Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
This article is sourced from @Rjrasva and @dasyavevrka who have researched on Japanese response to early Christian missionaries in 16th century in the paper called “Japan – Her first dalliance with West”. The below article provides summary of their work.
The history of the world since fourth century CE has seen the expansionist monotheistic religions from Middle East stamping out the pagan traditions in one land after another. We, Hindus, have keenly felt the result of this monotheistic Abrahamic onslaught losing more than half of our lands. A thorough reversion of Abrahamic expansion has occurred only in one land – the land of our pagan cousins, the Land of Rising Sun. Japan is a land of Gods (kami) for the Shintoists just as Bharata is a punyabhoomi and karmabhoomi for us. Japanese have digested many Hindu devis and devatas (Sarasvati as Benzaiten, Lakshmi as Kichijo, Ganesha as Kangiten, Garuda as Karura etc.) in their pantheon through the intermediary Buddhists from China. While Japan was spared from any Islamic invasions, she had to face the onslaught of the second Abrahamism from the sixteenth century. Some missionaries even planned to use a Christian Japan to invade and subdue China as we shall see later.
Christian inroads into Japan led to severe troubles not unlike what we faced in Goa and Santhome. Shinto and Buddhist shrines were razed to the ground in the name of the Saviour. In this essay, we shall see how the Japanese handled the Christian attempts, their study/understanding of the monotheistic traditions, their view of the West and its religions and also, the reason why Japanese do not fall to Christian proselytism so easily.
Japanese response
Over a period of time beginning early 16th century, Japanese rulers realized the threat potential of Christianity. Since, the missionaries also brought with them good trading opportunities, it made Japan dependent on trade and in turn depend on Christian. This is not any different from today when Indian courts US for FDI and other outsourcing jobs and in return turns a blind eye to evangelist groups. The Japanese tried to reduce their dependence on this trade so that they can hit back on Christians who were serving as pawns for foreign powers like Spain and Portugal. Thus over a period of time Japanese came up with different laws to contain the march of Christianity.
In their campaign to suppress Christianity, the Japanese authorities had realized an important point regarding the Christian psyche, this being the Christian fetish for martyrdom. The initial public executions of captured Christians resulted in the veneration of the executed people as martyrs. The astute men in charge of the eradication of Christianity realized this and decided that henceforth the official policy should be geared towards securing apostasy with execution being a final resort. We can glean this from the order given by Hasegawa Sahioye Fujihiro, the chief Governor of Nagasaki (the Christian center in Japan):
The Christians desire death in order that they may be honored as martyrs. Hence it is not desirable to slay them, but rather to prolong their lives, subjecting them to such severe punishments as will finally overcome their resistance. The most effective trial will be to enslave their woman, sending the most beautiful of them to the houses of prostitution in Kyoto. If the people will renounce the religion of Christ, they shall be exempted from imposts and other obligations; moreover, Chinese ships will be induced to come to their ports for trade, and this will be for the great enrichment of the country. (Cary 1996: 184)
In order to secure apostasy, persuasion was tried first and if this was unsuccessful torture followed. The most ingenious of the torture techniques was the tsurushi which the Japanese refined with practice on Christians. The contemporary Christians sources testify that it was by far the most effective of the torture techniques as the following shows:
At last they found a more hellish and exquisite way of torturing than before; they hung these sufferers by the heels, their heads in pits, which to give the blood some vent, they slasht lightly cross-waies, (but they do that now no more), and in this posture they live several daies, ten or twelve, and speak sensibly to the very last: The greatness of this torment surpasseth all other, being beyond all humaine strength to suffer and be undergone; but by such who are extraordinarilie strengthened from above. This extremitie hath indeed (by reason of its continuance) forced many to renounce their religion; and some of them who had hung two or three daies, assured me that the pains they endured were wholly unsufferable, no fire nor no torture equalling their langour and violence. (Turnbull 2000: 15)
No pagan civilization to our knowledge ever went to the lengths that the Japanese did in crushing Christianity. Others such as Qing China may have indulged in sporadic persecutions but the Japanese went to much greater lengths and devised many policies specifically designed to crush Christianity. The idea that force does not work or is counterproductive when dealing with Abrahamic religions seems laughable after studying the Japanese experience. In the following paragraph, we have summarized some of the methods the Japanese employed and urge the readers to read the more detailed article cited in the next paragraph to get an idea of Japanese thoroughness in dealing with Christianity.
In addition to their policy of no martyrs, the Japanese authorities employed a variety of techniques to catch hidden Christians and to prevent relapse of apostates. Financial rewards were announced for providing information on priests and other missionaries in hiding. The Shogunate instituted an annual test in Christian centers like Nagasaki whereby the entire population was required to trample on Christian relics such as a picture of Mary holding Jesus. Servants and even prostitutes were required to sign an oath saying that they were not Christians before they could be hired. Public announcement boards were erected throughout the country announcing the prohibition of Christianity which was declared as jashumon (“the evil doctrine”). The entire Japanese population was required to register at their local Buddhist temple and were put into groups of five households (called the gonin gumi system) which functioned as mutual assistance groups but also involved spying on the other households in the group to make sure there were no hidden Christians or law breakers of any other sort. If a member of the group knew of hidden Christians but failed to inform the authorities, the entire household group was usually punished. These were just some of the measures that the Shogunate formulated to stamp out Christianity and many of them were upheld throughout the 250 years of Shogunate rule, long after Christianity ceased to be a viable threat. For more information on these and other measures, one may consult the online article “How Japan dealt with the Christian Threat”.
Result
The result of such sanctions can be gleaned from the devil’s own mouth. So thorough were the Japanese in their eradication of Christianity that a Christian apologist was forced to declare:
Although we often recall Muslim/Christian conflicts, it was the Shinto/Buddhist nation of Japan that perpetrated one of the most thorough extirpations ever recorded of a church. The Japanese exceeded any Muslim successes in how totally they destroyed once-booming Christian communities. This movement had significant long-term effects for the direction of the Christian movement, as the annihilation of the Japanese missions decisively prevented Christianity resuming its movement towards global status, striking a dreadful blow against its progress in Asia. By eliminating potential rivals, both these campaigns contributed to maintaining the near-total European monopoly of Christianity.
For good measure, the Christian apologist is also forced to admit that:
Although we naturally pay most attention to the spectacular acts of mass martyrdom, such violence in its own right need not be absolutely destructive. We remember the saying that “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church.” Much more effective in the long term is systematic repression associated with intense surveillance and police work, which really does ensure that a crushed church cannot rise again. The Japanese were brilliantly successful at such policies. Much like modern-day totalitarian regimes, they ran a superbly effective mechanism of repression and thought control. They offer a terrifying model of the means by which a faith – any faith – truly can be destroyed.
Indeed after receiving that crushing blow, Christianity has never again managed to make significant headway in the Land of the Rising Sun though there were periods of optimism and growth such as the early Meiji period or in the immediate aftermath of WW2.
Originally published April 11, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan. Sourced from research by @Rjrasva and @dasyavevrka, “Japan – Her first dalliance with West”.
Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
This article is written by @Rajnikant_rkp, who has written the book Foundations of Misery: Blunders of the Nehruvian Era.
During the Nehruvian era good things also happened. Given the long period of 17 years that Nehru ruled, certain good things had to happen. However, the sad point is that the achievements of the period were a very small fraction of what the potential was, that is, what could have been achieved. A third-world country like Singapore with NO natural resources went on to become a first-world country within a short span of about 15 years, while India at the end of Nehru’s 17-year rule remained a poor, miserable, third-rate, third-world country of hungry millions begging the world for food, even though it was far better placed than Singapore at the time of independence! Similarly, several other East-Asian countries that were much behind India when India gained independence raced far ahead of it.
Nehru’s leadership is unique not only in terms of the paucity of achievements, or the large gap between the potential and the actuals, or a very poor show compared to other comparable nations; but in the blunders that he made. Other leaders too make mistakes, but Nehru can beat them all hands down. The number, the extent, and the comprehensiveness of the Nehruvian blunders can’t be matched. Comprehensive? Other leaders blunder in one or two or three areas. Not Nehru. His coverage was comprehensive. He blundered in practically all areas (and sub-areas, and in very many ways): external security, internal security, foreign policy, economy, education, culture,… it’s a long list. An examination of his record leaves you gasping. In response to my blog and tweet, a person tweeted to me a very cryptic label to capture the essential Nehru: “Nabob of Cluelessness”. Judging from what Nehru did or blundered, it seems he had no clue on what ought to be done! One wonders why Gandhiji had to choose such a person as India’s first prime minister overriding Sardar Patel, who was the democratic choice of the overwhelming majority: 12 of the 15 (80%) PCCs (Pradesh Congress Committees)? That act of Gandhiji must go down as his mega-mega misjudgment and miscalculation, and a blunder that cost nation huge!!
Below are given some of the major blunders of the Nehruvian era. One might say all those things happened long ago, why bother now? The reason why Nehruvian blunders are difficult to ignore or forget is that we are still grievously suffering on account of them: be it Kashmir; or Indo-China border problem; or economy thanks to the socialistic-bureaucratic mindset and drag; or the dominance of the regressive poverty-perpetuating and prosperity-preventing socialistic-Marxist-Nehruvian-leftist thinking in the academia, and in the political discourse, and in almost all the political parties whether Congress or NCP or JDU or SP or TMC or CPI or CPM or BSP; cultural and mental slavery; or …!
