Sunday, March 05, 2006

disinformation by 'liberal' mohammedans

mar 5th

i have been saddened by the actions of fareed zakaria and his dad rafiq zakaria.

these are the elite mohammedans of india who play a cynical game: they want to gain for themselves all the fruits of the 'secular' policies of the govt, that is, the reservations, the subsidies, all the other benefits. to keep getting these, they have to have the masses of mohammedans available to riot and otherwise threaten the powers that be. therefore it is in their interest to keep the mass of mohammedans illiterate and poor. which is precisely what they have achieved. these are the people who supported the shah bano debacle, who support the most obscuranist mullahs, so that they can gain at the cost of the poor mohammedan.

fareed and rafiq got the best out of the indian system, but have absolutely no loyalty to indic culture or the indic nation, so far as i can tell. fareed is quite happy to berate india from his perch in the us. rafiq castigated kalam and said he was no mohammedan simply because he reads the bhagavad gita.

these are the clever, 'liberal' mohammedans who on the one hand fatten off the land, on the other hand have no loyalty to it, or even to their fellow-mohammedans, except to use them as cannon-fodder and as demographic trump cards. it also shows that 'moderate' mohammedan is a myth. famously 'moderate' mohammedans act completely in accordance with the religion: eg. rafiq zakaria in effect excommunicating abj abdul kalam.  eg. shabana azmi the 'liberated' mohammedan woman who happily became the second wife of a guy who already had a wife.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Siv

Hi Rajeev,

Following is what I wrote to Newsweek as reader feed back for their last
cover story in Newsweek (US version), India rising. I am not sure whether
they will print this in their future edition as part of reader response
letter. So I thought I would send it to you and if you liked it, you can
post it in your blog.


India Rising,

Fareed Zakaria says in his cover story that a "thoroughly secular"
government is in power in India. If Fareed Zakaria's and India's Congress
party's version of "secularism" is offered in the West, particularly in the
US, land of the free, home of the brave, they will be laughed off, if not
shooed away. Let me give a few examples so readers will understand how
secularism is practiced in India.

India is the only country in the world, secular or other wise including
officially Islamic Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to provide Hajj subsidy to its
Muslim citizens. Hajj is the annual pilgrimage to Mecca Muslims take once in
their life time. This Hajj subsidy was started by none other than Fareed
Zakaria's favorite, secular Nehru's Congress government. In which country
will this pass as secularism?

Same Nehru's government had set up a parallel judiciary system specifically
for Muslims based on 7th century law called Sharia. No other secular country
has this type of parallel judiciary based on a religious text. Supreme Court
of India in the past has asked the legislature to do away with this parallel
judiciary and bring all Indians under one uniform civil code. So far it has
not been done. Is having a parallel judiciary for one religious group based
on their religious text is secularism?

Indian local state governments control, administer and run the daily
operations of Hindu temples. Also there are so many allegations of fraud
committed by the government officials running the Hindu temples, including
diverting temple donations offered by Hindus to non Hindu causes, in one
state it was diverted towards Hajj subsidy. I would also like to point out
that the state governments control only institutions belonging to the
unorganized Hindu religion, it does not even dare to audit the books of
institutions belonging to organized religion like Islam. I am on the look
out for a secular government that runs religious institutions.

One of the state government run by the congress party brought in legislation
reserving government jobs and seats in colleges for Muslims, only to be
struck down by both the state High Court and Indian Supreme Court. Don't
bother about the qualification of the applicants, if they are Muslims they
should be hired. How is this secularism?

Recently the current "thoroughly secular" congress government established
not one but four commissions to look after the welfare of one particular
community, Muslims. This is on top of an already existing minority
commission. One of the commissions purpose was to find out the
representation of Muslims in jobs, both private and public including the
three defense services. I still haven't come across one secular government
that has established even one commission to look after the welfare of a
particular section of its citizens and bring reservation for them just
because they happen to follow one particular religion.

The list is simply endless. Fareed Zakari's "thoroughly secular" congress
governments, past and present, is in fact the worst kind of communal
government any country can get. In spite of all these glaring short comings
and pandering to one religion by the congress governments, Fareed Zakaria
confers the title "thoroughly secular" on the current congress government. I
wonder why?

He has the temerity to call the Hindus who oppose these communal pandering
as "nationalists". His enlightened belief that the Hindu nationalism is the
single greatest threat to India (he mentioned this on his web chat on is just nonsense. Hindus are only reacting,  their reaction will
just disappear in thin air if only the various state and federal congress
governments stop following their perverted version of secularism and people
like Zakaria stop being apologists for their communalism.

I have lost what ever little respect I had for this guy. His cover story,
particularly the politics of India, is sub standard at best if not outright
misinformation he is selling to the American public. Fareed Zakaria should
be ashamed of himself.


iamfordemocracy said...

