Rajeev Srinivasan on the tremendous threat to Hindus
Here is some advice for the UPA government and the media in India on
how best to destroy Hinduism. Not that they need the advice, they have
done quite well on their own:
· On the holiest night in the Hindu calendar, Diwali, the night when
good triumphs over evil, arrest the most visible, revered, and
respectable Hindu religious leader in the country on murder charges
· Announce a troop withdrawal from J&K at the same time that yet
another murderous terrorist attack on a CRP camp is going on
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/nov/11pm.htm
· Have one of your central cabinet ministers announce at a Christian
fundamentalists' meet that he is 'ashamed to have been born a Hindu'
· Take over Hindu shrines like the Shirdi Ashram, temples in Uttar
Pradesh; target the Tirupati temple and cause problems there over the
demolition of the 1,000-pillar hall
· Arrest a Hindu sanyasini because she had raised the Indian flag
· The media should continue to attack Hinduism while never uttering a
word against the damage being done to it by the State. On the day
after the arrest of the Sankaracharya, instead of shock and disbelief,
the Indian media should be full of teary-eyed hagiographies of Yasser
Arafat, a dubious statesman at best
In contrast, here is what happens with respect to other faiths:
· In Kerala, Muslim League Minister Kunjalikutty, accused of what is
probably statutory rape (sex with a minor girl), refuses to step down.
A mob of Muslims attacks media people just because an interview with
the girl was broadcast
· In Hyderabad, some low-level maulana is arrested, and a Muslim mob
riots and attacks the police station to try and release him
And people still ask me how Hindus are oppressed in India. If even a
single Muslim or Christian or Marxist is arrested, the cry goes up:
"Islam in danger!", "Secularism in danger!" or something along those
lines. But this doesn't apply to Hinduism, clearly.
How would Catholic Christians like it if on Christmas night the Pope
were arrested for murder? The arrest of the venerable Sri Jayendra
Saraswati, Sankaracharya on Kanchi, on Diwali night, is the equivalent
of that http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/nov/11tn.htm . Yet, I don't see
masses of Hindus out there rioting to get the Sankaracharya released.
This, I personally believe, is a character flaw on the part of Hindus.
They should be out there rioting, then their religion would not be in
danger all the time. The sentiments of millions of devout Hindus are
being trampled upon because the UPA government knows Hindus will not
react violently.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the White House 'celebrated'
Diwali. Indian-Americans, who had contributed significant amounts to
the Bush campaign, were disappointed because neither Bush, his wife,
nor any of his senior staff bothered to attend the function. Former
Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill – a lame duck, as he has resigned
– did attend, and he weasel-worded that Bush would not attend a
country-specific function.
This is nonsense, because Hindus are in at least a hundred countries
around the world: Hinduism is not a country-specific religion. In
reality, in a stinging reminder of the relative importance of Hindus,
Bush did attend, just a few hours later, a Muslim iftar party. Bush is
afraid of Muslims, he is not worried about Hindus.
I actually understand Bush's reasons quite well. As Christian
fundamentalists, he and his pals necessarily despise Hindus. They
despise Muslims too, but they are afraid of Muslims, so they pay at
least lip-service to Islam. Besides, many of his cohorts, oil men,
have some connection to Saudi oil and money. But the Hindus, they can
be discarded like used tissue paper. Money talks, of course. Oil talks
even louder.
Kindly note that 'Bobby' Jindal, the Great Brown Hope, also did not
attend the Diwali function at the White House. So much for the
expectation that Jindal was going to do a lot for India. No, as a
fiery converted Christian, Jindal has no interest in the 'heathen'
religion of his ancestors, or by extension, in India's affairs. Why am
I not in the least bit surprised? Converts are the worst, as they have
to prove their conversion correct.