Extrapolating the time it took Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan to become first-world countries by adopting competitive capitalism, and the time it took West Germany and Japan to rise from the ashes of the Second World War by adopting capitalist economy, it seems reasonable that India would have been a prosperous, first-rate, first-world country by 1980 had it too adopted free market economy, competitive capitalism and befriended the West.
Unfortunately for the crores of starving Indians and millions of others who had great hopes for themselves, their families and the nation after independence, Nehru guided India into a poverty-perpetuating-and-misery-multiplying socialistic-bureaucratic black-hole, despite the global evidence that no country had prospered under communism and socialism. His descendants, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, by doing much more of the same, made the situation worse. UPA-I and II, by part reverting to the Nehru-Indira disastrous ways, reversed the Narsimha Rao–Vajpayee upward trend.
Poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that create poverty.
— Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty
Nehru was the founder of what Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson call in their book the EXTRACTIVE INSTITUTIONS that have been the root cause of India remaining a third-rate third-world nation.
Raja Vyapari taya Praja Bhikhari.
— Indian Proverb
Sardar Patel, Rajagopalachari and Rajendra Prasad were opposed to socialism. If only they had led India after Independence, rather than Nehru, India would have been a prosperous first-world country long ago, and it would hopefully have been saved from the debilitating feudal dynacracy (dynastic democracy), that is at the root of all miseries.
To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukemia with leeches.
— Margaret Thatcher
A young man who isn’t a socialist hasn’t got a heart; an old man who is a socialist hasn’t got a head.
— David Lloyd George
Leftism or socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.
— Thomas Sowell
Marxism and socialism were something Nehru was sold out on since the 1920s, wrote approvingly about in his books, advocated vigorously all through, and, unfortunately for India, implemented it post-independence in his own Nehruvian way.
Nehru uncritically accepted socialism. It is strange that while Nehru’s books approvingly talk of Marxism and socialism, there is no comparative analysis by him of much more proven competing economic thoughts. It was as if Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, JS Mill, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and others did not exist for Nehru. Economics is a serious subject for its affects the lives of millions, and for Nehru to take up a firm position on one trend of economics without critical appraisal of the alternatives was not only unwise in the academic sense, it proved disastrous to the nation in practice. Further, even if Nehru mistakenly believed that communism was doing good for one country, the USSR, how was it that he did not notice the many countries prospering under capitalism, like the US, the Western-European and the South-East Asian countries. Was Nehru—the scientifically-minded person—going more by personal bias than by facts!
Mr Jawaharlal Nehru returned from Cambridge with notions of how an all-governing interventionist state can force people into happiness and prosperity through socialism… He sticks to this bias in spite of the demonstration of world experience against it… I hate the present folly and arrogance as much as I hated the foreign arrogance of those [British] days.
— C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji)
In fact, Nehru’s prejudice—which he picked up at Harrow and Cambridge—against capitalism had more to do with his cultivating himself as an upper-class Englishman, who had a bias against trade, than on understanding of economics or economic history; just as his socialism had more to do with upper-class English Fabians, than with any genuine experience of or revolt against poverty.
The socialist monster unleashed by Nehru is worse than Frankenstein’s. Frankenstein’s monster voluntarily decided to disappear after its creator’s death. Not so the socialist monster.
Insufficient Industrialisation
Stress only on public sector and restrictions on private sector throttled growth in industrialisation and employment, and adversely affected chances of prosperity and poverty reduction.
Nehru, through his anti-private-sector policies, throttled industrialisation. Although, in comparison with the deliberate neglect in the British period, the progress in industrialisation during the Nehru period was much better owing to significant public sector investments. British set up or allowed setting up of only those minimal things that helped them in their trade, business and greed—not what was required for a country like India.
Post-independence industrialisation was also helped by the very significant second world war sterling debt repayments by the UK, and aid by other countries like the US, the USSR and Germany. However, when the repayment of the sterling debt by the UK tapered off, and not much further foreign aid was forthcoming, and the public sector into which Nehru had sunk the investment was either in loss or not able to generate adequate surplus, the industrialisation momentum began to taper off, as there were no funds; and given Nehru’s socialistic approach, the private sector was anyway shackled!
Further, not learning anything from Japan and others, who had dramatically prospered with their outward-looking, export-led growth, India under Nehru went in for inward-looking, import-substitution model, denying itself a world-class, competitive culture, incentive for production of quality products, share in the world-trade, and the consequent prosperity. Instead, India invested heavily in the inefficient public sector, over-regulated and strangulated private enterprise, shunned foreign capital, and ignored better technology.
Many industries were barred for the private sector. When entrepreneurs in the countries in Southeast Asia, like South Korea, were being encouraged to expand and set up industries and their government was offering them cheap credit, here in India we were doing the opposite: GD Birla was refused a license for setting up a steel plant; scores of business proposals of Tatas were rejected; Aditya Birla, looking to the hostile business environment in India, chose to set up industries outside India;…the list is endless. Krishna Menon [the right-hand man of Nehru] had reportedly snubbed offers of the Japanese corporate representatives for collaboration saying it was out of question on account of the vast differences in the policies of the two countries.
Given license-permit-quota-raj, reluctance to give licenses to the so-called “monopolies”, anti-business policies and extortionist taxes—maximum slab rate being over 80%—industrialisation had to suffer. Industrialisation and industries were sought to be controlled and managed by Nehru’s IAS babus who knew next to nothing on how to run an industry. Nehru and the socialists had very simplistic notions on wealth creation: Nehru thought that all it took to have economic prosperity was to invest in industrialisation, especially in heavy industries, and to put babus in charge. Market, competition, entrepreneurship, quality, top-line, bottom-line—those funny words existed in the English dictionary in total contempt of the Nehruvians. No entrepreneurship was required. Sarkar was the entrepreneur. It would decide what to produce, what not to produce, and how much to produce, and at what rate to sell—the market itself would be controlled by Sarkar.
Neglect of Agriculture
Nehru and his team were seemingly innocent of the basics of economics: without a prosperous agriculture, you can’t have agricultural surplus, and without that, you can’t feed the growing urban population and sustain industrialisation. Yet, they neglected agriculture, which adversely affected industrialisation, and resulted in mass poverty, hunger and famines. India under Nehru became a land of the hungry millions, and was forced to go around the world with a begging bowl.
I had quarreled with him [Nehru] regarding his neglect of the village economy, especially agriculture, and protested to him about his almost total neglect of irrigation which was the key to Indian agriculture… Nehru told me disparagingly, ‘You are a villager, you know nothing.’ I retorted, ‘If you had one-tenth of my regard for the village, the Indian economy would have been different.’…I am not sure if he had any convictions, except for aping the Russian model.
— S. Nijalingappa, My Life and Politics
Neglect of agriculture resulted in famines, and turned India into an international beggar, and a nation of hungry millions.
Neglect of Infrastructure
Pathetic communication networks and transport severely affected economic growth, fight against poverty, mobility, employment generation and national integration.
Many countries, including those in SE Asia, which were nowhere near India or were much behind India at the time India got independence have marched far ahead of India. When you look at their airports, their roads, their metros, their city-buses, their well laid-out cities, their infra-structure, their cleanliness, their everything, you wonder why you have remained a country of crumbling roads, overcrowded locals, overhanging scary ugly mess of mesh of electrical, TV and internet cables blotting the skyline and brutally assaulting even the “chalta hai” sense of terribly intolerable tolerance of the “have given up” generations; a country of absent pavements or encroached pavements or pavements that stink from the use they are not meant for, and where mercifully for the walkers this is not so, they are but patches of broken down pavers, punctuated by uncovered, or partially covered, or precariously or deceptively covered man-holes, awaiting their catch; a nation of stinking slums and impoverished villages, open drains and sewers, rotting garbage, squalor and stink all around, children and men defecating by the road-side—all testimony to criminal absence of the very basics of being civilised…
Most of the Indian towns, cities and metros are dirty, foul smelling and hideous. They look like a defacement of spaces and a blot on the landscape. Cities in the West, SE-Asia, China and elsewhere get better, cleaner, smarter and spiffier year after year, while ours get worse, more congested, more difficult to live in and more squalid.
How’s it that we got so left behind? What is it that we did, or did not do, after independence, that everything is so abysmal and pathetic?
And all this unmitigated misery despite the overwhelming advantage of India as a nation with first-rate people, plentiful natural resources, relatively better position in all fields—infrastructure, trained manpower, bureaucracy, army—at the time of independence compared to all other nations who have since overtaken us, grand civilisational heritage, rich culture and languages, and unmatched ethical and spiritual traditions.
Why did we fail to leverage such rich assets of a gifted country? Well, all thanks to Nehruvian socialistic nightmare.
Pathetic Position Compared to Other Countries
India, which was far better placed with respect to many countries in Southeast Asia, when Nehru took over the charge of India, was left far, far behind all of them by the end of the Nehru’s tenure. Nehru miserably failed to do justice to India’s potential.
Let’s take a concrete comparative example. After its separation from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore was left as an independent country that was not only poor and backward and with meagre defensive capabilities, it had NO natural resources—not even water! It had to import water from Malaysia. Lee Kuan Yew, often referred to by his initials as LKY, who became its Prime Minister, lead it through its traumatic separation. Thanks to his enlightened grasp on “what makes a nation strong and prosperous”, sound and far-sighted diplomacy and foreign policy, innovative ideas, wise strategy and unmatched competence in governance, he lifted Singapore from a poor, backward, “Third World” nation in 1965 to a “First World” Asian Tiger by 1980—in mere 15 years!