This comment will not be published. How about sending this to ALL media entities? IE..NDTV..IBNLIVE and so on.

lostinATSL said...

Fareed lives in the USA. He did his BA,MA and Ph.D in the US. I dont agree with his bullshit on Hindu fundementalism but atleatst he left India and is not biting the hand that feeds him. On the other hand your comment on his father was dead-on target. If these people dont like India, they should leave. BTW Alex "the moron" Perry has written a condescending article on India in TIME. I request you to protest to TIME. I already sent an e-mail to TIME pointing out the obvious subliminal racism in it.

siva said...


I agree with you, may you should say Alex “the racist moron” Perry. Can you also provide the name of the article because he has written so many crap about India before.

lostinATSL said...

Hi Siva,
Here is the link.,13005,901060313-1169874,00.html

Strange that the article is under the European section. But anyway write an e-mail and protest to TIME.

Kaunteya said...

Check this Arundati Roy interview in Outlook. Not surprisingly .. makes you puke ..
Roy Interview

You cannot have so much of lies and malice packed in so few lines. I guess that's what you call art. Grant her that. She has the art and the talent to make our blood boil. Fareed Zakaria,Praful Bidwai et al are not a patch on her.

indianpatriot said...

The same Fareed questioned India's nuclear tests in 1998 and talked like Foggy Bottoms India and Pakistan are equal by support Pakistan Nuclear tests ignoring all cross border terrorism. His great hero Nehru (and his Chamchas that included Fareed's dad Raffiq Zakaria) was as bad as Stalin the way he treated B.R.Shenoy for dissenting in II five year plan(who incidentally comes from Managalore same region I come from). If Shenoys recommendations were accepted India would have been shining from 1957 not from 2003 and it would have been in top 3 econmoies in actual dollars( not purchasing power parity). Nehru's chamchas virtually made Shenoy persona non grata in India. Here are articles about B.R. Shenoy

B.R.Shenoy was the lone dissenter who questioned both the ideology as well as the economic logic of

"Professor B.R. Shenoy was a great man who had the economic understanding to recognise the defects of central planning in India and what was even rarer, the courage to state his views openly and without equivocation."
Milton Friedman

B.R. Shenoy, independent India's first major economic dissenter, died 25 years ago in February 1978. The thrust of economic policy since then has moved from the worship of central planning to the appreciation of the market. Most economists now agree that our long tryst with Nehruvian socialism was an economic disaster. Many of those who now extol the virtues of economic reform, including former finance ministers like Manmohan Singh and P. Chidambaram, were once ardent believers in the old system. Yet the person who saw the writing on the wall a good three decades before the rest of his contemporaries is now a forgotten man.

Shenoy shot into the limelight when he wrote his then-famous dissent note to the approach paper to the Second Five-Year Plan, the defining document of Nehruvian planning. It was this document that set India on the road to central planning and suffocating controls. The Second Five-Year Plan had the blessings of most of India's top economists of that time, as well as the likes of Nicholas Kaldor, Joan Robinson and Oscar Lange.

Shenoy questioned both the ideology of the Plan as well as its economic logic. With impeccable analysis, he attacked the very basis of economic policy in India. The dissent note is a rather long one, but some of the questions raised by Shenoy are definitely worth highlighting. Shenoy distrusted the Plan's heavy dependence on the government to push economic growth. He questioned the complete lack of attention to agriculture. And he warned that the attempt to maintain high investment rates through deficit financing would inevitably lead to a serious balance of payments problem.

His warnings proved to be prophetic. The flaws in the Second Plan were revealed within a year, when India faced a serious balance of payments problem in 1957, just as Shenoy had predicted. The Second Plan had to be bailed out by foreign donors. That year, Shenoy was elected president of the Indian Economic Association. He spoke on the balance of payments problem and said that the best solution to this would be to float the rupee. It was another suggestion that seemed sacrilegious at that time, but now it is considered conventional wisdom.

Shenoy ended up in academic exile, despite being proved right. The belief in central planning at the time had almost religious overtones. P.T. Bauer, who attacked the fashionable development economics of his time in the classic Dissent On Development, recalls an incident during his first visit to India in 1958. Bauer met a senior official from the economic section of the British High Commission and asked him whether he was in contact with Shenoy. The diplomat replied that he was too busy to have time for "acknowledged madmen".

The "madman" spent the next decade at Gujarat University, while the men who led the country to economic stagnation ended up with plum jobs. Shenoy was, however, invited to become a member of the prestigious Mount Pelerin Society, an international group of liberal thinkers. He lectured at the London School of Economics and various American universities. He dreamt of setting up a liberal think-tank in India.