It has become the role of Hindus to be the under-class, the
water-carriers and wood-cutters for Christians and Muslims. Thus the
Christian fundamentalists will happily take money from rich
Hindu-Americans, but there is no quid pro quo. The Hindu-American
doctors and engineers who give their money are being taken for a ride.
In India, there is circumstantial evidence: whenever I am in Kerala, I
read Malayalam newspapers, and I have noticed a trend, and admittedly
this is only a sample. A number of soldiers from Kerala have been
killed in battle or terrorist attacks, and every single one of them I
can remember has been a Hindu. Not one Muslim or Christian that I have
noticed, over several years. What does this mean? Only Hindus are poor
enough to need to take up dangerous work like in the military, for
lack of better opportunities. So they die, defending the Muslims and
Christians, who get a free ride.
Similarly, when T R Baalu announced at a Christian fundamentalist
meeting (this must have thrilled them no end) that he was ashamed to
have been born Hindu, the UPA worthies did not scold him for being an
obnoxious person. In a truly secular state, no religion should be
insulted by a government official. But I forgot, India is only a
'secular' state, which means it is an anti-Hindu State. See my earlier
column on the perversion of secularism.
Wait, there is more. Instead of pronouncing a death threat to Baalu,
some Hindus proceeded to peacefully excommunicate him. Now the State
swung into motion, and arrested the would-be excommunicators! See
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/july182004/n6.asp Logically,
if a person is ashamed of being part of a group, doesn't that group
have the right to exclude him? I guess not, if they are Hindus: they
must swallow the insult silently.
But other religions have the right to do so. For instance, when some
Muslims pronounced a fatwa on Salman Rushdie and asked for his head, I
don't remember the State arresting them. Similarly, I suspect that
when Malayalam writer Ponkunnam Varkey was expelled from the Catholic
church, the police did not show up and demand that he be reinstated.
Naturally, I guess, because only Hindus are subject to being
controlled by the State. Others are above the law.
The DMK openly exulted at the arrest of the Sankaracharya. The DMK
have specialized in anti-Hindu polemic partly because the entire
edifice of their belief, of some sui generis 'Dravidian' culture, is
complete hogwash. It was manufactured by a Christian priest, one
Bishop Caldwell, with the intent of divide-and-rule. In reality, Tamil
culture is Indic: Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, just the same as the culture
in other parts of the country.
If you look at the motives for the arrest of the Sankaracharya, the
question arises: who benefits? Clearly, the DMK, they who claim to be
'rationalists' and 'anti-religion' but even their lionized leader EV
Ramaswamy Naicker was too scared to utter a word against Muslim or
Christian practices: which means they are basically an anti-Hindu
entity because they can get away with it.
My immediate suspicion is that this is political payback for a couple
of things: one, what Jayalalitha did to Karunanidhi, two, what
Subramaniam Swamy is suggesting these days.
First, Jayalalitha had Karunanidhi arrested on a holiday, so that
there would no chance to apply for bail; and so now the Sankaracharya
is arrested on a major holiday. Jayalalitha, being a Tamil Brahmin,
would presumably be hurt because the Kanchi Matham is a Tamil Brahmin
stronghold, which the DMK has a special aversion to. Karunanidhi's
statement on November 11th about the prime suspect in the Raman murder
case being at large gives credence to this argument
http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=407194
Second, Subramaniam Swamy has been going around with a fierce campaign
against Sonia Gandhi. For instance, he was scheduled to speak in
Chicago on November 7th on the topic of "Sonia Gandhi: A National
Security Threat to India". What better payback to Swamy than to attack
his power base, the Tamil Brahmins? It is a well-known secret that
Swamy gains much of his support and information from the Tamil Brahmin
bureaucracy at the center.
There is a third possibility: that this is a part of the ongoing
Christian missionary efforts to paint revered Hindu religious leaders
in a bad light. Every Hindu leader is accused of some wrong-doing,
without proof. They trust that by their favorite tactic of 'truth by
repeated assertion' some of it will stick (as they have demonstrated
in the mythology of the arrival of Thomas the Apostle in India, a
fabrication which is now widely believed).