In comparison, what did India achieve during the 17 years of Nehru rule? India had tremendous natural and water resources and the significant colonial legacy of defence, military, trained bureaucracy, industries and infrastructure, particularly railways. However, at the end of Nehru’s 17-year rule India remained a poor, third-world country of starving millions begging the world for food and aid, that had miserably lost a war with China and had made enemies of all its significant neighbours!
LKY managed to convert barren Singapore, with no water resources, into a clean, beautiful, green, garden nation. And, what has India done after independence? Converted India into a gigantic garbage bin! Hopefully, Narendra Modi’s “Swachh Bharat” initiative would help change the scenario.
BLUNDER II
Major Blunder – II
Kashmir
Kashmir has been bleeding us grievously right since independence both in terms of men and money. Millions are doled to the state each year for bare upkeep, and many more millions are spent each year on its internal and external security. Thousands of army men have lost their lives to defend it, or to fight terror. The sacrifice continues. Hundreds of civilians have been killed. Kashmiri Pandits, the original inhabitants of Kashmir living there for thousands of years, have been ethnically cleansed. Thousands were brutally murdered or raped, and lacs having been forced out.
The land which got its name from the sage Kashyap; the land which got its famous river Vitasta (now called Jhelum) thanks to the trident struck on the spot by Lord Shiva at the instance of Rishi Kashyap as per the Hindu mythology; the land that nourished Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Buddhism, and spread them for the benefit of mankind; the land and its ambiance regarded as ideal for meditation and religious life by Lord Buddha himself who had desired Kashmir to be the focal point for the spread of his message; the land on which Ashoka founded its ancient capital Srinagari about 5 kilometres away from the current capital Srinagar; the land of Kalhana and his historical chronicle Rajatarangini (River of Kings); the land, which was then a great centre of Buddhism, visited by the famous Chinese pilgrim Hiuen-Tsang during 630 to 645 CE, and where he studied Sutras and Shastras; the land which drove out Mahmud of Ghaznavi, and made him lick the dust, not once, but twice, in 1015 CE and then in 1021 CE, by the brave king of Kashmir, Sangramraj; the land which was almost totally Hindu or Buddhist till the 14th century CE; in that land’s part, the Kashmir valley, the Hindus, that is, the Kashmiri Pandits, have been cleansed out, and you are victimised for raising pro-India slogans or for hoisting national flag, and that too after India’s independence!
Why? Who is responsible?
The root-cause of all the above is mainly one person: NEHRU.
J&K Mess
If Nehru had kept away from the J&K issue, and had allowed Sardar Patel to handle it like he was handling merger of all the other Princely States, J&K would have merged with India like all the remaining 547 states, with no special status.
However, Nehru, in his “wisdom”, chose to divest Sardar Patel of the charge on J&K, and began handling it himself with the help of his chosen person Gopalaswami Ayyangar.
Net Result: Nehru single-handedly created the J&K problem (aided by or at the prodding of Lord Mountbatten), and rather than solving it, made it more complicated. The problem still bedevils us and costs us tremendously both in money and men. He did one blunder after another on J&K, and unnecessarily internationalised what was purely an internal issue by taking it to the UN, again under the influence of Lord Mountbatten, ignoring the advice of Sardar Patel.
Patel was as strongly against the reference to the UN and preferred ‘timely action’ on the ground, but Kashmir was Jawaharlal’s baby by now and Vallabhbhai did not insist on his prescriptions when, at the end of December, Nehru announced that he had decided to go to the UN. Jawaharlal obtained Mahatma’s reluctant consent… Patel’s misgivings were amply fulfilled after India invited the UN’s assistance…
— Rajmohan Gandhi, Patel – A Life
So long as Pakistan’s armed intervention persisted in Kashmir, Sardar was firm on settling the dispute on the battle-field, rather than through parleys in the UN Security Council. In this matter he found himself completely opposed to the line of action and policies adumbrated by Lord Mountbatten who was successful in persuading not only Pandit Nehru but also Gandhiji to accept them. Mountbatten diverted the mind of Pandit Nehru in two directions—conferences with Pakistan and a reference to the UN… He [Sardar] was for utilising the opportunity to finalise the accession without much ado or any further formalities.
— V. Shankar, My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel, Vol. 1
…We should have absorbed Kashmir for good and all… I do not know where we are going. The country needs a man like Patel.
— Rafi Ahmed Kidwai
Interesting/Shocking Tidbits
Maharaja Hari Singh had reportedly decided in September 1947 to offer Kashmir’s accession to India. But it was refused by Nehru, who first wanted Sheikh Abdullah to be freed and installed as the prime minister of the State—something not acceptable to the Maharaja. Was it not queer? The nation being favoured with accession laying down conditions, rather than the state agreeing to merge! But, that was Nehru!!
— — —
Mountbatten added: ‘He [Patel] has also attacked Nehru for the first time saying “I regret our leader has followed the lofty ideas into the skies and has no contact left with earth or reality”‘… This outburst probably reflected Patel’s frustration with Nehru at the time, for refusing to accept the Maharaja of Kashmir’s accession to India unless and until a government under Sheikh Abdullah was installed.
— Narendra Sarila, The Shadow of the Great Game
— — —
Even the Kashmir that India retains would have gone out of its hands had the matters been left to Nehru.
At the morning meeting he [VP Menon/Patel] handed over the (Accession) thing. Mountbatten turned around and said, ‘come on Manekji, what is the military situation?’ I gave him the military situation, and told him that unless we flew in troops immediately, we would have lost Srinagar, because going by road would take days, and once the tribesmen got to the airport and Srinagar, we couldn’t fly troops in. Everything was ready at the airport. As usual Nehru talked about the United Nations, Russia, Africa, God almighty, everybody, until Sardar Patel lost his temper. He said, ‘Jawaharlal, do you want Kashmir, or do you want to give it away.’ He (Nehru) said, ‘Of course, I want Kashmir.’ Then he (Patel) said ‘Please give your orders.’ And before he could say anything Sardar Patel turned to me and said, ‘You have got your orders.’ I walked out, and we started flying in troops…
— Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, interview with Prem Shankar Jha
PoK
It was thanks to Nehru’s wrong decision that PoK—Pakistan Occupied Kashmir—came into existence, when Indian army was on the verge of getting the whole of J&K vacated.
The capture of Muzzafarabad, now the capital of PoK, was imminent. The Army, however, was ordered to suspend all offensive operations with effect from 1 January 1949. When KM Cariappa (the then General Officer C-in-C, Western Command) asked Nehru about the decision a few years later, Nehru conceded that the ceasefire order ought to have been delayed!
Article 370
Article-370 on J&K is thanks to Nehru, who brought it about at the instance of Sheikh Abdullah, despite opposition by many at the time, including Dr BR Ambedkar and Sardar Patel.
Gopalaswami Aiyangar, appointed by Nehru, moved Article 306A—which later became Article 370 in the Indian Constitution—in the Constituent Assembly on 17 October 1949 guaranteeing special status to J&K. This was at the instance of Sheikh Abdullah, and with the concurrence of Nehru. Although many in the Constituent Assembly were not in favour of it, they consented, keeping in view Nehru’s wish, who was then the main person steering the J&K policy. Those not in favour included Ambedkar, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, Sardar Patel, and many others.
India, which was a Dominion, became a Republic on 26 January 1950, and Article 370 came into force for J&K.
Having achieved what he wanted through the Article 370, having got rid of the Maharaja, and with Nehru having surrendered all leverages by putting all eggs in one basket—Sheikh Abdullah’s—Sheikh gradually began to act difficult. By this stage, ambassadors of the US and other countries began to meet him. This made Abdullah feel powerful enough to start unfolding his actual agenda—of independent Sheikhdom. The British were supportive. Said Clement Attlee in London in November 1953: “Kashmir should belong neither to India nor to Pakistan but be independent.” Nehru now began to feel the heat. To his colleagues he could not say, as he had gone against their advice. However, in his letter to his sister, Vijaylakhmi Pandit, he expressed his bitterness.
Mr Abdullah, you want that India should defend Kashmir, India should develop Kashmir and Kashmiris should have equal rights as the citizens of India, but you don’t want India and any citizen of India to have any rights in Kashmir. I am the Law minister of India. I cannot betray the interest of my country.
— Dr. BR Ambedkar, to Sheikh Abdullah
Jawaharlal royega [Nehru will regret this].
— Sardar Patel, to his secretary V. Shankar, on Article 370
In the debate in the Constituent Assembly, Maulana Hasrat Mohani of UP stated that while he was not opposed to all the concessions that were being granted to his friend Sheikh Abdullah, why make such discrimination; if all those concessions were to be granted to Kashmir, why not to the Baroda ruler too.
There are many adverse consequences of Article 370. Some of them are:
Regionalism, parochialism and secessionism.
Denial of fundamental right to an Indian citizen to settle in J&K permanently.
Denial of fundamental right to an Indian citizen to purchase property in J&K.
Deprivation of right to vote to an Indian citizen, as he or she cannot become a citizen of J&K.
Denial of jobs—an Indian citizen, who is not also a citizen of J&K, cannot get a job in J&K.
A woman, who is a permanent citizen of the State, loses her property, including ancestral property, if she gets married to a man who is not a citizen of the State. Also, she can’t get a job in the State, nor can she get admission in colleges getting financial aid from the State or the Union Government.
