ruthless and killing people is not the recommended path. It is actually the “head in the sand” syndrome of fake liberals which will lead India into a civil war by not acknowledging the problem. A better way is to give closure on the atrocity issue. Include lessons of anti-Hindu atrocities in history books so that both Hindus and Muslims become aware of it and have a sense of national context instead of building their own personal victimhood narratives. Muslims claim that the Babri incident was wrong, but don’t want to concede that their co-religionist invaders captured and destroyed Hindu temples. This intellectual subversion is unacceptable. There is a need to have a frank discussion where people can put everything on the table so that everyone knows each other’s history and empathizes with the other before pointing fingers.
The more the rights of Hindus the state curtails, the more Hindu anger it will fuel — the eruption of which will lead to incidents of violence, which will lead to further radicalization and polarization on both sides. The constitution mentions secularism; it is about time that Hindus taste it too. Hindus have only been smelling it from afar while Muslims relished the entire cake of secularism.
To put it in short: India needs to take concrete steps to trash the Hindu narrative and Muslim narrative and adopt a common and reconciliatory national narrative which is acceptable to both parties — only then can people find closure and achieve peace. Otherwise these issues will keep flaring up.
There is a beautiful thesis about the fundamental difference between India and Pakistan which can be summarized in one line: “the story of Pakistan is the story of the state of Pakistan, and the story of India is the story of the people of India.” It holds true for the modus operandi of all Muslim states. The moment its citizens ask for some human rights or even basic things like water and schools, the state says “the nation is under threat and you are asking for things? You are not a true Muslim!” That is how Muslim states keep the dreams of their population suppressed. The very definition of a “true Muslim” has been fundamentally crafted in such a way that the individual is supposed to selflessly sacrifice for the survival of the Ummah dream — and because of this feudal definition, the individual will never have any rights for himself. This feudal system will eventually collapse, no doubt about it. But will the Indian state ever tell this real story to Indian Muslims and aid them in bursting this bubble?