I keep getting mail from some (white Christian?) Australian nut-case
about how he has evidence that the Sai Baba molested children, but the
evidence never materializes. Compare this to the hundreds, if not
thousands, of Catholic priests accused and many formally convicted in
court of large-scale pedophilia across several continents. And there
are reports from the Vatican itself of sexual slavery of, and murders
of, nuns.
Now that Christians are in power in India – just look at the cabal
around Sonia Gandhi , there will be renewed enthusiasm from the conversion mavens of the Joshua Project and the 10/40 Project to target Hindus. This might well be the reason for this egregious attack on the Sankaracharya.
Whatever the reason, the UPA government should have handled this
affair with a little more sensitivity and finesse. There was really no
reason to hound the Sankaracharya, chase him around the countryside,
and arrest him with such theatrics, as though he were going to jump
bail and fly out of the country. There was no reason to humiliate this
very spiritual person. Instead, they could have put the Sankaracharya
under house arrest at the Kanchi Matham if needed. But I guess the
intention was indeed to humiliate.
Why on earth would the Sankaracharya order the murder of an
accountant? That seems to completely defy logic. The Sankaracharyas
live totally spartan lives and have no need for money. Besides, even
assuming somebody in the Kanchi Matham wanted to sweep things under
the carpet, it would have been so much easier to just bribe somebody,
rather than go out and murder someone, especially murdering them in a
temple and desecrating the place.
The sentiments of millions of Hindus do not matter to the Congress,
just as the sentiments of Sikhs didn't when they went on a murderous
rampage in 1984, nor when they appointed alleged gang-leader Jagdish
Tytler as a minister.
And where is the principal 'Hindu nationalist' party who should speak
up? In complete disarray.
The Congress is once again demonstrating that they are a party only
for Muslims and Christians. The foolish Hindus who voted for them
deserve what they get, I suppose.
Here is some advice for the UPA government and the media in India on
how best to destroy Hinduism. Not that they need the advice, they have
done quite well on their own:
· On the holiest night in the Hindu calendar, Diwali, the night when
good triumphs over evil, arrest the most visible, revered, and
respectable Hindu religious leader in the country on murder charges
· Announce a troop withdrawal from J&K at the same time that yet
another murderous terrorist attack on a CRP camp is going on
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/nov/11pm.htm
· Have one of your central cabinet ministers announce at a Christian
fundamentalists' meet that he is 'ashamed to have been born a Hindu'
· Take over Hindu shrines like the Shirdi Ashram, temples in Uttar
Pradesh; target the Tirupati temple and cause problems there over the
demolition of the 1,000-pillar hall
· Arrest a Hindu sanyasini because she had raised the Indian flag
· The media should continue to attack Hinduism while never uttering a
word against the damage being done to it by the State. On the day
after the arrest of the Sankaracharya, instead of shock and disbelief,
the Indian media should be full of teary-eyed hagiographies of Yasser
Arafat, a dubious statesman at best
In contrast, here is what happens with respect to other faiths:
· In Kerala, Muslim League Minister Kunjalikutty, accused of what is
probably statutory rape (sex with a minor girl), refuses to step down.
A mob of Muslims attacks media people just because an interview with
the girl was broadcast
· In Hyderabad, some low-level maulana is arrested, and a Muslim mob
riots and attacks the police station to try and release him
And people still ask me how Hindus are oppressed in India. If even a
single Muslim or Christian or Marxist is arrested, the cry goes up:
"Islam in danger!", "Secularism in danger!" or something along those
lines. But this doesn't apply to Hinduism, clearly.
How would Catholic Christians like it if on Christmas night the Pope
were arrested for murder? The arrest of the venerable Sri Jayendra
Saraswati, Sankaracharya on Kanchi, on Diwali night, is the equivalent
of that http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/nov/11tn.htm . Yet, I don't see
masses of Hindus out there rioting to get the Sankaracharya released.