Hindu immigrants who were ousted from their ancestral homes in West Pakistan at the time of partition and settled in J&K have not yet been given citizenship. This includes their children and grand children.
Of course, the biggest negative is that it has come in the way of full integration of the State, which has gravely harmed both the people of J&K and India.
Article 370 helps protect the corrupt J&K politicians from the more stringent central provisions, and keeps them out of reach of CAG. To the general public, it does not benefit. It is actually counter-productive. If J&K were like any other state in India, there would have been much more private investment in it, leading to prosperity.
Article 370 is nothing but a feeding ground for the parasites at the heart of paradise. It skins the poor. It deceives them with its mirage. It lines the pockets of the ‘power elites’. It fans the ego of the new ‘sultans’. In essence, it creates a land without justice… It suffocates the very idea of India and fogs the vision of a great social and cultural crucible from Kashmir to Kanyakumari… Over the years, Article 370 has become an instrument of exploitation at the hands of the ruling political elites and other vested interests in bureaucracy, business, the judiciary and bar… It breeds separatist forces which in turn sustain and strengthen Article 370. Apart from politicians, the richer classes have found it convenient to amass wealth and not allow healthy financial legislation to come to the State. The provisions of the Wealth Tax and other beneficial laws of the Union have not been allowed to operate in the State under the cover of Article 370…
— Jagmohan, My Frozen Turbulence in Kashmir
No Settlement with Pakistan
Nehru failed to reach an accommodation with Pakistan during his life time, making our western and north western borders sensitive, costing us heavily to secure them.
Written by @Rajnikant_rkp. Originally published April 10, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan. Based on the book Foundations of Misery: Blunders of the Nehruvian Era.
The disease of Abrahamic exclusivism is an undercurrent among all the memetic viruses that have developed in the Abrahamic world. The idea of exclusivism and chosen people not only leads to explicit wars but also leads to witch hunting of non-believers. This was as true for Christianity in the medieval period as it is still true for Islam and other Abrahamic derivatives like Marxism, feminism or environmentalism today. In the European dark middle ages, not only zealous Christians burned women deemed as witches, but also ostracised scientists who dared to propose theories that did not align with the Church’s world view.
Some qualities that define this exclusivism:
Absolutism: Deep belief that there is only one absolute good way which gives moral high ground to believers.
Missionary zeal to convert non-believers through all forms of propaganda and physical threat.
Witch-hunting non-believers by explicit threats as well as coining fancy names.
Everyone knows about the religious exclusivism practised by Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so today we will focus on the new groups which practise this exclusivism and get a free pass under the umbrella term called modernity.
Political Marxism
Kalam wali bai noting the list of weapons to procure
Absolute belief in Communist order that will achieve just society — an ideal utopia everyone should strive for, just like the permanent heaven promised by Abrahamic religions. This ideology simply replaced a post-death heaven with the mirage of heaven here on earth.
It uses force and propaganda wherever needed and does not shy away from killing people, whether in Stalin’s Russia or through the Naxal movement.
Killing non-believers when in majority and witch-hunting them when in minority. Non-believers are showered with the choicest of terms: evil Capitalists, bourgeoisie, and more. For knowing more fancy terms — just hear any Kanhaiya speech!
Feminism
Some peaceful feminists in one of their peaceful protests
Absolute belief that all institutions have historically suppressed women. Only individual freedom for women matters in all cases; kids and family can go down the drain.
The propaganda runs from universities and media. In the US, the fountainhead of feminism, 60% of college goers are women, but they still cry discrimination.
It is not that difficult to lose your job and reputation if you annoy the feminist groups. Your work does not count if your ideology does not match with theirs. Fancy terms used to soil your reputation: misogynist, patriarchal, male privilege, etc. Try debating about unfair divorce or dowry law to get a taste of this medicine.
Environmentalism
Environmentalists praying to Varuna God to stop torrential rain
Absolute belief that man is causing big climate change. While harm of local pollution is easy to prove, global warming is a difficult beast to slay.
Massive funding has gone into research as well as propaganda. The moral high ground gives the right to save whales while letting poor Indians and Africans die for want of modern medicine and amenities. Probably, a billion people in India and Africa starving without proper food and electricity is regarded as nothing compared to the death of a few whales in the Arctic.
Question global warming and you are a climate change denier. Support coal power plants and you are anti-tribal, while supporting nuclear plants makes you a supporter of big capitalistic firms.
Multiculturalism
Immigrants with legal papers waiting for bus to cross Euro tunnel
Absolute belief that all cultures are the same and can live together in a societal soup. Immigrants can be brainwashed and assimilated.
All religions are same, all cultures are same and all people are good — taught in schools to shut down critical thinking. It gets reflected further in political examples: Angela Merkel asked Facebook to censor anti-immigration posts in the self-proclaimed free-speech society called Germany!
People who don’t buy the peaceful nature of Islam are called Islamophobes if they can’t shut their eyes to the barbarity of Islam. Those who don’t want unchecked immigration are called racists. In India you will frequently hear “Hindutvawadi” used as an abuse — but it is the same variant.
This is just a partial list of ideologies but you can see that all the Abrahamic derived ideologies sell the dream of saving the world from a real or imaginary problem to their over-zealous followers. Most of those affected by this memetic virus are hypocrites and rank opportunists and lose no opportunity to witch hunt those who do not believe in their ideology — and this happens while they talk about free speech in the background. The free-speech enthusiasts showed no sympathy for the free speech of Indian students in NIT Kashmir, but it was made a big issue in JNU.
One other common trait among all their followers is their extra-territorial loyalty. The communists from India supported China in the 1962 war. The same goes for environmentalists who block nuclear plants or coal mines under the direction of foreign-based NGOs. While economic development of India is supremely important, these people will collaborate with foreign powers to scuttle all development agenda. The less talked about Indian feminists the better. With the help of local and international media, they have effectively helped broad-brush India as the rape capital of the world, when on the contrary it has some of the lowest rape reporting rates in the world. They are more than happy to attend foreign conferences and call India the rape capital to get brownie points among western feminists rather than call out their bluff on statistics. About multiculturalism — we have the great example of Muslims living in India. For all talk of secularism, a lot of them still have extra-territorial affiliations which come out regularly in the form of bursting crackers after an Indian loss in sport, or overt aggression in support of terrorists or counter-terrorists in Iraq-Syria.
So next time when you are barraged by the kindest of hipster words, you can safely assume that you are under assault by one form of Abrahamic ideology. Then you will be given the only choice — to stand with the believers or the non-believers. Depending on your choice, either you will be accepted with open hearts and sold atrocity stories, or — heaven forbid if you still choose to not accept the monotheistic God — you will be witch-hunted. Your loss in the end would depend on where you stand in the social pyramid. Does this now explain why people in the higher echelons of society hardly try to lock horns with the fascist followers of these exclusivist ideologies?
Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
This is a commentary on the movie and western society and has some spoilers.
One of the first things the “liberal”, “progressive”, “cool” audiences in India notice in Hollywood films is their portrayal of “freedom”, “sexual liberation”, “individualism” — and they often complain about how Indian society is not as free, or liberal, or cool, or progressive. This happens across the Right-Left ideological divide and you usually have very few Indians actually voicing their opinion against such liberalisation and individualism, if any at all. They all claim how India has to become more individualistic like the west, with advice about how guys should forsake their parents and live alone to pursue their careers, and how girls should forsake their family life by becoming career drones like their western counterparts. But what many of us fail to see is the actual reality of western countries — which is actually a desperate, desolate, degenerate place where such crass individualism and narcissism has destroyed any semblance of a family. A society filled with single moms, illegitimate children living without their actual fathers, and a crime-infested cesspool worse than sewage pits of Cooum in Chennai.
Take the example of the movie “Her (2013)” starring Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams and Chris Pratt. It is a movie about a guy (Joaquin Phoenix) in the future who falls in love with an Artificial Intelligence (operating system) in his computer, and how artificial intelligence in a futuristic western world will look like. It is a very compelling film which is fairly good to watch. What is interesting about the film — which many of us don’t look for — is the way their society functions. Though the film is set in the future, it is a pretty accurate depiction of what their society is today.
In the film, Phoenix is going through a tough divorce and is in a difficult time. The reason for the divorce given in the film is very vague — about how the guy is not actually there emotionally for his wife. The interesting part is the way the film makers never felt the need to give a proper justification for their separation or divorce, which indicates how much divorce has become common in the western world — above 50% in most western countries. Phoenix works as a letter writer for a company which writes letters for others i.e. if you are too busy to write letters for your loved ones, you can outsource it to their company and they will write it for you. If you think that is pathetic, well you are absolutely right. Imagine outsourcing your love for your parents, wives and husbands, children, friends to others. It is interesting to note that the film makers thought this is where their future is headed.
At that time, an Artificially Intelligent Operating System is introduced into their world by a leading company. This AI is very resourceful and quickly becomes very useful for Phoenix in arranging his day-to-day activities. Being an AI, it also starts to learn more about emotions and starts to be there for Phoenix. It arranges dates for him to cheer him up and they “bond” pretty quickly because being an AI, it can easily understand what he likes and what he doesn’t. We will come to the depressing aspect of their relationship later.