The damage done to our economic thinking has been immense. I remember spending long hours at university trying to understand the intricacies of growth models that now seem absurd because there was hardly any discussion on prices - the core of all sensible economics. Bauer notes that the period of the 1950s was the high-water mark of "price-less and cost-less economics", a fashion that Shenoy fought against.
I studied at Mumbai, where the opposition to the Second Plan had been really strong, thanks to the influence of the likes of C.N. Vakil and P.R. Brahmananda. Meghnad Desai, once a Marxist and now almost a Thatcherite, wrote a few years ago that India's economic history would have been different if the Bombay economists had won against the Delhi economists in the 1950s.

It is now more than 10 years and more after Manmohan Singh finally junked the old policy rubbish. Some of the early critics of centralised planning - like Jagdish Bhagwati, Padma Desai and T.N. Srinivasan - now earn the respect that was denied to them for very long. They raised the banner of revolt in the later part of the 1960s, when it was already clear that India was being left behind because of its strange economic policies. But the man who preceded them by a decade is still being denied his place in history.

It's time B.R. Shenoy gets his rightful due.

The author can be reached at

Sabarish Sasidharan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sabarish Sasidharan said...

This is a deeply disturbing attitude being adopted by the Indian Congress led government to appease their vote banks. Providing reservations based on religion is unconstitutional. And the SC had directed so.

Now the Government has amended the constitution to allow that! If the constitution becomes a block of clay that can be moulded 'anyway you want it' by the ignorant crooks (lets be honest) currently running the government as elected representatives, then all the hope for sane governance is lost.

And the Government as it is now very clear, is putting to use the age-old British method of divide and rule. They are essentially dividing India based on religion so that they can get more votes. And they claim they are doing it for religious harmony! Never heard a better disguised crap in my whole life.

ahobila said...

The VHP is already talking about breaking government control over temples. Any insight on where this will go?

Anand Rajadhyaksha said...

Check out Dr Rafiq Zakaria's article in Mid-day here

One sensible comment here, excerpted:

"The wars that were fought by the Ghoris, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Lodhis and the Mughals in India were all for the furtherance of their family fortunes; none for Islam and none were so proclaimed by them.

And yet because the rulers were Muslims, their wars have been described as jihad by historians."

But then, here, the man reveals his supercilious colours too:
"The Prophet treated non-Muslims with utmost courtesy and consideration; when he became the ruler of Medina, he promulgated a constitution, which guaranteed equality to Jews and pagans.

He declared non-Muslims as dhimmis, “the protected ones” and warned his followers that if any of them ill-treated the non-Muslims he himself would stand up against that Muslim on the Day of Judgement."

(The Hadith may just contradict Dr Zakaria's claims wrt Jews of Medina, one can read more on Dr Ali Sina's site in this regard at )

What is galling is the temerity to label non-Muslims as Dhimmis, in need of protection. Protection from or against whom, pray? Till Muslims appeared on the scene, no such protection was called for. Reminds me of "protection money", what about you?

And just what gives Muslims the authority to pronounce judgement on non - Muslims on issues of faith and belief?

DarkStorm said...

LOL.. Kaunteya, nice interview of Arundhati Roy, that was hilarious. I was actually smiling away reading it. Arundhati Roy has a problem with Bush's dogs sniffing around. Well, does she know that the Saudi monarch refused to visit her favourite liberal's memorial.

And whats with her saying "you know", after every sentence. It sounds like she is trying to fake the western accents and mannerisms, but falls flat on her face. What the heck, she cant even speak properly, how did she manage to get the Booker. I suppose its the same reason Eminem thinks Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera win awards. ;-)

daisies said...

Rafiq Zakaria guy says:
"A number of leading theologians have on the contrary accepted the Vedas as divinely inspired and Rama and Krishna as the prophets of God.

This was justified by them on the ground that the Quran specifically mentions that there is no land where God did not send his prophets to convey in the language of their people the message of truth."

---Weird guy. As if Hindus needed
justification from Quran for what
they believe.

The avatar has said in our own land:

"yada yada hi dharmasya
glanir bhavati bharatha
abhyuththanam adharmasya
tadathmanam srijamyaham"

anyway, we DO NOT consider Rama
and Krishna as prophets. We
consider them as Avatars. big
difference there. The avatar is
the formless all pervading God
in human form.

A prophet is a messenger with a

I wish someone could explain this
to Zakaria.

daisies said...


I am pretty sure I got 2 stanzas'
words mixed up there; will have
to search for the exact words.

but anyway, what it meant was, it
says "I take birth again and again
to restore dharma when there is a
lot of adharma".


daisies said...

Here goes, verses & translations,
just to make the post accurate:

yadā yadā hi dharmasya
glānir bhavati bhārata
abhyutthānam adharmasya
tadātmānaḿ sṛjāmy aham

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion — at that time I descend Myself.

paritrāṇāya sādhūnāḿ
vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām
sambhavāmi yuge yuge

In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium.

and if I may add hereupon - Take
heart, fellow bloggers! there are
avatars around or in the making.
We arent doing all this work alone.. :-)