This, I personally believe, is a character flaw on the part of Hindus.
They should be out there rioting, then their religion would not be in
danger all the time. The sentiments of millions of devout Hindus are
being trampled upon because the UPA government knows Hindus will not
react violently.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the White House 'celebrated'
Diwali. Indian-Americans, who had contributed significant amounts to
the Bush campaign, were disappointed because neither Bush, his wife,
nor any of his senior staff bothered to attend the function. Former
Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill – a lame duck, as he has resigned
– did attend, and he weasel-worded that Bush would not attend a
country-specific function.
This is nonsense, because Hindus are in at least a hundred countries
around the world: Hinduism is not a country-specific religion. In
reality, in a stinging reminder of the relative importance of Hindus,
Bush did attend, just a few hours later, a Muslim iftar party. Bush is
afraid of Muslims, he is not worried about Hindus.
I actually understand Bush's reasons quite well. As Christian
fundamentalists, he and his pals necessarily despise Hindus. They
despise Muslims too, but they are afraid of Muslims, so they pay at
least lip-service to Islam. Besides, many of his cohorts, oil men,
have some connection to Saudi oil and money. But the Hindus, they can
be discarded like used tissue paper. Money talks, of course. Oil talks
even louder.
Kindly note that 'Bobby' Jindal, the Great Brown Hope, also did not
attend the Diwali function at the White House. So much for the
expectation that Jindal was going to do a lot for India. No, as a
fiery converted Christian, Jindal has no interest in the 'heathen'
religion of his ancestors, or by extension, in India's affairs. Why am
I not in the least bit surprised? Converts are the worst, as they have
to prove their conversion correct.
It has become the role of Hindus to be the under-class, the
water-carriers and wood-cutters for Christians and Muslims. Thus the
Christian fundamentalists will happily take money from rich
Hindu-Americans, but there is no quid pro quo. The Hindu-American
doctors and engineers who give their money are being taken for a ride.
In India, there is circumstantial evidence: whenever I am in Kerala, I
read Malayalam newspapers, and I have noticed a trend, and admittedly
this is only a sample. A number of soldiers from Kerala have been
killed in battle or terrorist attacks, and every single one of them I
can remember has been a Hindu. Not one Muslim or Christian that I have
noticed, over several years. What does this mean? Only Hindus are poor
enough to need to take up dangerous work like in the military, for
lack of better opportunities. So they die, defending the Muslims and
Christians, who get a free ride.
Similarly, when T R Baalu announced at a Christian fundamentalist
meeting (this must have thrilled them no end) that he was ashamed to
have been born Hindu, the UPA worthies did not scold him for being an
obnoxious person. In a truly secular state, no religion should be
insulted by a government official. But I forgot, India is only a
'secular' state, which means it is an anti-Hindu State. See my earlier
column on the perversion of secularism.
Wait, there is more. Instead of pronouncing a death threat to Baalu,
some Hindus proceeded to peacefully excommunicate him. Now the State
swung into motion, and arrested the would-be excommunicators! See
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/july182004/n6.asp Logically,
if a person is ashamed of being part of a group, doesn't that group
have the right to exclude him? I guess not, if they are Hindus: they
must swallow the insult silently.
But other religions have the right to do so. For instance, when some
Muslims pronounced a fatwa on Salman Rushdie and asked for his head, I
don't remember the State arresting them. Similarly, I suspect that
when Malayalam writer Ponkunnam Varkey was expelled from the Catholic
church, the police did not show up and demand that he be reinstated.
Naturally, I guess, because only Hindus are subject to being
controlled by the State. Others are above the law.
The DMK openly exulted at the arrest of the Sankaracharya. The DMK
have specialized in anti-Hindu polemic partly because the entire
edifice of their belief, of some sui generis 'Dravidian' culture, is
complete hogwash. It was manufactured by a Christian priest, one
Bishop Caldwell, with the intent of divide-and-rule. In reality, Tamil
culture is Indic: Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, just the same as the culture
in other parts of the country.