The guy goes on a date, as set up by the Artificial Intelligence. The date is a single mother in her late 30s played by Olivia Wilde. They have a good time together and proceed to kiss each other and are about to take it to sex. But then, Olivia asks Phoenix if he would call her back after sex, because most guys only want to have sex and not a meaningful relationship. It makes sense in-universe that this is the case, since western societies have completely rigged the marriage system as oppressive for women (which is being copied here too) and how women should be empowered by having sex with as many men as possible. So why would men — who on average have a far higher sexual drive than women and are not as emotionally attached to sex as women are — not take advantage of a system which punishes marriages with divorces and alimonies and rewards free and casual sex? Anyway, Olivia is depressed that most men there only want sex and not any long-term relationships (seems like their MGTOW movement has won) and doesn’t want that to happen with Phoenix too. Phoenix, being fresh out of a very bad breakup with his wife, does not give any commitment even though their date went well.
After that, Phoenix returns to his home, alone and depressed, and starts speaking with his computer which responds well to him — seeing as it is intelligent — and he and the AI have sex together (not very different from masturbation). Phoenix realises that he likes the AI a lot, as it is not judgemental, free-spirited and how he can be what he wants in front of it i.e. he can be as individualistic as he wants without any consequences and still have his social needs like having a companion fulfilled.
Meanwhile, Amy Adams’ character — who is a friend of Phoenix and is a video game developer — breaks up with her husband whom she had been living with for 8 years, because her husband was constantly asking her to do simple stuff like removing her shoes before entering the house. She finally had enough with the constantly annoying husband who would not adjust to her (nor was she ready to adjust to him). The important part here, which most Indians tend to miss, is the way they see the world. Apparently for them, it is OK to break 8 years of marriage over a silly thing like a husband asking her to remove shoes before entering the house. She even justifies it saying that she should not be forced to be someone she is not.
See, this individualistic narcissism — the “me me me syndrome” — is the reason why their societies are so desolate and pathetic. No individual in this world is the same and we can’t expect anyone to be 100% compatible with anyone. This individualistic narcissism is the reason why they take so much time getting married and then have difficulty staying married. They seem to forget that to be in a relationship, especially something like marriage, you need to make sacrifices for the relationship — and it goes both ways, husband as well as wife. However, the narcissism which puts the needs of the one individual above the other in the relationship makes them forget that the other person is also making as many sacrifices, making it easy for them to break their relationships on the flimsiest of excuses — ranging from emotionally distant to asking to remove shoes. Does it really surprise anyone that the majority of white women in the western world are probably going to end up alone with a cat?
Meanwhile, the entire movie universe is filled with such misery, with almost everyone shown having made boy/girlfriends and friends out of the AI — including Amy Adams. This is not really surprising because the AI in the universe is programmed to learn and evolve, and the AIs learn from their owners and can be seen as their own mirror reflection inside a computer. This movie is a perfect reflection of what a society run by individualistic narcissism will look like in the presence of an AI.
Take home message
The movie, which is one of many examples of pop culture from the west, should teach us about the dangers of individualistic narcissism and where it will ultimately culminate. While many Hindus see these western movies and think that their societies are full of honey and milk seeing their independence, what they don’t see is the cost which comes along with such individualistic narcissism — their inability to adjust with anybody else, which compromises their ability to have any meaningful long-term relationships. This is why arranged marriages — in which two random strangers selected by their parents based on their ability to adapt and adjust and respect their elders, all of which are hallmarks of adaptability — are so successful in India. Is it any wonder that marriages are breaking down in India with the advent of this notion that the individual is above the family?
Many Hindu conservatives today deride feminism for spoiling culture but I doubt they understand how. Some Hindus even think that feminism, as espoused by the left, is a corrupted social movement with a positive message about female empowerment, and that it can be made Dharmic by making it purer and about female empowerment instead of the man-hating cult that it currently is. However, they both don’t seem to acknowledge that Feminism is in essence a form of individualistic narcissism, imported from the west, and that no matter how hard they try, they won’t be able to reform it into something positive.
The greatest disservice feminism has done to modern societies is the way it has turned the focus of the “family unit” from being about the welfare of the families into being about the welfare of the wife. This is why, despite claiming that it is about equality, it comes across as hypocritical in its stance on property sharing and alimony laws which are incredibly biased against men. This is also the reason they always make the sacrifices women make to be great (including their careers) for having a family, while ignoring the sacrifices men make for the same family (including their inability socially to be free from going to work unlike women, for whom a job is only an optional requirement). It ultimately wants to liberate women from their responsibilities to their families — including having and raising kids — by stoking female individualistic narcissism against familial responsibility. While it might work in the short term, soon men will figure out that they are cheated into bearing all responsibility for having a family and will decide to walk out of it, resulting in MGTOW movements, as happened in the west. This is also the reason why many of them think that having kids — which are about love and affection — is a job and a sign of female enslavement, because it takes away the individualistic freedom of a woman. While they are right that it reduces the individual freedom of women, they are wilfully dishonest about its long-term effect in increasing the happiness of women from their children and grandchildren.
The western concepts of “one night stands”, “dating” and “finding the right guy/girl” will sound great on paper and in American TV soaps and series in which they appear (and increasingly and depressingly in Bollywood too). But they ultimately fail in practice because all of them are about narcissism — be it the notion that “my sex life is my own and I should face no consequences for it” (one night stands), or be it the notion that “everything is fine with me and I don’t want to adjust to anything and I will live only with the person who will put up with what I am, no matter what” (code for finding the right girl/guy who would put up with him/her). This is why Indian arranged marriages — which are more about adjusting to each other rather than expecting others to adjust for you — have a higher success rate than the date-and-“find right partner” culture of the west.
We see the degeneracy and decay in western society as a form of Karmic justice for all the misery they brought to the rest of humanity. However, it should also serve as an example of what we as a society should avoid, if we wish to avoid the same decay and rot. The west played with their individualism and narcissism and are now paying a huge price for it, even if they don’t really realise what they have brought upon themselves. They still think their lifestyle is superior and routinely think they have to pontificate us misguided “third worlders” on how we should lead our lives — through countless documentaries on our arranged marriages, feminism for the third world, and their sepoys in the media industry. They are too deep in their own mess to see the result of their culture: 50% divorces, 50% single moms, 33% children being born to “wrong fathers”, and a crime rate 20 times as high as India in cases like rape — even ignoring the high crime rate and poverty associated with broken families.
But the real question is — are we going to be really that stupid to think that their way of life is superior, by not looking at the actual effect of their culture on their societies and just looking at the superficial aspects of their culture and prosperity? Bollywood certainly seems to be so, with its recent release of “One Night Stand”. But are we all? The west has an excuse for its stupidity — they didn’t really have any role model on what society should be or where their individualistic narcissism would lead them, and are now too deep in their own situation to realise and do anything about it. But what excuse do we have to take the same individualistic narcissistic path they took for their fall?
Originally published April 7, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
The debate about derogatory representation of Hindu faith in Californian schools is making big news and has taken SM by storm. As usual, Hindus in India are up in arms and feeling hurt on how could those racist Americans treat Hindu civilization with such contempt. But it is not what the Americans teach in the US that is a problem — it is what the Hindus learn in India that is a problem, as it is creating a society disconnected from its roots.
This makes us vulnerable on the world stage because we ourselves have failed to teach the right history to our generations. It’s not the superficial edits in California textbooks that threaten us. We are a nation of 1.3 billion and would hardly get affected by small events in the US. But what history do we teach our kids? It’s some Marxist mumbo-jumbo about how we got independence through non-violence in 1947 and everyone lived happily ever after. All real revolutionaries like Tilak, Bose and Savarkar who actually fought and won us our independence are shown as extremists. This is done with great foresight to intellectually disarm us. So Americans can do whatever they want in their country — it’s the American influence on Indian curriculum that should bother us. Unfortunately BJP hasn’t taken any steps to amend our faulty syllabus so whenever a foreign power tries to twist our history, it makes our people more vulnerable to subterfuge.
Hindu groups always protest against foreign narrative, but they also have some blame to share because they have failed to come up with their own narrative. They just oppose what they think is wrong, while not spelling out what they think is right. Imagine, if the US as a nation and the evangelists as a religious group have so much tenacity to spend time and money and allot research scholars to create a narrative about India (which is suitable to them) then why weren’t we able to do it for ourselves even seven decades after independence? Those who don’t have a legitimate cause to research about India are going ahead with it and those who do are simply satisfied with signing online petitions and writing angry tweets. How come Russia, China, Saudi Arabia never face this problem which India so frequently faces? It has been in our cultural DNA to not document historic facts and weave them into a coherent narrative. We are happy with the “sabh chalta hai” attitude so someone else comes and messes it up. We all want to piggyback on Rajiv Malhotra now rather than building upon serious scholarships in other fields. We have been colonized once for the same reason, but we still didn’t learn anything.
This is not just about the past — this complacency is a cultural trait that transcends a large portion of our history. And we are doing it even for our recent history. Compare the number of books, documentaries and movies that Hollywood made about World War II and the Holocaust. Now compare that to how many movies we made about the wars we fought and won after independence in 1948, 1965, 1971, 1999. It is in our nature to not document facts and to not propagate our own narrative. This is why foreigners take the liberty to do it for us, and when they do, they do it in a manner which suits their agenda. Why are we surprised?
There’s still time. We should build a coherent narrative about civilizational nationalism — not the ‘unity in diversity’ platitude. Trash the nation-state narrative and build a civilizational narrative and include it in our school curriculum such that the historic narrative is not lost. India wasn’t born in 1947 — we are a civilization. The unity in diversity narrative implies that we are essentially different people who have come together in a confederation loosely bound by a political idea, and not by common civilizational values. By corollary this implies that if a certain group were to lose faith in this idea then they can walk out of the alliance any time — like in 1947. This introduces a fault line right in the core ‘Idea of India’ and makes us perpetually vulnerable to needling from hostile forces. These core facts should be added to the constitution itself and frozen in time so that no government can dare to fiddle with our syllabus in the future for political gains. Once this is done, we don’t have to worry about what foreign schools teach about us i.e. Bharat.
Written by Navnit Kundu. Originally published April 6, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
Contextual editorial illustration for the restored article.
This article is going to be based on SM experiences on our past articles. On the cultural agenda, we have tried to highlight two broad assaults from Islamism and feminism, which come together and make a deadly cocktail for the survival of Hindus in their homeland. The reason these issues get entangled is because in a democracy, more than anything else, numbers matter. You can enforce your agenda if you have numbers — otherwise you can go for a hike. Muslims, though few in numbers compared to Hindus, have excellent organisation skills and have enforced their agenda either through voting or riots. While Islam is still debating polygamy and divorce alimony in India, urban Hindus have adopted liberal memetic themes like individualism and feminism with an open heart.
If Hinduism were facing any one of these problems, there was a good chance to fight back and reverse the damages. But the problem has been exacerbated by the fact that all these forces have attacked India at the same time. On the one hand, Muslims have maintained a higher TFR than Hindus in all regions — as can be seen by their increasing numbers. On the other hand, few Hindus have realized this as a problem due to sickular ideology taught in schools. But even those who have acknowledged it have failed to accept the solutions as they hurt their deep-seated beliefs.
[Image: Population map — 0–4 age cohort, district-wise] pop_0-4 — restored contextual visual.
So, what is the problem? The problem is the decreasing number of Hindus — if not throughout the country then in specific pockets throughout the country. This will have long-lasting impact on governance and culture as democracy will ensure Muslim-dominated elected bodies in the future. So what solution did we suggest? The solution is simple — maintain demographic superiority. How to do that?
Increased TFR for Hindus
Ghar Wapsi i.e. reconversion
Ghar Wapsi is important but it has an added complication because it depends on luring Muslims back into their original religion. Swami Shraddhanand, the original stalwart who conducted massive Ghar Wapsi in the 1920s, had to pay with his life for his actions. Given the current democratic pressures, it has become even more difficult to go down this route. But still there are ways to do it and this path cannot be rejected completely. This brings us to the first solution — increased TFR.
Suggesting a high TFR for Hindus made us run into many criticisms due to the pacified Hindu mindset. Compared to other similar articles, this article received much less sharing on social media. And we guess there are three important reasons behind it:
60 years of brainwashing on the population problem in India
Financial difficulty in supporting big families
Individualism ranging from feminism to narcissism
“Hum Do Hamare Do” (We 2 Our 2 Children) has made a massive impact on Hindus throughout the country, so much so that any suggestion which goes against it seems ridiculous. Given this brainwashing, even though many Hindus will recognize the Islamic problem, they would still choose not to confront it head on and change their opinion on having more children. This means that a lot of men who would otherwise be sympathetic to the cause will ignore the issue because it somehow goes against their fundamental principles — to the extent where some people say they will have two high-quality Dharmic children, as if having a third child is somehow Adharmic!
The second problem arises due to rising living costs across India. This is a problem only as long as Hindus don’t decide to act. Once they come together, child-related costs can be brought down through various measures — supporting extended families, developing community schools and support institutions. More than a hindrance, this can be classified as a logistical problem and should not deter Hindus. The fact is most well-to-do and rich people have very low fertility and they hide behind this argument only to support inaction. So there is more to it than meets the eye.
The third source of criticism comes from rising individualism and its other supporting ideologies, especially feminism. While Muslims are largely immune to feminism, it will take a toll on Hindus by asking their women to forget their collective Dharma. Although some authors have devised smart ways to associate Dharma with the Abrahamic offshoot called feminism, it hardly stands on its feet when analysed properly.
One way in which Hindu feminists support the current low TFR decision of Hindus is by saying that none of our Gods had large numbers of kids, nor are there any explicit guidelines for supporting high fertility among Hindus. But history suggests otherwise — Hindus had hardly been as narcissistic as other pagan civilizations and always had a demographic surplus. This ensured that they did not get trampled down by the horses of Abrahamic faith like other religions and regions. Also, Dharma is not fixed in time and is ever evolving given local conditions. Under democracy — which rewards quantity over quality — it becomes a duty of all sane Hindus to realize and work towards maintaining their demographic superiority to save their cultural heritage.
In the end, when Hindu feminism won’t get any support from individual or collective Dharma, it is natural to fall back on original western feminism and resort to the “my body my choice” argument. While it is true that women bear a significantly larger cost of bearing children, they also get greater glory from them in the end. All Hindu scriptures have glorified great mothers who devoted their children to upholding Dharma. If those mothers had been individualistic, half of their offspring would never have seen the light of day. This also tends to be the ugliest part in this whole debate because as soon as you support high TFR, feminists raise the bogey of misogyny — as according to them only women bear the cost of having kids. Sadly, this level of narcissism is widespread as western liberal constructs have reduced bearing children to a mechanical task instead of a gift of nature celebrated widely in Hinduism through revering different fertility goddesses. So everyone ends up looking at kids as some sort of burden rather than harbingers of love and happiness.
While it makes sense for any leftist or feminist to disregard tradition and cultural preservation as they want to destroy Hinduism, anyone who attaches himself to Hindu ethos would not outright reject the collective Dharma to maintain demographic superiority. As it becomes amply clear in this example, the Abrahamic construct of feminism is irreconcilable once a person realises his collective and individual Dharma — which is maintaining demographic superiority in this case.
Then there is also the question of how one divides his love between himself and future generations. If you put no weight on future generations and whether they carry your traditions and culture, there is nothing stopping you from being individualistic. But as soon as you stop being myopic and develop some attachment to your future generations, it becomes imperative that your actions are aligned with your future goals. The choice thus becomes simple: either have 3–4 kids now who will help maintain Hindu majority, or see your granddaughters walking around in burqa, subjugated by polygamy and stoned for adultery under Sharia. This way the cycle of Abrahamic exclusivism will go full circle — from complete freedom under feminism to no freedom under Islam — with only a small possibility of buying a museum ticket to read about the dead middle path of Hinduism.
Originally published April 5, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
This is a follow-up article on our previous article which presented recent genetic evidence to refute AIT. We will point out common misconceptions prevalent on the internet which stem from the fact that either AIT enthusiasts wilfully ignore new evidence or cherry-pick a few studies that suit their narrative.
This is a recent but long-winding article by MT which mixes various evidences. It makes sense to stick to genetic studies as according to the same author, archaeology does not matter for studying population migrations — “pots don’t speak”. For now we will also stay clear of linguistic arguments as they can almost always be made either way in favour of AIT or OIT. For those who wish to read more on linguistic arguments in favour of OIT, one can follow the research work of Srikanth Talageri.
For those who find it difficult to go through this entire blog post, one can directly jump to the bibliography section at the end to understand that most of the quoted research material is old and in some cases patently wrong for explaining the genetic movement of populations. In all the cases, MT uses genetic studies which show that there is similarity between Indians and Europeans, but none of those studies put a timeline on the connection. This has unfortunately become a favourite tactic of AIT enthusiasts — to use half-baked scientific truths to peddle their outdated fiction based on old genetic studies. This whole AIT defence was built on the assumption that migration happened only from the Caucasus to India and not from India to the Caucasus. Unfortunately, recent genetic studies are poking many holes in this theory.
The old genetic studies were limited by the resources available and could tell about shared ancestry but could not put a timeline on the direction of migration. The newer genetic studies, however, can answer both. In fact, the latest genetic studies published took full cognisance of the proposed Aryan migration into India from Russia as well as OIT. But after analysing the genetics comprehensively with larger, wider and deeper samples across all populations, the most recent genetic study came to the conclusion that the Punjabi R1a1a Y haplotype is the oldest among the Indo-European population and is likely the origin of the Indo-Europeans. The timeline of the genetics of the population is given by the SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) of the R1a1a alleles. Out of all the population groups studied from all over the world, Punjab showed the highest frequency of SNP variations — and hence is likely the oldest population group among those studied — with the frequency of variation decreasing from Punjab towards Western European population, with the lowest frequency of variations in the westernmost and northernmost Europeans. This clearly indicates that the Caucasus is not the origin of Indo-Europeans as the AIT fanboys want to believe.
Also notice that the above studies explain why North Indian populations have so much more in common with Europeans than South Indian populations — it was the North Indian population which migrated towards Europe. Also notice that North Indian population is composed of 60% ANI and 40% ASI, while South Indian population is 60% ASI and 40% ANI. This mixing creates some confusion, and AIT proponents usually use it to claim that ANI represents Aryans. But this is not true. ANI migrated into India around 45,000 years BC and ASI around 60,000 BC — and ANI and ASI are not synonymous with Aryans and Dravidians as AIT proponents want you to believe.