If you look at the motives for the arrest of the Sankaracharya, the
question arises: who benefits? Clearly, the DMK, they who claim to be
'rationalists' and 'anti-religion' but even their lionized leader EV
Ramaswamy Naicker was too scared to utter a word against Muslim or
Christian practices: which means they are basically an anti-Hindu
entity because they can get away with it.
My immediate suspicion is that this is political payback for a couple
of things: one, what Jayalalitha did to Karunanidhi, two, what
Subramaniam Swamy is suggesting these days.
First, Jayalalitha had Karunanidhi arrested on a holiday, so that
there would no chance to apply for bail; and so now the Sankaracharya
is arrested on a major holiday. Jayalalitha, being a Tamil Brahmin,
would presumably be hurt because the Kanchi Matham is a Tamil Brahmin
stronghold, which the DMK has a special aversion to. Karunanidhi's
statement on November 11th about the prime suspect in the Raman murder
case being at large gives credence to this argument
http://www.sulekha.com/news/nhc.aspx?cid=407194
Second, Subramaniam Swamy has been going around with a fierce campaign
against Sonia Gandhi. For instance, he was scheduled to speak in
Chicago on November 7th on the topic of "Sonia Gandhi: A National
Security Threat to India". What better payback to Swamy than to attack
his power base, the Tamil Brahmins? It is a well-known secret that
Swamy gains much of his support and information from the Tamil Brahmin
bureaucracy at the center.
There is a third possibility: that this is a part of the ongoing
Christian missionary efforts to paint revered Hindu religious leaders
in a bad light. Every Hindu leader is accused of some wrong-doing,
without proof. They trust that by their favorite tactic of 'truth by
repeated assertion' some of it will stick (as they have demonstrated
in the mythology of the arrival of Thomas the Apostle in India, a
fabrication which is now widely believed).
I keep getting mail from some (white Christian?) Australian nut-case
about how he has evidence that the Sai Baba molested children, but the
evidence never materializes. Compare this to the hundreds, if not
thousands, of Catholic priests accused and many formally convicted in
court of large-scale pedophilia across several continents. And there
are reports from the Vatican itself of sexual slavery of, and murders
of, nuns.
Now that Christians are in power in India – just look at the cabal
around Sonia Gandhi , there will be renewed enthusiasm from the conversion mavens of the Joshua Project and the 10/40 Project to target Hindus. This might well be the reason for this egregious attack on the Sankaracharya.
Whatever the reason, the UPA government should have handled this
affair with a little more sensitivity and finesse. There was really no
reason to hound the Sankaracharya, chase him around the countryside,
and arrest him with such theatrics, as though he were going to jump
bail and fly out of the country. There was no reason to humiliate this
very spiritual person. Instead, they could have put the Sankaracharya
under house arrest at the Kanchi Matham if needed. But I guess the
intention was indeed to humiliate.
Why on earth would the Sankaracharya order the murder of an
accountant? That seems to completely defy logic. The Sankaracharyas
live totally spartan lives and have no need for money. Besides, even
assuming somebody in the Kanchi Matham wanted to sweep things under
the carpet, it would have been so much easier to just bribe somebody,
rather than go out and murder someone, especially murdering them in a
temple and desecrating the place.
The sentiments of millions of Hindus do not matter to the Congress,
just as the sentiments of Sikhs didn't when they went on a murderous
rampage in 1984, nor when they appointed alleged gang-leader Jagdish
Tytler as a minister.
And where is the principal 'Hindu nationalist' party who should speak
up? In complete disarray.
The Congress is once again demonstrating that they are a party only
for Muslims and Christians. The foolish Hindus who voted for them
deserve what they get, I suppose.
No comments:
Post a Comment