And this mixture would have happened before the IVC came into existence because IVC came to existence after 4000 BC — and genetics point out that no new gene flow came into India after 12,000 BC. The study by Lucotte G. points out the same fact: the Indo-European population (by virtue of frequency of variations in R1a1 SNP) is 15,000 years old in the Punjab plains, 11,000 years old in Central Asia, 11,000 years old in the Caucasus, 7,000 years old in Scandinavia and Western Europe. So all in all, AIT enthusiasts are just trying to use half information from outdated genetic studies to peddle their outdated fiction — explaining the genetic similarity between North Indians and Europeans, when such similarity is equally explained by North Indians migrating to Europe. And unlike AIT, this theory actually has newer genetic evidence to back it up without having to go through the logic fallacy of why Europeans would migrate towards India just when the ice age was ending, while Indians could have migrated north as the north got warmer.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
Another common mistake repeated in the above blog is using two parameters — lactose tolerance and the tallness gene — to somehow corroborate AIT. This is patently absurd as both lactose tolerance and tallness genes result in survival advantages to the population and hence cannot be used for studying natural flow of population. All genetic migration studies use SNP, which don’t give any survival advantage, instead of genes which do give some advantage. Does it come as a surprise that all genetic studies use SNPs?
Let’s say a population of mixed tall and short individuals from Punjab crosses the Steppes of Central Asia to go to Europe. The Steppes, being a more hostile environment, would have huge selection pressure towards taller individuals. So when the population crosses the Steppes, the tall population would be selected against the short — and when the population reaches Europe, it would be almost entirely tall. Now let’s reverse the scenario where Europe is the origin of the tallness gene and it crosses the Steppes into Punjab. Since most of the population in Punjab is already short or mixed (as per AIT), the invading migrants with their tall genes would mix with the short Punjab people. Punjab plains being less hostile than the Steppes might not have the same selection pressure, and so the tall genes would get diluted by mixing. In both scenarios, Punjab has a mixture of short and tall and Europe has tall — so tallness gene distribution cannot provide a definitive answer to the direction of movement. This is why population genetics and migration studies are done using SNPs which don’t confer or alter survival benefits.
All in all, AIT enthusiasts have limited time left to enjoy their falsehoods as new genetic studies will settle this debate once and for all. The fact that AIT was broadly accepted forced earlier genetic studies to match their findings and present results to corroborate the existing consensus. This happened as genetics could not speak about migration direction ten years ago. But it has changed now and we should see definitive and conclusive answers in the future.
Quantity has a quality of its own. No one demonstrated it better than the Allied forces during the Second World War when they won it by pitting sub-standard tanks and war planes against more modern but heavily outnumbered German war machines. So, if one can win a world war by pitting quantity against quality, there is no reason to expect a different outcome in a democracy where the game is rigged in favour of numbers. And this game is being played out in front of our eyes for the past six decades in India, but Hindus fail to recognize what holds for their future if they do not put sand in the wheels of the Muslim demographic war machine.
Does it ever occur to you why Muslims always maintain a higher TFR than the majority whenever they are in minority? Well, it’s demographic war — stupid! So the same Bengali Muslims who have a TFR of 2.1 when they are in Bangladesh and have totally annihilated the Hindu population, suddenly increase it to 4 when they cross the border and enter West Bengal. Similarly in Kerala they have 2 kids per woman when Hindus have 1 kid per woman. The trend is the same even for the developed world, where Muslim women almost always counter-breed white women. And every time this issue is brought up, politically correct people will quote that Muslim TFR is going down everywhere but none of them would answer why it is still over and above the rest of the population. Given that population growth is exponential, Muslims don’t need to have 10 kids per woman to establish demographic superiority. One more kid in the first generation translates to two more kids in the second generation and four more kids in the third. So if other groups just maintain their population, Muslims would increase their population four-fold in three generations. Now look at the map of Bangladesh below to see how it happened in India’s neighbourhood. The colour has consistently changed to dark green for younger population i.e. Hindus have gone below 5% of the population in almost all districts now.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
evol1 — Hindu demographic decline in Bangladesh
Hindus in India will face a similar future in large number of pockets if they do not wake up now. And those who cry about sickular politics today can only imagine what holds for them in Muslim majority neighbourhoods of tomorrow. So, what is the way forward to handle this issue? There are only two solutions:
Restricted one child policy for Muslims
Hindus counter-breeding Muslims
While policy 1 would be an ideal and less costly choice, given the lack of spine among Hindus in India and pandering to the secular agenda, it is almost impossible to implement. One can give long arguments in favour of policy 1 but given current circumstances one can rule it out. So, rational Hindus are left with nothing but policy 2 as the only remedy till some other better solution cannot be found or Muslims are reduced back to one-digit figures.
The only other nation which has understood this problem seriously and taken the bull by its horn is Israel. The Muslim TFR went down from 8–9 in the 1960s to about 4.6 in the 1980s but has stayed there almost since then. Israel, being a democracy, faced a similar problem to India and the presence of a large number of liberals ensured that policy 1 was rejected there as well. So, the orthodox Jews took it upon themselves to stem the tide of demographic reversal and started counter-breeding Muslims to remain relevant in Israeli politics. The current demographics show that they have been more than successful in their initiative.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
What does this mean for the future of Israel? The orthodox Jews have not only successfully countered the problem of high Muslim TFR but have also completely altered the politics of Israel. Given the small weight that liberals put on their fertility, they are increasingly replaced by the more orthodox sections of Jews. This means that in the future Israeli politics will move more to the right — and given the fact that orthodox Jews will control politics, they would be in a position to implement policy 1 if needed. So, Hindus who go into overdrive to support the misadventures of Israel will do much better if they learn something from the orthodox Jews rather than support all the stupid policies of Israel.
Once Hindus realize the gravity of the situation, they will have to put in huge efforts to implement this solution. They will face a lot of flak from women activists who would fight it tooth and nail and give arguments of quality over quantity. But sadly in a democracy there is just one vote for both the enlightened Hindu feminist and a Jihadi. No amount of fact-digging from scriptures and history about Hindu seers having just one or two but quality offspring can change the fact that numbers matter in democracy more than anything else. Also, one should not forget that unlike other civilizations Hindus had never been overly nihilistic or individualistic in their history, which helped them keep a demographic surplus in the face of Abrahamic onslaught for thousands of years. Unlike other Pagan civilizations, one reason for the survival of Hindus was their focus on family values and having enough offspring. This is much more important today in this democratic age — the day you lose the numbers, you lose your policy-making powers.
Having decided to go forward with policy 2, one still needs to overcome the implementation hurdles. Sacrifices will be needed by both men and women who have to give up many of their individualistic freedoms to help nurture bigger families. Also, it cannot be implemented at the cost of quality children and will need a grand Hindu collaboration to subsidize the education of these children. Again, one can learn from orthodox Jews who have successfully achieved it by developing their own institutions where they provide cheap education and jobs to their community members. This gives another reason to repeal discriminating laws like RTE, so that in the future when Hindu consolidation takes place, the state does not impose increasing costs on Hindu institutions.
The ball is now in the court of rational Hindus who understand that increased Muslim numbers is a problem for their survival in the long run. Burying their heads in the sand or waiting for Modi to do something will not solve this problem. Since policy 2 does not require the support of all Hindus, it can be easily implemented if a critical mass of Hindus come together. The only need will be to develop supporting institutions which can take care of this burgeoning Hindu population. In the end, 20–30% of Hindu population is enough not only to counter-breed Muslims, but to also make future Indian politics more pro-Hindu as this young population replaces the current generation of anti-Hindu liberals. The only question that remains to be answered is whether Hindus are ready to realize their Dharma and rise up to this challenge and beat Muslims at their own game.
Editorial illustration for “How Phony RW intellectuals will lead Hindus to slaughter”.[Image: Muslim youth kicking Amar Jawan Jyoti] — contextual restoration.
We always say that a picture says a thousand words and is much more powerful than any article. The above picture shows a Muslim youth kicking Amar Jawan Jyoti i.e. the essence and life blood of Indian republic. But Indian intellectuals fail to look and comprehend the story behind such pictures and delude themselves and gullible sheepish Hindus through their intellectual sophistication. The latest addition to this list is R. Jagannath, a self-proclaimed intellectual RW in India. The intellectual wankery and self-delusion touched new levels in his latest article on why India produces so few Jihadis as compared to Europe and how Hinduism is responsible for it. Both the premise and the conclusion in this article are wrong on so many levels:
India does not produce few Jihadis. Just count the number of dead Jihadis in Kashmir and rest of India. If you add the number of silent Jihadis who come out in various riots like Malda and Muzzafarnagar, you can build entire populations of some European countries. Going to Syria is a useless criterion for measuring Indian Jihadi numbers when the Muslims in the sub-continent have more than enough reasons to stay here and capture whole India bits by bits.
Yes, there are no outright conflicts right now between Hindus and Muslims in India but it is just a matter of time before the next round starts when the Muslim population reaches a threshold as seen in various riot prone areas. So, it is not the Hindu genes in sub-continental Muslims which are helping in avoiding this conflict but the pusillanimity of Hindus and their intellectual self-delusion and pretences that is delaying the inevitable to some future date. Jaggy added himself to this same list of self-deluded Hindus churning out theories which will lead Hindus to ultimate slaughter.
Now, lets add another picture to complete the story and further pin-prick this self-delusion bubble of Hindus.
[Image: Map of Mauryan Empire — extent of Hindu civilisation] — contextual restoration.
The above picture shows the extent of Hindu civilization, which has now lost half of its area. And guess what — all those areas went to the peace loving Muslims which carry Hindu gene as proclaimed by R. Jagannath, but have eradicated the last traces of their Hindu ancestry. Actually, he can visit any of his neighbourhood Muslim ghettos and explain to the Muslims there about how they carry Hindu genes. Given the current state of Indian security, it is hard to guarantee that he will come back in one piece as most of the current Muslims both in India and erstwhile Hindu regions like Pakistan and Afghanistan will not take it lightly — they think they have more Arabic blood and have nothing to do with Hindus. He for sure must be aware about the flak that Subramaniam Swamy received by claiming Hindu ancestry of Muslims in India, so it will be better if he drops this experiment and takes our word for it.
But the crux of the matter is: can Hindus learn from the follies that they have done in the past ten centuries? The current media ecosystem is against them but it is not a big problem. The big problem is the self-delusion of the so called RW intellectuals who should be thinking about the best interest of Hindus. Sadly, they have failed miserably on this account. It is not the Hindu gene in Indian Muslims, but the shameful or idiotic gene in Hindus, which has helped to avoid the full scale problem for short duration. India has already gone through one partition thanks to the same Hindu gene carrying Muslims and still faces frequent riots in areas with sufficiently high Muslim populations from Kashmir to Kerala. Riots like Malda keep getting added to the list of riots instigated by Muslims. Tiwari and Narang keep getting murdered in broad daylight by Muslim goons and all one gets from intellectual RW Hindus is total dishonesty, which tries to sugar coat the problem and wish it away. Sadly, the world does not work that way and pretending to live in a utopia does not create a utopia.
The need of the hour is to have constant debates on Islam instead of whitewashing its crimes which the Hindu RW is more than happy to do right now. Hindus need to avoid them as they are worse than communists. While communists are at least honest about screwing Hindus, these insidious poisonous intellectuals will lead Hindus like sheep to their slaughter. They will pretend all is well till demographics reach the level of WB or Kerala. Then Hindus getting killed will not make any headlines, the way it hardly creates a flutter post RSS worker deaths in various states. This will finally end like the story of Kashmiri Pandits once Muslims reach 50% of the population i.e. a point of no return. Intellectual masturbation is not going to save other Hindus, like how the intellectual pretensions of the Bengali bhadraloks or the mallus have hardly saved their skins from the Mullahs. Selectively looking at one or two individuals who are harmless while ignoring incidents like Malda and Amar Jawan Jyoti and claiming that Indian Muslims are not Islamists like in the west is intellectual masturbation at its best. So next time when Jaggy styled authors claim about peaceful syncretism of Indian Islam, please remind them about the genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh, which did not happen so far in the past.
Sadly, delusion has been the fatal intellectual flaw of Hindus since the time of first attacks by barbaric Muslim hordes. Time and again they have been let down by their intellectuals, who failed to recognize the true nature of Islam and its adherents, who want complete domination and annihilation of all other beliefs. Buddhists, who bore the maximum brunt of Islamic invasion and got wiped out from large swathes of territory had done better analysis of Islam than the current generation of Hindus. Here is the appraisal of Islam by 11th century Kalachakra Buddhism:
We may summarize the Kalacakra tantra’s perception of Islamic beliefs and practices as follows: from the Buddhist point of view Islam is demonic and perverse, a perfect anti-religion which is the antithesis of Buddhism (daitya-dharma; asura-dharma; atyantddharma; adharma). Islam’s theology of an omnipotent Creator who consigns men to heaven or hell based on their pleasing or displeasing him is classed with the lowest of Indian ideologies. The Islamic belief that ar-Rahman makes his followers cut off their foreskins in order to enter heaven is viewed as exotic and bizarre. The Kalacakra tantra represents Islam as a religion of violence (himsa-dharma) that advocates savage behavior (raudra-karman).
— Kalachakra Tantra, 11th century Buddhist text
It then finally ends with giving prescriptions on how to deal with Islam:
First, the tantra prohibits its own adherents from participating in the barbarian religion. Second, it holds out the possibility of converting the barbarians to Buddhism. Third, it uses the threat of Islam in anti-brahman polemics. Finally, it prophesies a Buddhist holy war against Islam.
— Kalachakra Tantra, 11th century Buddhist text
Does it surprise anyone now that Buddhist Myanmar, China and Sri Lanka have dealt with the Islamic menace with an iron fist while Hindus are still debating on the nature of Islam? This snake oil sold by self-proclaimed RW will not work for too long and common Hindus will have to ultimately face the reality. While these intellectuals will hide in their gated communities and peddle even more Islamic syncretism, it will be the common Hindus who will have to bear the brunt of Islamic rape, loot and pillage. The choice is only theirs: either learn from their past mistakes or let their great grand daughters be raped and killed like during partition or 1971 Bangladesh or Kashmir. Sadly, chanting about the Hindu roots of Indian Muslims would not take them too far as it neither saved their Hindu ancestors nor will save their future generations.
The Paris attacks on Charlie Hebdo brought together the whole world and laid bare the menace of Islamic terror which is usually ignored by the champagne sipping elites of the west. Indians, who have paid with their blood and freedom to face this monster, recognized the human tragedy and showed their solidarity by messaging “Je suis Charlie” and changing their profile picture to the French flag on Facebook to show their solidarity with France. But in the wake of Brussels bombings and expected rise in number of terrorist attacks in Europe, the question arises — do these westerns deserve Indian sympathy? The simple answer is – no.
India has been facing the menace of Islamic barbarism from at least 1000 years and terrorism is just a new manifestation of this old disease. It has raised its ugly head in independent India from time to time from Kashmir to Mumbai. Sadly, the western nations for most of this time have maintained a calculated silence or condoned these terrorist activities against the Indian nation state. The west has been using this as a state policy against India for quite some time now and its support for Islamic terrorism can be understood by looking at two dimensions — physical and ideological.
The first consists of outright support to terrorist organizations. Under the guidance of US, the western nations have cunningly outlined the concept of good terrorist vs bad terrorist. Without any surprise, any terrorist group which helps western hegemony gets bracketed into the first category while those who attack their interests get labelled as bad terrorists. The military support and aid to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other ideological Muslim nations can also be put into the good bracket defined by the west. The mujahideen funded by US in Afghanistan against the USSR later drove back into Kashmir with tacit approval from the US. It was only post 9/11 that the US took active interest in dismantling the Taliban in Afghanistan, but has done various flip-flops since then. Other nations like UK, Canada, Germany and others are also not far behind in their support for Pakistan and other rogue entities and have frequently decided not to collaborate with Indian authorities citing one or the other reason.
The second and more hypocritical stand of the west has been to provide ideological ammunition and whitewash the crimes of Islamic terrorists. The terms like “terrorism has no religion” and “Islamophobia” have been mass popularized using the media and anyone who does not share this illusion has been witch-hunted for his views. Their ideological factories have churned out various victimhood theories to pin the blame on one or other local event and give cover to Islamic atrocities. So while the Gujarat riots are blamed for all subsequent terrorist strikes in India, the burning down of more than fifty Karsevaks at Godhra is completely forgotten and often labelled as an accident by foreign as well as local Indian media. This ideological sophistry has more or less closed down the debate on the barbaric nature of Islam. Since it is nations like India which have historically paid for this battle with their blood, the west had no reason to not use Islam to destroy India.
But now the Islamic monster has turned its gaze back on its European masters. Now they need to pay with their blood for all the intellectual dishonesty they have displayed during all these years. The question is whether the western Muslims will treat their hosts better in Europe than they have treated Hindus in India? If one were to go by the current terrorist attacks, it seems that western liberalism has hardly helped prevent the rot among their Muslim citizens, who have little value for the life of their fellow countrymen or themselves.
India has worked hard to control Islamic terrorism and still finds it difficult to wipe it out completely. Thus the only suggestion you can give to your western counterparts is — be ready to pay with your blood and freedom. There is no short cut. Also remember to install X-Ray machines on each of your metro exits in Paris and Brussels — the free (safety) lunch is over.
So coming back to the question again — should Hindus shed tears for the increasing number of terrorist attacks in Europe? The answer is a strict no. There is no reason for Indians to stand in solidarity with hypocrites who ignored our pain and supported a barbaric ideology both physically and ideologically. Since their past follies have now come home to roost, there is little that India can do in this regard when its past pleas were unheard by the west. Does it surprise you that the Hindu genocide in Bangladesh is never discussed by these same western nations who continue harping about Islamophobia? Well, the value of Pagan Hindu blood is probably too small to evoke any emotion from these western elites, compared to their Abrahamic cousins of the Middle East. They don’t deserve our tears or support because you can bet your life that they won’t give a damn when we bleed. They are more likely to mock our pain and lack of security than feel our pain.
As far as Hindus are concerned, this is a war between two evils, which have both been preying on us and killing us whenever possible and quite frankly, for a long time had been allies in killing us — be it during 1947 when Britain helped Pakistan, or be it in 1971 when the West helped Pakistan to kill millions of Hindus. So rather than shed a tear for these hypocrites and their own jihadi creations, Hindus should just let these two evils fight themselves out and let Karma have her course. The world could frankly do with less of both of these evils. This is neither our war to fight nor our war to take sides on. Frankly, neither of them are allies of Bharatiya civilisation for us to care. We don’t have to stoop to their level and mock them on their follies, but we don’t have to shed our tears for them either.
![[Image: Population map — 0–4 age cohort, district-wise] pop_0-4](/YP_MEDIA:12-islamism-individualism-and-feminism-vs-hinduism-media-1.jpg)
